trump off the CO ballot

[President Bush]

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.

Sympathy for Trump being humiliated you mean? Dementia isn't funny, that sort of thing?

[sparks]

It's everybody's job to call out bullshit from one or both debate participants when it is proffered.

At the risk of eliciting more diatribe from you, what the hell are you on about here really MM?

Kamala kicked Mangos ass and I dare say she's going to continue to kick his ass. I personally am enjoying every minute of it.

[Meadmaker]

It's everybody's job to call out bullshit from one or both debate participants when it is proffered.

...

Kamala kicked Mangos ass and I dare say she's going to continue to kick his ass. I personally am enjoying every minute of it.

I thought Hillary kicked ass in 2016. It didn't work out so well.

Both left and right wing media seem to be saying that Trump did badly last night, but it's really quite difficult to judge, because your opinion doesn't matter, and my opinion doesn't matter. We're voting for Harris. It really doesn't matter who we think won.

The way I see it, for the few people out there who haven't locked in on a candidate, and who might be persuaded by what they saw, they probably don't like either candidate. If they are still persuadable in either direction it is probably because they hate Harris' progressive policy approach, but they hate Donald Trumps personal/character issues. Both of the things they hate were put on display very thoroughly last night. As a result, I can't say which direction they will be moved.

At the risk of eliciting more diatribe from you, what the hell are you on about here really MM?

It's a stupid question.

I'm on about the things I say I'm on about.

[President Bush]

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.

Sympathy for Trump being humiliated you mean? Dementia isn't funny, that sort of thing?

Was a serious question, Meadmaker. Your point seems incoherent to me.

[Admin]

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 don't think that bothered him a hundredth as much as Kamala actually laughing at him and telling people to go to his rallies to see for themselves how much of a chump he is.

He could not handle being dominated, and being dominated by a black woman was the final straw.

The only reason he's crying about fact-checking is because it's the only thing he can point to that isn't "I'm a total fucking loser who got whipped like a slow horse."

The reaction of 'tother side today is pure gold. Kitten memes, self-delusion... anything but admit their knowledge that their orange hero got shown up as a clueless blowhard in probably the most-watched political debate in history.

Good fucking job.

[Meadmaker]

...

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

Sympathy for Trump being humiliated you mean? Dementia isn't funny, that sort of thing?

Was a serious question, Meadmaker. Your point seems incoherent to me.

So, the question I am about to answer is the question about what sort of sympathy,''

The answer is sympathy about participating in a debate with a biased moderator. If people perceive an unfair debate, it creates sympathy for the one treated unfairly. Sparks et. al. might think that it's the moderator's job to call out bullshit, but no one watching the debate for any purpose other than entertainment feels that way. People who are decided, and have a favorite candidate already, tune in hoping that their guy will kick some ass. People who matter, i.e. people who haven't decided, tune in to hear what the candidates have to say. They don't want to hear what David Muir thinks. They want to hear from Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

When the moderators jump in, distracting from that mission, some of those people will be disgusted with the moderators for taking a side. Because they will perceive that the moderators were against Trump, that will create sympathy for Trump.

Is it a big deal? No one will ever be able to quantify it. It's a small issue, but it's a close election.

[President Bush]

Sympathy for Trump being humiliated you mean? Dementia isn't funny, that sort of thing?

Was a serious question, Meadmaker. Your point seems incoherent to me.

So, the question I am about to answer is the question about what sort of sympathy,''

The answer is sympathy about participating in a debate with a biased moderator. If people perceive an unfair debate, it creates sympathy for the one treated unfairly. Sparks et. al. might think that it's the moderator's job to call out bullshit, but no one watching the debate for any purpose other than entertainment feels that way. People who are decided, and have a favorite candidate already, tune in hoping that their guy will kick some ass. People who matter, i.e. people who haven't decided, tune in to hear what the candidates have to say. They don't want to hear what David Muir thinks. They want to hear from Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

When the moderators jump in, distracting from that mission, some of those people will be disgusted with the moderators for taking a side. Because they will perceive that the moderators were against Trump, that will create sympathy for Trump.

Is it a big deal? No one will ever be able to quantify it. It's a small issue, but it's a close election.

You said that people who haven't decided, tune in to hear what the candidates have to say... in this case things like illegal immigrants eating people's cats and dogs.

You apparently don't believe moderators should point out such factual inaccuracies in candidates’ comments during a debate. I was under the impression that was part of their role in these debates.

What if Trump, again, had said last night that he'd won the 2020 election? Nobody could have said "uh, no you didn't" because it might suggest moderator bias and making it look as if Trump were being treated unfairly?

You are saying that objectively fact checking somebody as prone to spreading falsehoods as Trump shouldn't be done because that will make it look - to the independently thinking voting public - as if that fact checker were against Trump? Which could, uh oh, throw the election?

I mean, c'mon.

[Meadmaker]

You said that people who haven't decided, tune in to hear what the candidates have to say... in this case things like illegal immigrants eating people's cats and dogs.

You apparently don't believe moderators should point out such factual inaccuracies in candidates’ comments during a debate. I was under the impression that was part of their role in these debates.

What if Trump, again, had said last night that he'd won the 2020 election? Nobody could have said "uh, no you didn't" because it might suggest moderator bias and making it look as if Trump were being treated unfairly?

You are saying that objectively fact checking somebody as prone to spreading falsehoods as Trump shouldn't be done because that will make it look - to the independently thinking voting public - as if that fact checker were against Trump? Which could, uh oh, throw the election?

I mean, c'mon.

Imagine an undecided voter.

Donald Trump says, "They're eating dogs!"

The undecided voter thinks, "Whoa! That's really awful. Someone needs to do something to stop it!"

Then, David Muir says, "The city manager says there's no evidence."

And the undecided voter thinks...."Oh....well that's good. Trump should stop making stuff up like that."


I think the last step (i.e. the point where the undecided changes his mind because of what David Muir says) is totally implausible.

[stanky]

what happened?

[stanky]

what happened?

computer ate my diatribe.