recogitare.com

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 8:43 pm

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...

President Bush wrote: 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.

Meadmaker wrote: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?

President Bush wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 12:22 am 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.

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

Your rhetorical question fails.

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

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

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 3:45 am It wasn't a rhetorical question.

President Bush wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 1:53 pm 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.

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 3:45 am It wasn't a rhetorical question.

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

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 4:21 pm What do you think the effect of the moderators' actions were to the observing audience, especially to undecided voters?

stanky wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 6:54 pm 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 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 4:21 pm

President Bush wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 1:53 pm 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.)

Meadmaker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 3:45 am 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.

President Bush wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 12:17 am
Maybe using big letters from the linked definition we used will help you see better...