Regardless of who you supported most people would agree that Kamala did well in the debate. Can you remember a single thing she said?
They're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating the pets of the people that live there.
Everyone remembers this line. It's like a five year old's spergout. It's like a doctor Seuss rhyme for r-slurs. But that's why its so good. You just can't fake this level of r-slurredness, and because you can't fake it, it's come off as genuine. Haitians bad. Whether you agree or not, you know what Trump is getting at and what he is trying to say.
Can you say the same about Kamala? Kamala is a midwit, but even a midwit knows how to hide her intentions. When she tells you that she is now for the border wall, do you believe her? A midwit is capable of saying that to your face because she thinks it'll court the centrist vote. It's simple 2D chess.
When Trump lies, he lies bigly. There aren't any subtilties whatsoever, the lies are often so dumb that you just have to sit back in awe of how dumb it is. So even though he lies it doesn't come off as capable of manipulation. The media in turn spergs out about all the dumb shit Trump says. It's good for the ratings, but also they are midwits themselves. But to the average American they don't feel the threat because they just tune out all the dumb nonsensical shit Trump says. So then people think that the media is being biased, which they are. Thats why its manipulative. It's 4D chess because its 1D chess.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It helps that he's so friggen memeable.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Imagine if Kamela had this kind of presence
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The dems need to vat grow their next candidate to be latinx instead of a head bobbing sexy Indian dude.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context