trump off the CO ballot

[President Bush]

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...

Maybe some part of you is aware that you've painted yourself into a corner but the rest of you doesn't care so you are doubling down on a losing argument?

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?

A little while ago you said that a debate moderator fact checking an indigenous fellow in his regalia, a coal black candidate, an outspoken woman, or a flamboyantly gay candidate for being exceedingly dishonest... would generate sympathy for that candidate.

Now you doubt somebody fitting one of those descriptions would ever make it to a debate stage as a major party nominee? Meadmaker, you don't seem to be able to sustain an argument.

And I'm kinda surprised you haven't even noticed. Somebody fitting one of those descriptions has made it to a debate stage as a major party nominee. lol

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?

Because he is flat-out lying? That seems like a good reason to me.

What if Harris had claimed during the debate that members of Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort were reported to be surgically removing the skulls of the neighbors' French poodles and using them for frisbees after skinning the dogs and weaving a large Iranian flag with the fur.

No doubt you would have said it wouldn't be right for debate moderators to question that as it would generate sympathy for her.

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

Your rhetorical question fails. Look at the actual claims Trump made that he was fact checked for: that Haitian immigrants were eating dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio; that a governor somewhere had condoned executing babies after birth; that America is besieged by migrant crime.

It's like you are saying shit for effect rather than being interested in what's actually happening.

[Meadmaker]

What if Harris had claimed during the debate that members of Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort were reported to be surgically removing the skulls of the neighbors' French poodles and using them for frisbees after skinning the dogs and weaving a large Iranian flag with the fur.

The proper response from the moderator would be, "Mr. Trump, do you have a response to that?"

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

Your rhetorical question fails.

It wasn't a rhetorical question.

It's like you are saying shit for effect rather than being interested in what's actually happening.

Dude, you just asked a question about Kamala Harris accusing Trump of removing poodle skulls. You asked about Native Americans in full regalia, being pathological liars, and being in a debate that has some sort of comparison to the debate from Tuesday night. I think if we only talked about
what was actually happening, the discussion would take a very different tack.

If you look at an actual post-debate fact checking article from a reputable source you will see that there were several examples of places where a moderator who wished to correct mistatements could have jumped in to fact check each of the candidates. They didn't take every possible opportunity to perform that role. However, some people claim that they see a pattern in where they jumped in, and where they did not.

[President Bush]

Not sure why I tried to help you, Meadmaker. You have just gotten all huffy and defensive.

Here, maybe if you just read a news article describing what happened during the debate that would help you understand:

Ahead of Tuesday night’s debate in Philadelphia, ABC News did not commit to live fact-checking, but as the event got underway both anchors stepped in to debunk false claims made by Trump on at least three occasions.

Roughly 20 minutes into the debate, the former president claimed Democrats have advocated for abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy or were in favor of “executing” babies “after birth,” pushing a notorious and often-repeated false claim. Harris’ running mate, Gov. Tim Walz, has said “execution after birth is OK,” Trump falsely claimed.

Moderator Linsey Davis immediately corrected the record on the abortion issue. “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born,” she said.

Later in the debate, Trump falsely claimed migrants in Ohio were killing pets and eating them, repeating a debunked claim that had been amplified this week by right-wing media figures and echoed by Republican leaders.

“In Springfield, they’re eating the dogs,” Trump said. “The people that came in, they’re eating the cats. They’re eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what’s happening in our country and it’s a shame.”

Muir quickly corrected Trump on the claim.

“I just want to clarify here. You bring up Springfield, Ohio. ABC News did reach out to the city manager there. He told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.”

“Well, I’ve seen people on television,” Trump argued. “The people on television say my dog was taken and used for food. So maybe he said that and maybe that’s a good thing to say for a city manager.”

“I’m not taking this from television. I’m taking this from the city manager,” Muir responded.

“People are on television saying the dog was eaten by the people that went there,” Trump said.

“Again, the Springfield city manager says there’s no evidence of that,” Muir replied.

ABC’s moderators also took subtle approaches to establish the truth. Later in the debate, Muir asked Trump about a recent comment in which he appeared to acknowledge that he had lost the 2020 presidential election to Biden by a “whisker.”

“Are you now acknowledging that you lost in 2020?” Muir asked.

“That was said sarcastically,” he said. “I don’t acknowledge that at all.”

Muir then turned to Harris, saying “you heard the president there tonight. He said he didn’t say that that he lost by a ‘whisker.’ So, he still believes he did not lose the election that was won by President Biden and yourself.”

Following the debate, CNN’s Daniel Dale reported Trump made at least 33 false claims during the debate, compared with one from Harris.

“This was a staggeringly dishonest debate performance from Trump. Just lie after lie on subject after subject,” Dale said.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/11/media/ab ... index.html

oops, almost forgot:

It wasn't a rhetorical question.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... nacoenosis

[Meadmaker]

Not sure why I tried to help you, Meadmaker. You have just gotten all huffy and defensive.

Here, maybe if you just read a news article describing what happened during the debate that would help you understand:

Ahead of Tuesday night’s debate in Philadelphia, ABC News did not commit to live fact-checking, but as the event got underway both anchors stepped in to debunk false claims made by Trump on at least three occasions.

The article is perfectly accurate. Spot on, in fact.

What do you think the effect of the moderators' actions were to the observing audience, especially to undecided voters?
(That's not a rhetorical question.)

It wasn't a rhetorical question.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... nacoenosis

anacoenosis - a figure of speech in which an appeal is made to one's listeners or opponents for their opinion or judgment as to the subject under discussion


Rhetorical question - A rhetorical question is an inquiry that ends in a question mark but is asked for effect rather than to elicit an answer.

[Admin]

What do you think the effect of the moderators' actions were to the observing audience, especially to undecided voters?

It generates support for Trump, so it's all good.

[stanky]

politics leads to bickering over the details of the brand of brass polish used on the Titanic.

The cat eating thing is all over the 'news'.
It reeks of distraction. It's a non-issue.
We probably should be eating cats.
Not Sparky. he's got an exemption.
(goes double for down-under)
Or maybe we shouldn't be eating pigs.

speaking of major religions, the majority condemn usury.
had they taken it seriously, we'd be in a very different mess today.

(can't stomach the new billionaire thing. too much power and reward for too little effort. it's an affront to how nature works. Or even physics. It's fucking wrong. Evil,even. De-evolution. Look at i.q., for instance. average is 100; extreme is double that. or sports...fastest runners are maybe twice as fast as the average. Should people be 1000x wealthier than the average? To what advantage, overall? If obtaining obscene wealth is what motivates someone, shouldn't that be discouraged? That's how Trumps are made.)

[stanky]

When a 'non-story' is all over the media, like Taylor Swift or cat-eaters, we should be looking for the news that's deliberately missing. It takes some digging.

When T.S. and her meat-ball doofus break up, you can bet there's a clandestine military adventure taking place.
Her replacement is already here, btw. Equally vapid; soon to be as wealthy. Younger, natch.

[Meadmaker]

When a 'non-story' is all over the media, like Taylor Swift or cat-eaters, we should be looking for the news that's deliberately missing. It takes some digging.

When T.S. and her meat-ball doofus break up, you can bet there's a clandestine military adventure taking place.
Her replacement is already here, btw. Equally vapid; soon to be as wealthy. Younger, natch.

Yeah, but there's always some sort of clandestine military adventure going on, so it's an easy prediction.

[President Bush]

Not sure why I tried to help you, Meadmaker. You have just gotten all huffy and defensive.

Here, maybe if you just read a news article describing what happened during the debate that would help you understand:

Ahead of Tuesday night’s debate in Philadelphia, ABC News did not commit to live fact-checking, but as the event got underway both anchors stepped in to debunk false claims made by Trump on at least three occasions.

The article is perfectly accurate. Spot on, in fact.

What do you think the effect of the moderators' actions were to the observing audience, especially to undecided voters?
(That's not a rhetorical question.)

I could make the Amazing Kreskin vomit with my mind-reading skills. Besides, it just seems like a neurotic pursuit to me.

Better to think of a debate involving Trump to be more like a kindergarten class than an activity involving normal adults, anyhow. Wouldn't be up to the other children to keep their emotionally stunted classmate in line. That task is left to the kindergarten teacher.

It wasn't a rhetorical question.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... nacoenosis

anacoenosis - a figure of speech in which an appeal is made to one's listeners or opponents for their opinion or judgment as to the subject under discussion

Rhetorical question - A rhetorical question is an inquiry that ends in a question mark but is asked for effect rather than to elicit an answer.

Maybe using big letters from the linked definition we used will help you see better...

Screenshot 2024-09-13 6.43.57 PM.png (88.55 KiB) Viewed 238 times

Anacoenosis is a rhetorical device generally posed as a question. Soory if I seem pedantic to you but I am working on becoming more proficient in a second language and, to me, semantics matter.

Here are some more big letters you can read...

Screenshot 2024-09-13 7.51.52 PM.png (225.23 KiB) Viewed 238 times

[Meadmaker]

Maybe using big letters from the linked definition we used will help you see better...

This doesn't seem like much of a dialog, so, it's all good. You've heard my opinion.


To remind other readers, just in case they've lost the thread in bickering, when my son and I watched the debate, we felt that the moderators' fact checking live would generate sympathy for Trump.