recogitare.com

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 3:35 am

President Bush wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 10:47 pm
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.

Plus it would generate sympathy for the candidate who was being exceedingly dishonest.

Undecided voters sometimes prefer a little theme music.

https://x.com/NoahGarfinkel/status/1833708370974695574

Not sure what theme music would be appealing to undecided voters when a candidate claims his opponent supports killing babies after they're born.

President Bush wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 1:54 pm
Plus it would generate sympathy for the candidate who was being exceedingly dishonest.

Undecided voters sometimes prefer a little theme music.

https://x.com/NoahGarfinkel/status/1833708370974695574

Not sure what theme music would be appealing to undecided voters when a candidate claims his opponent supports killing babies after they're born.

That's hilarious!



Ok. As for the first line, I think it was intended sarcastically, but it's true.

President Bush wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 1:54 pm

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 3:35 am

President Bush wrote: ↑Wed Sep 11, 2024 10:47 pm
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.

Plus it would generate sympathy for the candidate who was being exceedingly dishonest.

Undecided voters sometimes prefer a little theme music.

https://x.com/NoahGarfinkel/status/1833708370974695574

Not sure what theme music would be appealing to undecided voters when a candidate claims his opponent supports killing babies after they're born.

This might work...

https://youtu.be/OhTqO1hYvdc?si=4wX235ErqH2_KZDx&t=30

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 2:44 pm

President Bush wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 1:54 pm
Plus it would generate sympathy for the candidate who was being exceedingly dishonest.

Undecided voters sometimes prefer a little theme music.

https://x.com/NoahGarfinkel/status/1833708370974695574

Not sure what theme music would be appealing to undecided voters when a candidate claims his opponent supports killing babies after they're born.

Ok. As for the first line, I think it was intended sarcastically, but it's true.

OK, fine.

Do you think moderators fact checking a coal black candidate who was being exceedingly dishonest... would generate sympathy for that candidate?

Do you think moderators fact checking any woman candidate who was being exceedingly dishonest... would generate sympathy for that candidate?

Do you think moderators fact checking an indigenous candidate clothed in his/her traditional regalia who was being exceedingly dishonest... would generate sympathy for that candidate?

Do you think moderators fact checking a flamboyantly gay candidate who was being exceedingly dishonest... would generate sympathy for that candidate?

MM said: "It's a stupid question.

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

First, you are welcome to your opinions. Second, circular reasoning will never be acceptable in critical thinking.

Now, please get a clue before posting again.

President Bush wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 4:29 pm

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 2:44 pm

President Bush wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 1:54 pm
Plus it would generate sympathy for the candidate who was being exceedingly dishonest.

Undecided voters sometimes prefer a little theme music.

https://x.com/NoahGarfinkel/status/1833708370974695574

Not sure what theme music would be appealing to undecided voters when a candidate claims his opponent supports killing babies after they're born.

Ok. As for the first line, I think it was intended sarcastically, but it's true.

OK, fine.

Do you think moderators fact checking a coal black candidate who was being exceedingly dishonest... would generate sympathy for that candidate?

Do you think moderators fact checking any woman candidate who was being exceedingly dishonest... would generate sympathy for that candidate?

Do you think moderators fact checking an indigenous candidate clothed in his/her traditional regalia who was being exceedingly dishonest... would generate sympathy for that candidate?

Do you think moderators fact checking a flamboyantly gay candidate who was being exceedingly dishonest... would generate sympathy for that candidate?

Yes.

And of course, it isn't "fact checking" that causes the problem. It's a perception of unfairness. If it is perceived that the moderators are being one sided in their fact checking, that will create sympathy.


In the post debate analysis, there were lots and lots of fact checking articles, some of them by non-partisan sources who fairly wen through the claims made by each candidate in the debate, and pointed out falsehoods, misleading statements, and mistakes made by both candidates, and there were plenty to be had from both candidates. During the debate, that only happened with Trump's claims. That is what creates the perception of biased moderation, which is what generates the sympathy.


And since people tend to see things through partisan lenses, they will almost always perceive unfairness in the commentary that the moderators make, so it is best not to make any commentary at all. Leave that to the candidates and the post-debate analysis. Kamala Harris didn't need any help from David Muir to counter the claims of cat eating. There was no need for him to say anything, except that he has an overinflated sense of his own significance.

The debate format encourages it, I suppose, by inviting celebrities as moderators. I don't know why we need them at all. When Lincoln and Doublas wandered through Illinois, there were no moderators. Why do we need them now? My favorite debate format would be for the two candidates to stand on a stage, with their microphones set on automatic timers. Whoever won the coin toss could go first, or last, their choice. Every three minutes, one microphone would turn on, the other would turn off. A countdown timer tells the candidates how much time they have.

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 5:21 pm

President Bush wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 4:29 pm

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 2:44 pm

Ok. As for the first line, I think it was intended sarcastically, but it's true.

OK, fine.

Do you think moderators fact checking a coal black candidate who was being exceedingly dishonest... would generate sympathy for that candidate?

Do you think moderators fact checking any woman candidate who was being exceedingly dishonest... would generate sympathy for that candidate?

Do you think moderators fact checking an indigenous candidate clothed in his/her traditional regalia who was being exceedingly dishonest... would generate sympathy for that candidate?

Do you think moderators fact checking a flamboyantly gay candidate who was being exceedingly dishonest... would generate sympathy for that candidate?

Yes.

..

When Lincoln and Doublas wandered through Illinois, there were no moderators. Why do we need them now?

You are either naive or are not being honest.

An indigenous fellow in his regalia, a coal black candidate, an outspoken woman, a flamboyantly gay candidate probably would be out of the running after being called out for their excessive lying by a moderator in the course of a televised debate.

Lincoln/Douglas debates lacked a pathological liar.

President Bush wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:18 pm
You are either naive or are not being honest.

If you think very, very, hard, you might be able to come up with an alternative explanation......but I digress.

An indigenous fellow in his regalia, a coal black candidate, an outspoken woman, a flamboyantly gay candidate probably would be out of the running after being called out for their excessive lying by a moderator in the course of a televised debate.

Do you think such a person would ever make it to a debate stage as a major party nominee?

Would it matter if they were called out before or after the debate, as opposed to during?


That's what you're missing here, in my opinion. If you get to be on that stage in the first place, it's because you have a lot of support. Maybe you shouldn't have that support. Maybe you don't deserve it. But you have it. Given that you have that support......that's a really important point...givent that you have that support, will you lose any of it, a single vote, because a moderator calls you out during the debate? Even among undecideds, will a single undecided voter vote against a candidate because of the moderator calling him out during the debate?

If not, what purpose does calling out Trump serve?


ETA: And would you trust the moderators to be accurate and fair in their callouts in the first place?

"They're constantly fact-checking me, but they're not fact-checking her!"

Really? Why do you think that might be, hmm?

And today there were bomb threats in Springfield, Ohio.


Some people take their waterfowl very seriously. (Although there have been no credible reports of pet eating, or even of duck eating, there was one credible report of people capturing geese. I'm not exactly sure why killing Canadian geese is discouraged, but there you have it.)