• 0 Posts
  • 29 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: December 21st, 2023

help-circle


  • Well thats why i ask. You can say lucky us, but at this point in the election, im not so sure.

    Between the vitriol and retoric and conspiracy theories weve already seen, the implication of violence and absolute craziness would, without question be enough for me to not hope for anything like that.

    But im asking about how the voting public would poll. Would vance get a martyr boost from their dear dead leader, or would an immediately apathetic undecided vote rise up, one that was origionally locked into the trump/vamce ticket. Would it just vanish overnight? I doubt it, but vance remains an amazingly unpopular vp pick. Without trump, where is his ceiling?






  • Dude, its called context. The usage implied was very clear.

    And my bad, i guess i left out the little “1” at the start that says my definition was the primary usage to support my argument, but whatever… it seemed obvious.

    Despite that, even by your narrower definition, trump still has charisma. just not the kind that works on you. People can be likable and have a magnetic personality and whatever else, and you can still despise them. They would still be called charismatic. The people waving his signs, attending his rallys, and wearing his red hats would certainly say he is likable and has a magnetic personality. Are they wrong? No. The sheer number of his followers prove he has charisma. Clap yourself on the back for not falling for that particular style of charisma if you want, but dont deny it exists.


  • charisma /kə-rĭz′mə/ noun A rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.

    Trump absolutely has charisma. Outside of being a lying narcissist, its literally his defining trait.

    And vance, in comparison to trump, is much more personable. That was on display. Vance is still a weasely amoral couch fucker, but if i was absolutely forced to be in a room with one or the other, i would pick vance over trump every time.



  • My take away is the same. That was more of a “debate” than we have had in literal years.

    I think walz did good. He held his ground and had some very solid jabs. He knows his roll as second man and backup and played it well.

    Vance… did suprisingly well, and will definately be a threat in the future, based on his debate skills at least. This is practice for him regardless of how the election turns out. Experience is what he lacks, and the national stage will hone him over the next few years.

    All in all, ill say no clear winner for the debate on face value. It was a show for the sake of the show. But ill absolutely be paying attention in the coming years. One scandal can sink vance, and if past gop tendancies are anything, there will be one. Walz is fairly bulletproof in that regard.

    That was a good effort from both sides tbh.