Vance is clearly the more talented debater. anyone who could watch the debate and not realize that has a bizarre deficiency in social awareness.
On substance, they each kind of did what they needed to so, though I found Walz' need to throw in every anecdote he'd prepared kind of weird.
But what really struck me was that we at least had two people debating that both came off as competent people, which we really haven't had since Obama-Romney.
Trump-Harris is watching a buffoon who obviously is incapable of holding a thought together or constructing a sentence where the second half is on the same topic as the first half against Harris' memorization of a series of empty bromides, most of which were, at best, tangentially related to the question. It was maybe a 5th grade level, tops.
At least this debates gives me hope that we'll have smart people run for office in the future.
71d
1 edit
@Metal-Brain saidAnd you, as always, are full of crap.
Why the sudden rise in real time fact checking?
Norah O'Donnell is a lying POS. She needs to be fact checked herself. This real time fact checking has to stop. Margaret Brennan also did real time fact checking. Moderators have no right to interject into the debates. It is insulting to our intelligence. As if the candidates cannot defend themselves and desperately need ...[text shortened]... it will seem normal for moderators to pile onto a certain candidate with opinions passing as facts.
Liars need to have governors on their lies.
Mainly because of people like you, who always believe them when they say what you want to hear.
71d
@kmax87 saidI agree with you, but who is going to fact check the rogue moderator who is repeating misinformation? Norah O’Donnell did just that. She expressed an opinion about global warming that had no place in the debate.
Because people talk so much BS so often they start believing it and sometimes it's good to have a referee that can blow the whistle and say enough. Stop talking s*'&
Moderators are there to enforce the debate rules, not break them to express their opinions as if the candidates are not capable of doing that.
Should we create a debate fact checking panel? After all, if two rogue moderators are good eight will be better, right?
71d
@sh76 saidOh please….the debate was too civilized in reality. Like Trump Vance was way too easy on his opponent. Why didn’t Vance point out that Kamala was not elected? Was it not part of the script? Pro wrestling champs are aren’t supposed to go off script either because it is all fake.
Vance is clearly the more talented debater. anyone who could watch the debate and not realize that has a bizarre deficiency in social awareness.
On substance, they each kind of did what they needed to so, though I found Walz' need to throw in every anecdote he'd prepared kind of weird.
But what really struck me was that we at least had two people debating that both came of ...[text shortened]... s.
At least this debates gives me hope that we'll have smart people run for office in the future.
71d
@Suzianne saidPolitics is where the lies are worse. You want the liars to determine who is lying? If so I have a safe and effective vaccine to sell you
And you, as always, are full of crap.
Liars need to have governors on their lies.
Mainly because of people like you, who always believe them when they say what you want to hear.
71d
@Metal-Brain saidThe minute you talk about an opinion on global warming, I'm happy to ignore what you say after that.
I agree with you, but who is going to fact check the rogue moderator who is repeating misinformation? Norah O’Donnell did just that. She expressed an opinion about global warming that had no place in the debate.
Moderators are there to enforce the debate rules, not break them to express their opinions as if the candidates are not capable of doing that.
Should we create ...[text shortened]... debate fact checking panel? After all, if two rogue moderators are good eight will be better, right?
71d
@kmax87 saidYou don’t even know what Norah O’Donnell said
The minute you talk about an opinion on global warming, I'm happy to ignore what you say after that.
71d
@Metal-Brain saidI listened to the whole complete debate. Nothing from the moderators particularly jumped out as bad, so elucidate!
You don’t even know what Norah O’Donnell said
71d
@Metal-Brain saidWhy the sudden rise in real time fact checking?
Why the sudden rise in real time fact checking?
Norah O'Donnell is a lying POS. She needs to be fact checked herself. This real time fact checking has to stop. Margaret Brennan also did real time fact checking. Moderators have no right to interject into the debates. It is insulting to our intelligence. As if the candidates cannot defend themselves and desperately need ...[text shortened]... it will seem normal for moderators to pile onto a certain candidate with opinions passing as facts.
Because of the sudden rise of a viciously false man propagating a viscerally appealing delusion.
71d
@sh76 said
Vance is clearly the more talented debater. anyone who could watch the debate and not realize that has a bizarre deficiency in social awareness.
On substance, they each kind of did what they needed to so, though I found Walz' need to throw in every anecdote he'd prepared kind of weird.
But what really struck me was that we at least had two people debating that both came of ...[text shortened]... s.
At least this debates gives me hope that we'll have smart people run for office in the future.
But what really struck me was that we at least had two people debating that both came off as competent people, which we really haven't had since Obama-Romney.
Exactly. I had the same thought. Wait, they're actually debating policy and finding common ground? It's been 12 years since there has been a substantive debate between candidates running for president. And as a VP debate this does not really count.
So, college kids have never seen a real presidential debate.
71d
@moonbus saidKamal lied 25 times during her debate with Trump. Why didn't anybody fact check her?
Why the sudden rise in real time fact checking?
Because of the sudden rise of a viciously false man propagating a viscerally appealing delusion.
Moderators are not supposed to join the debate when the candidates are capable of doing their own fact checking. This has de-evolved into moderators expressing their opinions to help one candidate over the other. The only fair thing to do other than not allowing moderators to go rogue is to have a panel of fact checkers. I support that because they would argue over the facts and make a mockery of fact checking in general. Then it will be obvious facts are difficult to nail down in politics.
71d
@divegeester saidYou mean opinion imposed. Norah O'Donnell did not state a fact, she stated an opinion that happened to be misinformation. Fact checker is a misnomer. Facebook admitted their fact checkers do not represent facts and they are protected opinions.
Saw a clip of Vance having a shocker.
Was complaining about being fact checked 😂