***Official Trump beat up the kamel again thread****

[seafoam1 2,358]

9 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

People are still getting suckered in by this story.

 

Liberals are still getting suckered in by this story. They are so stupid. 

[lickin_starfish 1,660]

https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/16/trump-assassination-attempts-kamala-harris-campaign-interviews/

[Reality 2,908]

Not much of a conspiracy, if they're blatantly admitting this, imagine what went on behind the scenes. Anybody with 2 brain cells to rub together could see the obvious. 

That leaves out a few locals, sadly.

 

[jerryskids 5,811]

24 minutes ago, Reality said:

Not much of a conspiracy, if they're blatantly admitting this, imagine what went on behind the scenes. Anybody with 2 brain cells to rub together could see the obvious. 

That leaves out a few locals, sadly.

 

Where are we here, it isn't happening?

[Reality 2,908]

6 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Where are we here, it isn't happening?

Not widespread, just the 1 debate.

[jerryskids 5,811]

3 minutes ago, Reality said:

Not widespread, just the 1 debate.

Thanks. Wondering what our resident centrists think, like @Sean Mooney, @zsasz, @TimHauck?

[IndyColtsFan 299]

 

[TimHauck 2,113]

11 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Thanks. Wondering what our resident centrists think, like @Sean Mooney, @zsasz, @TimHauck?

I already said the moderators were biased.

The “conspiracy theory” is the affidavit claiming that Harris was given the questions in advance.  If that was the case, she should’ve had better answers.

[TimHauck 2,113]

I bet @weepaws is a fan of Linsey Davis

 

My husband said a little 30-second prayer before I left for Philadelphia,” said Davis, a Christian who has written faith-based children’s books. “He was like, ‘God give her the words to say.’ That’s in the Scripture. There were a few praying for, in particular, wisdom, discernment, courage and peace.”

 

[zsasz 316]

24 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Thanks. Wondering what our resident centrists think, like @Sean Mooney, @zsasz, @TimHauck?

 

I don't particularly have a problem with fact checking moderators.  I don't need someone to correct a canidate if they are within the realm of reasonability of normal politics but if someone at a debate comes out and says something ludicrous like "Martians are replacing people in high level positions of government around the world (or cats and dogs are being eaten in Ohio)....there should be a challenge to it.

 

ETA: and there should be a better retort than "Well...I saw it on T.V.".

 

[seafoam1 2,358]

49 minutes ago, zsasz said:

 

I don't particularly have a problem with fact checking moderators.  I don't need someone to correct a canidate if they are within the realm of reasonability of normal politics but if someone at a debate comes out and says something ludicrous like "Martians are replacing people in high level positions of government around the world (or cats and dogs are being eaten in Ohio)....there should be a challenge to it.

 

ETA: and there should be a better retort than "Well...I saw it on T.V.".

 

Fact. Liberals are really stupid. 

[jerryskids 5,811]

1 hour ago, zsasz said:

 

I don't particularly have a problem with fact checking moderators.  I don't need someone to correct a canidate if they are within the realm of reasonability of normal politics but if someone at a debate comes out and says something ludicrous like "Martians are replacing people in high level positions of government around the world (or cats and dogs are being eaten in Ohio)....there should be a challenge to it.

 

ETA: and there should be a better retort than "Well...I saw it on T.V.".

 

Very centrist straw men.  Thoughts on what I actually asked?

[jerryskids 5,811]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

I bet @weepaws is a fan of Linsey Davis

 

My husband said a little 30-second prayer before I left for Philadelphia,” said Davis, a Christian who has written faith-based children’s books. “He was like, ‘God give her the words to say.’ That’s in the Scripture. There were a few praying for, in particular, wisdom, discernment, courage and peace.”

 

I like that prayer as well.   

[Sean Mooney 1,514]

12 hours ago, jerryskids said:

Thanks. Wondering what our resident centrists think, like @Sean Mooney, @zsasz, @TimHauck?

Well I know how this will go already. I'll give a thoughtful response. You won't like it and you'll throws insults with the other usual suspects. But I'll go once more into the breach....

I guess a lot of it depends on what one feels the role of a moderator is in a debate. If one views it as simply asking questions back and forth then yes Davis and Muir went overboard. I view the role of a debate moderator as asking questions and pushing back or pushing for a more definitive answer when it calls for it. I would 100% disagree with them arguing policy with a candidate because that is playing favorites. I also do think it is fair play to fact check a candidate in real time especially if it is something especially egregious. But again- don't argue policy with candidates. 

I think Muir and Davis had very good moments in the debate and some bad ones. Muir did ask essentially why the Biden administration kept the Trump tariffs if they are "bad". Davis pushed on the abortion responses. Both Muir and Davis didn't take the bait where the candidates were daring the moderators to ask the other candidate a question on their abortion position. Also, for all the attention their 2 big fact checks on Trump got, it is not mentioned that they gave Trump over 5 minutes more of talk time instead of doing what some moderators would do and try to cut people off to equal out the time as much as possible. 

Both moderators could have done some things differently and I'd wager given a second chance they would. I also think the article with Davis and the whole portraying it as "ABC's rising star" is a problem with political discourse on TV anymore. Gone are the days of just reading the news and in this case just letting two candidates debate back and forth. Everything is a launching pad anymore or a place for people to get a foothold. I mean if FOX News gets to hold a debate and Trump gets his wish of Hannity or Ingraham moderating it- there would be the same nonsense. 

I would also like to point out that the Tweet from Colin Rugg uses the word "retaliation" in how Linsey Davis approached the moderating of the debate and the fact checks. At no point in the article he is referencing does that word appear. Rugg also says "Davis said to the LA Times that she didn’t want Trump’s comments to just “hang” there." She does mention that but also the article adds: "With co-moderator David Muir, Davis had studied hours of campaign rallies and interviews to prepare for the much-anticipated event at Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center, and were ready to counter the candidates’ most egregious statements." So the clear statements in the article are they prepared for both candidate's to go over the top. The one thing I think they missed pushing back on was the "fine people on both sides" claim from Harris which has been proven to not be 100% accurate.

So- do I think they pushed a little more on Trump? Yes. I also think Trump provided the most egregious statements in the debate so it makes sense to some degree. I also feel like Trump's whole persona is victimhood so it was always going to be the story- and was one Trump was pushing before the debate even started. I'd say as well I've seen better debate moderators but I've also seen worse. 

[Hardcore troubadour 13,635]

Holy fockin tl/dr

[Sean Mooney 1,514]

5 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Holy fockin tl/dr

Lots of babies act out as well when they aren't being paid attention to.

 

[Hardcore troubadour 13,635]

Just now, Sean Mooney said:

Lots of babies act out as well when they aren't being paid attention to.

 

You teaching night school now? 

[Sean Mooney 1,514]

34 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

You teaching night school now? 

Deflecting now because someone called out your temper tantrum?

Also, for someone who says they aren't obsessed with me you seem to want to know my schedule an awful lot. How far away are you watching me from? 

[Fnord 1,414]

48 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Holy fockin tl/dr

HT can't handle detail or nuance. Quick, incisive, hit and runs are about all he can manage in his doddering condition. 

[Sean Mooney 1,514]

2 minutes ago, Fnord said:

HT can't handle detail or nuance. Quick, incisive, hit and runs are about all he can manage in his doddering condition. 

He's just a jackass. Anything that is longer than a sentence breaks his brain because the chickpea in his head is only capable of holding one thought at a time. You notice when he pops into a thread it is almost always to change a subject and he rarely talks about more than one issue at a time. 

[Hardcore troubadour 13,635]

44 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Deflecting now because someone called out your temper tantrum?

Also, for someone who says they aren't obsessed with me you seem to want to know my schedule an awful lot. How far away are you watching me from? 

Which temper tantrum? Stop making things up liar. 

[Sean Mooney 1,514]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Which temper tantrum? Stop making things up liar. 

The one I quoted....sorry- I know that was a new thought that pushed out the previous one for you

[Hardcore troubadour 13,635]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

The one I quoted....sorry- I know that was a new thought that pushed out the previous one for you

That’s a temper tantrum? Did they take you out of the classroom again ? Toughen up kid. You got a long way to go. 

[Sean Mooney 1,514]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

That’s a temper tantrum? Did they take you out of the classroom again ? Toughen up kid. You got a long way to go. 

Your whole appearance today was interjecting yourself into a conversation I wasn't having with you. 

It was a temper tantrum. Let me guess- your live in nurse got the wrong Little Debbie's for ya

[Hardcore troubadour 13,635]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

Your whole appearance today was interjecting yourself into a conversation I wasn't having with you. 

It was a temper tantrum. Let me guess- your live in nurse got the wrong Little Debbie's for ya

Oooh. Good one. 2006 said to give you a like. 

[Sean Mooney 1,514]

1 minute ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Oooh. Good one. 2006 said to give you a like. 

Was 2006 the last time any one cared about you?

[Hardcore troubadour 13,635]

6 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Was 2006 the last time any one cared about you?

 No. But it’s the last time you put in a full days work. 

[Sean Mooney 1,514]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

 No. But it’s the last time you put in a full days work. 

Hey we are working hard in class. Today's lesson is "How to own Internet losers" I just let them read your posts and they go to town. 

One kid said, "He sounds like a guy who got beat up a lot in school."

Another kid said, "He sounds like a guy who still gets beat up a lot....you know when he chooses to see daylight."

[Hardcore troubadour 13,635]

15 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Hey we are working hard in class. Today's lesson is "How to own Internet losers" I just let them read your posts and they go to town. 

One kid said, "He sounds like a guy who got beat up a lot in school."

Another kid said, "He sounds like a guy who still gets beat up a lot....you know when he chooses to see daylight."

That’s obviously a lie. You don’t have any students anymore. Rubber room. 

[MDC 6,435]

Somebody’s ronery.  

[Sean Mooney 1,514]

2 minutes ago, MDC said:

Somebody’s ronery.  

He's trying so hard

[jerryskids 5,811]

3 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

Well I know how this will go already. I'll give a thoughtful response. You won't like it and you'll throws insults with the other usual suspects. But I'll go once more into the breach....

I guess a lot of it depends on what one feels the role of a moderator is in a debate. If one views it as simply asking questions back and forth then yes Davis and Muir went overboard. I view the role of a debate moderator as asking questions and pushing back or pushing for a more definitive answer when it calls for it. I would 100% disagree with them arguing policy with a candidate because that is playing favorites. I also do think it is fair play to fact check a candidate in real time especially if it is something especially egregious. But again- don't argue policy with candidates. 

I think Muir and Davis had very good moments in the debate and some bad ones. Muir did ask essentially why the Biden administration kept the Trump tariffs if they are "bad". Davis pushed on the abortion responses. Both Muir and Davis didn't take the bait where the candidates were daring the moderators to ask the other candidate a question on their abortion position. Also, for all the attention their 2 big fact checks on Trump got, it is not mentioned that they gave Trump over 5 minutes more of talk time instead of doing what some moderators would do and try to cut people off to equal out the time as much as possible. 

Both moderators could have done some things differently and I'd wager given a second chance they would. I also think the article with Davis and the whole portraying it as "ABC's rising star" is a problem with political discourse on TV anymore. Gone are the days of just reading the news and in this case just letting two candidates debate back and forth. Everything is a launching pad anymore or a place for people to get a foothold. I mean if FOX News gets to hold a debate and Trump gets his wish of Hannity or Ingraham moderating it- there would be the same nonsense. 

I would also like to point out that the Tweet from Colin Rugg uses the word "retaliation" in how Linsey Davis approached the moderating of the debate and the fact checks. At no point in the article he is referencing does that word appear. Rugg also says "Davis said to the LA Times that she didn’t want Trump’s comments to just “hang” there." She does mention that but also the article adds: "With co-moderator David Muir, Davis had studied hours of campaign rallies and interviews to prepare for the much-anticipated event at Philadelphia’s National Constitution Center, and were ready to counter the candidates’ most egregious statements." So the clear statements in the article are they prepared for both candidate's to go over the top. The one thing I think they missed pushing back on was the "fine people on both sides" claim from Harris which has been proven to not be 100% accurate.

So- do I think they pushed a little more on Trump? Yes. I also think Trump provided the most egregious statements in the debate so it makes sense to some degree. I also feel like Trump's whole persona is victimhood so it was always going to be the story- and was one Trump was pushing before the debate even started. I'd say as well I've seen better debate moderators but I've also seen worse. 

Like, when you came into the end of my moral relativism thread which had a lot of good discussions with various posters, said you stopped reading the OP, drew your own simple conclusions, and proceeded to insult me for a few pages?

[Sean Mooney 1,514]

3 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Like, when you came into the end of my moral relativism thread which had a lot of good discussions with various posters, said you stopped reading the OP, drew your own simple conclusions, and proceeded to insult me for a few pages?

Or like any number of times you did that elsewhere to me? 

[Herbivore 985]

59 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Like, when you came into the end of my moral relativism thread which had a lot of good discussions with various posters, said you stopped reading the OP, drew your own simple conclusions, and proceeded to insult me for a few pages?

he did have an entire response that you have initially ignored here. not quite an insult, but good crying deflection.

[jerryskids 5,811]

33 minutes ago, Herbivore said:

he did have an entire response that you have initially ignored here. not quite an insult, but good crying deflection.

If he wanted me to respond to the rest of his content, he shouldn't have led with that.

But since you asked...

The specific topic at hand is that the moderators admitted that they came loaded for Trump bear.  That makes them not moderators.  They clearly had specific rebukes planned for specific statements.  Of Trump only, of course.

One can debate what exactly the role of the moderators is.  I would argue little to no fact checking.  But if you are going to get involved in fact checking, do it on both candidates.  They not only did zero fact checks on Harris, they let her set up that "very fine people" bit for what seemed like a solid minute.  And the points they checked were questionable.  As @zsaszpointed out, Trump's response to the eating pets rebuke was poor (I saw it on TV?  Cmon, man).  What he should have said was, "my running mate, JD Vance, is a senator from Ohio, and he has received numerous reports of this happening."  But the point is, this is a contested enough topic with info still being collected that it doesn't warrant a "fact check."  Similarly on abortion, there absolutely are states that abort up to term, and the former governor of Virginia said what Trump said.  It was a bad look to jump in, but the moderators seemed intent on Harris getting a big win on the abortion topic.

A second are of bias is push back, or lack thereof.  I think that a moderator should push for an answer if they ask a specific question.  They did zero of this with Harris.  They specifically asked her if she thought people were better off today, she word saladed for a few minutes, but never answered.

A third, and more insidious, area of bias is in the way the moderators asked questions.  For instance, after Harris babbled about Afghanistan, Muir turned to Trump and said, "President Trump, your response to the allegation about your negotiation with the Taliban."  What?  A moderator shouldn't do that.  A moderator should say, "President Trump, your response," or "President Trump, you have two minutes to respond."  If Trump were a seasoned debater her would have put Muir in his place, but the moderators knew that Trump would chase whatever shiny object they put in front of him.

Speaking of time, was there even a clock?  I don't recall any time limits.  It was an interesting fact that Sean mentioned that Trump spoke for over 5 minutes longer.  Not surprising, having watched it.  This hurts Trump IMO, because he gets into rambling Trump mode.  Whether this was by design or not, I can't say.

 

[Sean Mooney 1,514]

8 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

1The specific topic at hand is that the moderators admitted that they came loaded for Trump bear.  That makes them not moderators.  They clearly had specific rebukes planned for specific statements.  Of Trump only, of course.

One can debate what exactly the role of the moderators is.  I would argue little to no fact checking.  But if you are going to get involved in fact checking, do it on both candidates.  They not only did zero fact checks on Harris, they let her set up that "very fine people" bit for what seemed like a solid minute.  And the points they checked were questionable.  As @zsaszpointed out, Trump's response to the eating pets rebuke was poor (I saw it on TV?  Cmon, man).  What he should have said was, "my running mate, JD Vance, is a senator from Ohio, and he has received numerous reports of this happening."  But the point is, this is a contested enough topic with info still being collected that it doesn't warrant a "fact check."  Similarly on abortion, there absolutely are states that abort up to term, and the former governor of Virginia said what Trump said.  It was a bad look to jump in, but the moderators seemed intent on Harris getting a big win on the abortion topic.

A second are of bias is push back, or lack thereof.  I think that a moderator should push for an answer if they ask a specific question.  They did zero of this with Harris.  They specifically asked her if she thought people were better off today, she word saladed for a few minutes, but never answered.

A third, and more insidious, area of bias is in the way the moderators asked questions.  For instance, after Harris babbled about Afghanistan, Muir turned to Trump and said, "President Trump, your response to the allegation about your negotiation with the Taliban."  What?  A moderator shouldn't do that.  A moderator should say, "President Trump, your response," or "President Trump, you have two minutes to respond."  If Trump were a seasoned debater her would have put Muir in his place, but the moderators knew that Trump would chase whatever shiny object they put in front of him.

Speaking of time, was there even a clock?  I don't recall any time limits.  It was an interesting fact that Sean mentioned that Trump spoke for over 5 minutes longer.  Not surprising, having watched it.  This hurts Trump IMO, because he gets into rambling Trump mode.  Whether this was by design or not, I can't say.

 

1.) As I showed in the quotes from the article they did prepare for things both candidates would say. Perhaps they purposely chose to avoid Kamala's comments. Perhaps she never said anything they felt was egregious. I said they failed for me on the "fine people" line.

2.) The abortion claim was not on aborting up to term. The claim was this:  "They even have, and you can look at the governor of West Virginia, the previous governor of West Virginia, not the current governor, who's doing an excellent job, but the governor before. He said the baby will be born and we will decide what to do with the baby. In other words, we'll execute the baby." That is not legal in the state of West Virginia, or Virginia, or anywhere. Davis was right on that.

3.) The initial response for Kamala was bad but I wonder if they let that go (along with Trump's opening statement) because they were opening statements essentially. In fact, they let the candidates respond back and forth to one another so each person spoke 3 times. Then they went into the tariffs talk.

4.) There were also 2 or 3 times where Muir was trying to do a follow up with Harris (perhaps to push back on her) and Trump cut in and took the conversation in a different direction.

5.) There was a clock and time limits. The clock was behind the moderators so both Trump and Harris could see it. 

[Herbivore 985]

23 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

If he wanted me to respond to the rest of his content, he shouldn't have led with that.

But since you asked...

The specific topic at hand is that the moderators admitted that they came loaded for Trump bear.  That makes them not moderators.  They clearly had specific rebukes planned for specific statements.  Of Trump only, of course.

One can debate what exactly the role of the moderators is.  I would argue little to no fact checking.  But if you are going to get involved in fact checking, do it on both candidates.  They not only did zero fact checks on Harris, they let her set up that "very fine people" bit for what seemed like a solid minute.  And the points they checked were questionable.  As @zsaszpointed out, Trump's response to the eating pets rebuke was poor (I saw it on TV?  Cmon, man).  What he should have said was, "my running mate, JD Vance, is a senator from Ohio, and he has received numerous reports of this happening."  But the point is, this is a contested enough topic with info still being collected that it doesn't warrant a "fact check."  Similarly on abortion, there absolutely are states that abort up to term, and the former governor of Virginia said what Trump said.  It was a bad look to jump in, but the moderators seemed intent on Harris getting a big win on the abortion topic.

A second are of bias is push back, or lack thereof.  I think that a moderator should push for an answer if they ask a specific question.  They did zero of this with Harris.  They specifically asked her if she thought people were better off today, she word saladed for a few minutes, but never answered.

A third, and more insidious, area of bias is in the way the moderators asked questions.  For instance, after Harris babbled about Afghanistan, Muir turned to Trump and said, "President Trump, your response to the allegation about your negotiation with the Taliban."  What?  A moderator shouldn't do that.  A moderator should say, "President Trump, your response," or "President Trump, you have two minutes to respond."  If Trump were a seasoned debater her would have put Muir in his place, but the moderators knew that Trump would chase whatever shiny object they put in front of him.

Speaking of time, was there even a clock?  I don't recall any time limits.  It was an interesting fact that Sean mentioned that Trump spoke for over 5 minutes longer.  Not surprising, having watched it.  This hurts Trump IMO, because he gets into rambling Trump mode.  Whether this was by design or not, I can't say.

 

I respect that these are your opinions, and you have some valid points. @Sean Mooney did also. You highlighted his words, how you would insult, and ultimately ignore his response. and then you did.

[Maximum Overkill 1,138]