questionreality

So now you are reverting to whataboutism? Really? Why do you assume that only the right-wingers have a problem with his assassination? It doesn't matter whether you are on the left or the right - if you support assassination of a political candidate you for sure don't support democracy, or at the very least don't understand what it is and how it works. I knew you were biased, but didn't know that you could be this blinded. I can now see why this forum has such a strong echo chamber and groupthink. I really can't believe what I have just read.

It automatically makes me a Trump supporter if I am not okay with his assassination? You are more lost than I thought - holy shit

How do you not understand that political violence is an undemocratic act? How is having one guy with a gun take away the candidate from a ballot that half of Americans support okay? On one hand you bring January 6th up, and on the other hand you are fine with assassination of political opponents. You are no different from the those who thought it was fine to overthrow the government on that day. Not to mention that it would be extremely shortsighted - there is a very good chance there would be assassination attempts coming in the way of the candidate/president that you support. The fact that I even have to say these obvious things, and even people like @Leo Gura don't have an issue with it tells me this subforum is more fucked than I thought.

The fact that you (and many others here) don't see the problem with assassination of political opponents and think that Trump deserves to be killed, proves my point once again that I made about leftists and the leftist echo chamber that blinds many people on this sub-forum. You are no better than right-wingers in that regard, stop lying to yourself.

Dawkins defines "god" in dualistic sense - as he said he doesn't believe in the man who sits on the sky and forgives sins, listens to prayers, etc. He clearly rejects this concept and he is correct to do so. Yet he does say that there is something mysterious in the universe - so he is still open to the possibility of mysterious force, just not "god in conventional sense. Most people miss this, but how you define "god" when discussing this concept is very crucial.

Wow, if this is true, that would be actually playing 4-d chess. Very nice observation! Yea that's huge. No wonder Trump has now refused to do another debate with her.

@zurew I will not be taking your bait and play games with you. You telling me that I offer 0 substance, while you yourself have offered nothing of value in this thread and also in the Lex Friedman thread. In fact, in the Lex Friedman thread you have posted enough that clearly shows you are so stuck in your leftist echo chamber, and the concepts of "balance", "nuance" and "neutrality" are just too hard to understand. Enjoy debating right-wingers, I will not be wasting my time on you.

5. I see what you are saying. From my perspective, it's not an advantage if you turn it into a disadvantage, and if the mods are biased, they certainly are aware of it. 7. Very true. I have explored both approaches in my life and came to conclusion that since we are dealing with humans and most of our problems have something to do with humans, I value the practical, grounded approach more vs the abstracted one. If I was living alone in the cave and away from the civilization, it would be the other way around for certain.

Thanks for proving my point

1. Fair enough 2. Do you remember the 1st debate with Biden? What do you think would have happened if he wouldn't have been granted the extra time? We can make a a bet that he would do the same as in the 1st debate - he would go back to previous topic and would just skip some questions. The difference is that you are viewing the concept of "fair" from an abstract standpoint and I am viewing it from a practical. From a practical standpoint it does not give Trump an unfair advantage - hence the difference in our perspectives. 3. We must be seeing from completely different lenses then. I did not see how she caved to Trump, nor how she acted more harshly to Harris. 4. She may have been or she may not - we don't know this. But the fact remains is that she requested it only once and did not mind Trump getting the extra time. Given that her camp wanted the mics to be on in the 1st place, tells me that the probability is higher that she clearly wanted him to go on rants with the extra time and did not view it as unfair advantage. 5. Again, you are viewing it as "unfair" from an abstract standpoint, without taking into consideration who is actually debating. From a practical standpoint, we can argue that the extra time granted to Trump actually gave Harris an advantage. 6. I understand why you get the sense of this orientation due to my rigid style of writing a lot of the time. I would describe myself as rigid-fluid type - while writing I can be very rigid, while leaving in the background the fluidity and vice-versa. I also sometimes go back and add fluidity or rigidity later. I find that both have value - depending on who you are exchanging ideas with. 7. Interesting that you view it as being "mentally confined", while I view it as just being grounded in the "raw reality". Quite the opposite for me, I don't like to be stuck in the world of abstraction too much, hence our differences. 8.Fair enough

You are right, and this applies not just to US but to most of the countries. I was surprised to find that the majority of people on this forum are also stuck in echo chambers (predominantly left). If that's what you get on an "actualized" forum, in other places you would probably find 10x worse. Most people create an identity out of their political views, hence it's easier just to consume the information that confirms their own biases, rather than question them. Until the left and the right start calling out BS from their own sides, we will not get anywhere. For someone who doesn't identity with the left nor the right, it became very amusing to me to observe the zoo of the political landscape.

That is your own projection and assumption in your world of abstraction. That is one way of seeing it - sometimes yes he took it aggressively because he was boiled up, and sometimes he said "excuse me" while doing so. Getting him boiled up and unhinged was part of the game plan (mentioning crowd sizes, rallies being boring, etc), which worked quite well and was the clear cause of him being this aggressive. Why do you call it harsh? She requested it only once and they decided to move on to the next topic. There is a good chance that if she requested the time at a different time, she would also be granted it. From my perspective if Harris wanted extra time and would have thought that Trump was gaining unfair advantage, she would have brought it up, I have no doubt about it. Harris looked in total control - she clearly didn't mind seeing him hang himself with that extra time. I may sound locked in, but it doesn't mean that am not open to other possibilities. I am always open to hearing new perspectives. I find it ironic that you say this, given that a lot of the time you seem to be lost in the world of abstraction, and unable to see that you are projecting a lot of the time. Your own projections from your abstract thinking sometimes they get in the way of seeing reality for what it is. Also for someone who claims or positions themselves to be "stage yellow", you seem to have a lot of bias when it comes to politics - which is also quite ironic.

Many of you may have forgotten, but In the 1st debate against Biden, Trump did not answer many questions as he was using the time to go back to the previous topics. Maybe that's why ABC gave him the extra time, to avoid the issue that happened during the 1st debate? If they wouldn't, he would clearly do the same here and it's very likely that they wanted to avoid that. Trump is quite impulsive and there is no way he would move on from a topic if he didn't finish saying what he wanted to say.

Read what I wrote above - not going to say the same thing over and over again to every person. I have clearly explained why ABC was biased against Trump, it's not hard to understand. I am going to quote LEO here: The problem is that you expect everyone to be a leftist. Because you are so caught up in your ideological bubble, you are not able to see your own bias, not to mention the bias of the ideology that you adhere to. If having a balanced take, and seeing through the bias of both sides is playing a "centrist game", then so be it. It sure is much better than playing whatever game that you are playing - projecting, virtue signaling and continuing to be blinded by your ideological blindfolds. Ironically you believe that you are different from the MAGA supporters, but you are not. You are just on the other side of the coin. How about that for a meta-take? I have never said that they are equal. But a lie is a lie. You either call the lies out or you don't. In a debate, it's the opponent's job to fact check, and if Kamala was better prepared - she could have actually called him out herself on it and would have scored a lot more with that. I certainly would expect for a presidential candidate to be prepared and to be able to fact check without the help of the moderators. Otherwise, these things should be discussed and agreed upon prior to debate "what constitutes an egregious ridiculous lies, etc" It doesn't take playing 4-d chess to see that Trump was hanging himself with that extra time. It was damn obvious to anyone with a brain. Trump's camp wanted the mics muted before the debate for that reason and Kamala's camp wanted them on - as they knew that extra time on the mic would work against him. They were not "bad" moderators, but they were a bit biased against Trump was my only claim. Kamala would have won the debate either way, but from the perspective of some people who are undecided or right leaning, the moderators looked like they were against him. I disagree that there were multiple forms of bias, how do you not understand this? Harris requested only ONCE for extra time, that's it. Trump requested it very frequently and ALSO got denied at least once. This does not mean that they were biased against Harris, just because of the one time that they denied her. The extra time given to Trump did not favor him - he looked very unhinged and that is also the reason why his camp wanted their mics to be muted.

She only asked ONCE and was denied. Trump asked many times, and was ALSO denied at least one time. Just because she was denied the only time that she asked does not mean that they were biased against her, LOL.

We clearly are in disagreement - like are we reading the same thing here? You are saying that ABC was not biased against Trump and that it was even - due to the fact that Trump got extra time. And I just explained why this point is moot.

You don't think the moderators saw that it wasn't an advantage for him? Did you forget that his camp wanted for the mics to be muted and that Kamala's camp wanted the mics to be on, so Trump would cause self harm? This makes your point moot about moderators being unfair to Kamala and that the moderators were not biased. I really expected you to see through these things out of all the people.

I agree, the debate was fair enough and like i said, Trump would have lost it either way. But this doesn't mean that ABC was not biased. It's just was not a good look from them - they are supposed to stay neutral and it's Kamala's job to do fact checking of her opponent. CNN debate was a good example of how it should be - and everyone was happy with it, even conservatives praised CNN for doing a good job. I would hope so, and probably think that they would. The problem here is where you draw the line and who decides which lies are the most blatant ones? That's why you either need to fact check everything from both candidates, or let the candidates do the fact checking of each other. Assisting Kamala in fact checking is direct interference in the debate - so it should be done evenly for both candidates.

This was my original post and even if the moderators were fact checking both equally, Kamala would have still won. I did not say that Trump lost because moderators were a bit biased - both things can be true, no? I really didn't think that this forum was THIS infected with people who are stuck in their ideological bubbles (majority of them leftists).

I am surprised that you don't know what "gaslighting" is, look it up if you need to - I see it over and over again misused on this forum, but didn't expect it from you. And? She only asked one time. Trump was also denied a response at least once, it's just he asked many times. Just because the moderators allowed Trump the extra time, doesn't mean that they were not biased. In Trump's case, the extra time that he got actually made him look bad - he went on rants, looked angry and unhinged. As I told you before, you are good with abstract things, but not when it comes to dealing with raw reality a lot of the time.

You are way too deep in your leftist ideological bubble if you can't see the problems with the leftists. Just because Trump was given the last word does not mean that they not biased. Bias can be shown in different ways - like do you seriously need me to explain you this? My argument is this: Either you fact check everything on both candidates, or you don't. It's simple. What is so hard to understand?

Both should be fact checked, if fact checked at all. It's a debate between 2 people, not 4. If you want to change the format - that's a different thing. Left-wingers are just as bad, but you don't see it due to bias. Over the last 10 years especially they have shown their true colors. And? If Kamala wanted to continue, they would of let her also. But it was part of her strategy to let him ramble on and make himself look bad. Kamala also did not answer all the questions directly, starting from the 1st one that she was asked. Did you totally forget this? Very bad analogy. This is a debate that we are talking about - you either fact check both candidates on everything or you don't at all.

The debate is between two people - not four. Please tell me the last time it happened, that the moderators of presidential debates were fact checking? If you can't see the problem of fact checking only one candidate and not fact checking the other a single time, then I pity you. Your bias speaks for itself and it's amusing to see this on an "actualized" forum

Except It's a debate, in which only two people are involved. If it wasn't a debate, it would be a different story. To not fact check Kamala a single time shows a clear bias from the moderators, which is just a very bad look. If you want to allow fact checking from the moderators, then you need to create a new format.

What I do want to do add - is I don't think it was the moderator's job to fact check Trump, but of Kamala's. I can see why the conservatives are outraged - it's a debate between two candidates, and that was clearly not the moderators' jobs. To fact check one candidate and not the other (even though Trump said a lot more inaccurate things than Kamala did) is clearly not right.