trump off the CO ballot

[President Bush]

Fine chocolate production a big business in Sucre, goes back to the 1600s when nearby Potosí was booming with silver production. It's population was more than London, Paris, or Madrid in those days and newly-rich folks of European ancestry needed their chocolate.

Sugar is usually an easy thing for me to avoid, never drink soda, but cannot avoid eating good chocolate here.

[Meadmaker]

Well, the debate is over, and I think the top story will be something about Haitians eating ducks, and cats.


So, I got to wondering how this all started, and it seems the cat eater was a woman named Allexis Telia Ferrel. (I think her first name is spelled with two ls, although some new stories have it with one l.) She doesn't live in Springfield, she didn't eat a cat in Springfield, and she isn't a Haitian immigrant. She lives in Canton, and she is charged with killing and eating a cat.


In all seriousness, I don't know how the debate played. Reactions from partisans were predictable. Everyone agrees that <insert favorite candidate's name> won the debate. However, I can't project myself into the mind of an undecided voter. I can't see what they would think of everything that was said. My son (25 years old) and I both thought that, overall, Kamala probably did better. Trump reinforced every negative stereotype about himself, while Kamala didn't At least, that was our take.

We also both thought the moderators were sufficiently bad that Trump will gain some beneficial sympathy reactions.

However, we didn't think anything really dramatic happened, and it's not likely to change the polling numbers very much.

[arthwollipot]

I watched the whole thing. Trump seemed angry and made remarks that were truly unhinged. Kamala was calm and eloquent, and occasionally completely perplexed. He was not taking her laughing at what he was saying very well.

And they kept giving him the mic when he interjected. Over and over again. She tried to do that once, and they shut her down.

[arthwollipot]

[Meadmaker]

I watched the whole thing. Trump seemed angry and made remarks that were truly unhinged. Kamala was calm and eloquent, and occasionally completely perplexed. He was not taking her laughing at what he was saying very well.

And they kept giving him the mic when he interjected. Over and over again. She tried to do that once, and they shut her down.

I read one analysis article that said Trump got more mic time, and Kamala was happy to give it, because he was making an ass of himself.


But I would have preferred they just stick to the rules. Turn off the mics when the time is up, no exceptions.

[stanky]

It's a half time charade.
Neither have much to do with the future.
Trump was a complete clown; blowhard; exaggeration of an asshole.
Which is exactly why his fans love him.
Think TV show.

[President Bush]

I never watch television though kinda sorry I missed this...

https://youtu.be/9gEuUp2Um3E?si=7BvYqyZluQIhqz38&t=19

[grayman]

I did not watch the debate, but from what I have read, one of the things bothering Trump about it was having fact-checkers in real time.

[President Bush]

I never watch television though kinda sorry I missed this...

https://youtu.be/9gEuUp2Um3E?si=7BvYqyZluQIhqz38&t=19

hey sparks... Eugene is next door to another town called Springfield, isn't it?

Just to be safe, given this new information... have you thought about keeping a closer eye on your cats?

[Meadmaker]

I did not watch the debate, but from what I have read, one of the things bothering Trump about it was having fact-checkers in real time.

I've read that, too. However, I watched the debate, and it's a very misleading statement.

The best illustration of what it was like was the response of Muir (? Did I get that name right? I never watch TV news anymore.) after Trump's "eating the dogs" remark. So, after Donald Trump accused immigrants of eating pet dogs and cats, David Muir pulled out a response from the Springfield city manager saying that there were no credible reports of anyone eating dogs or cats in Springfield. And Trump and Muir got into a brief argument over the issue.

Why is the moderator getting into an argument with one of the candidates? Yes, of course, Donald Trump was repeating baseless rumors. As I noted in my comment from yesterday, the start of that story that Trump was talking about was some unrelated incident. However, why is that David Muir's job to correct in real time? If Kamala Harris wanted to call him out, she had every right to do so. Why would the moderator do that?

And not only that, but Muir was reading from prepared notes. In other words, it was obvious to anyone watching that Muir, in advance, had made preparations to respond in a certain way if Trump brought up the subject.

That's not moderation. That's not his job. It made it very obvious that, even in his prep, he was taking an anti-Trump position.

It's not that Muir was wrong. It's just that it didn't belong. In a post-debate fact check, no problem, but during the debate, that sort of fact checking should be left to Kamala Harris. Did she prepare for this? It was a sufficiently active right wing talking point that she should have known it might come up, and it did. How did she react? That's what people want to see in a debate. They don't want the moderators to do the candidates' dirty work, and they especially don't want the moderators to do the dirty work for only one candidate.

And I think that sort of thing can create a sympathy backlash.