Forestluv

It worked in 2106 and is a good strategy in theory, yet a few pitfalls: 1) Trump fatigue, 2) Trump’s inability to articulate and 3) Harris has an effective counter: Trump recently killed the bipartisan Border Security Bill. As well, over involvement by Trump could put him in a negative light, similar to his involvement with BLM protests.

Liberals may underestimate the degree of racism in average Americans, yet I think the Harris campaign is well aware of it. Their campaign is heavily influenced by data and they know this is a losing issue for them. They've avoided racism issues overtly or by using rhetoric like "It's his same old playbook", "We are all neighbors / Americans" or "We have more in common, than differences". When pressed on racism, they've pointed to Charlottsville and The Proud Boys - both of which poll well. Imo, Trump's biggest weakness isn't his narcissism or racism. It's his incompetence. His 2020 campaign devolved into a circus highlighted by Syndey "Release the Kraken" Powell. The same thing is happening now with "They're eating dogs" and conspiracy queen Laura Loomer. . . JD Vance just posted a debunked video of immigrants cooking cats in Dayton, Ohio. This energizes MAGA, yet isn't an effective way to capitalize on immigration with average Americans. . . It could be that Trump's campaign is going all-in on MAGA turnout. Based on polling, Trump would win on the issues and a better strategy would be for him to present himself as somewhat reasonable and coherent to the general public - yet he is unable or unwilling to do so. . . The psychological attacks against Trump seem to be working so far and imo, Kamala wins a contest of mental fitness and personality. I think it smart for Harris' campaign to troll Trump / Vance on MAGA conspiracy theories. They always double-down and it plays well into the "weird" framing. Schools have been closed for two days in Springfield due to bomb threats. Yet Trump is incapable of saying "bomb threats to elementary schools have no place in political discourse". Instead, he doubles down on blatant lies about pet-eating immigrants and JD Vance posts a debunked video of immigrants cooking cats in Dayton. Vance is a senator of Ohio, making the story even more bizarre.

Yes. Even if it was theoretically possible to create unbiased fact check moderators, it would be seen as biased, particularly by MAGA due to the asymmetry of lying, believing in conspiracy theories etc.

In some cases, that mindset may give a person a sense of control and self empowerment. Sorta like someone who wants to be courted by a potential gf / bf. “I want her to earn me before I date her”.

5. There are two things here. . . Imagine a soccer game in which one team gets a free penalty kick every 5 minutes. That is an unfair opportunity. Now imagine the team is confused and shoots/scores on their own goal. The other team laughs and says @keep giving them free kicks!”. . . The unfair opportunities were used to harm themselves and it turns out to be a disadvantage. You keep focusing on that part, which I don’t disagree with. I’m pointing to the other part. 7. My impression is of a mind that believes its construct of “raw reality” is true. . . That offers enormous practical benefits at the human / personal level, including a sense of being grounded. Yet there is also an enormous price to pay for those personal benefits. One interpretation is “lost in a world abstraction’”, which is completely true from one vantage point. Yet it’s possible to go ‘prior’ to that vantage point. Prior to the world of grounded “raw reality” and prior to the world of ungrounded “abstraction”. . . This can be viewed as abstraction, yet it also points to the simplest grounding point of source.

It’s true that both sides made false claims. Yet some minds stop there and are unwilling / unable to see asymmetry.

1. It’s one of many possible observations. I’m not saying it is objectively true or false. Every point you’ve made so far is 100% true within that perspective. So yes, one can interpret these words as projection, assumption and abstraction. It is completely true within that interpretation. 2. Yes, I can see the game plan to be getting under Trump’s skin and getting him unhinged. Doing so means the more he spoke, the more he harmed himself. Yet extra speaking time in a debate is unequal and unfair. If Trump used extra time to harm himself, he squandered his opportunity- like a soccer team being granted a free penalty kick, then scoring on their own goal. 3. Imo, the moderator acted more harshly to Harris relative to Trump. She continuously caved to Trump. 4. I’m not sure about that. Women are often judged differently than men. She may have been judged as “whiney” or “bitchy” by a lot of people if she kept confronting the mods on extra time. Men often get away with that easier than women. 5. Yes, it seems Kamala was very composed and had good intuition that Trump was harming himself with his extra time. Yet extra time is still unfair in a debate. Both can be true. 6. My impression is a debate orientation of agree or disagree rather than exploring various perspectives. Yet I’m on an extreme end of this spectrum and usually not on the same wavelength as others. 7. Yes, that is true within that mental construct. Yet there are many other possibilities. Personally, I don’t like being mentally confined. It feels like I’m trapped and causes me anxiety. 8. Within SD theory, ideas presented here involve aspects of relativity, which would qualify as an aspect of Yellow. Yet this doesn’t give the idea more inherit value. Mindspaces that may be considered Yellow cause all sorts of problems in my life. There are many times I wish I could utilize Orange abilities better. Any idea I share has a form of bias because it is not another idea.

Yes, it would be a relative win. Not a shutout win. If it were a football game, I’d say a 48-21 final score.

I’m imagining an ideal situation in which AI moderators are completely unbiased. They framed questions equally, applied equal standards of fact checking and allow equals speaking time. Kamala would win the debate because she is much better prepared and much more skilled in various elements of debating.

1. Yes, you seem to be holding a rigid singular cause-effect perspective. I’m not saying it’s is wrong. It is 100% true within that perspective. 2. From another perspective, Trump didn’t “request” extra time like Harris did. He repeatedly took it with aggression and the mods caved every time. Harris was treated very harshly when she tried to get extra time. Your perspective equates the two and seems unable to see the difference. I’m not saying you are wrong, I’m saying you are locked into a myopic view of “This is how it is”. 3. Whether the extra time was used wisely or not is beside the point.. If a football team gets an extra down every series, that is a huge advantage. If they use that extra down to fumble the ball, that’s on them. I find it ironic that your username is “questionreality”, yet you seem unable to question your own constructs of reality.

It could be that ABC decided to have a threshold for “unacceptable lies”. Garden variety lies would go unchecked. Egregious, absurd lies would be checked. If Harris claimed that Haitian immigrants were eating people’s pets, I think it’s likely that a moderator would have checked her.

You are perceiving me as disagreeing because you have a debate mindset. That is not what I’m saying. I’ve written several times that there were multiple forms of bias - some of which favored Harris, some of which favored Trump. It’s like you are a die-hard sports fan and can only see referee calls against your team. That is not an objective view.

@questionreality I’m not disagreeing with you. Your point has already been included into a broader perspective I’m trying to articulate.

Extra time is a big unfair advantage in debates. If Trump used his unfair advantage to cause self harm, that’s on him. Trump squandered his extra time by making massive unforced errors. As well, Harris was denied the opportunity of extra time. The bias of extra time was against Harris and the bias of pushback was against Trump. In a debate setting, those two roughly canceled each other out.

That’s some rich gaslighting. Kamala asked for a follow response ONE time and the moderator denied her hard. She didn’t ask again after that. Trump took extra time EVERY round and the moderators allowed him. The moderators were very unfair to Kamala on time. Trump had much more time, as tge statistics show. Yet, the moderators pushed back harder on Trump. So overall I’d say it roughly evens out.

First debate poll out (CNN) Harris 63, Trump 37

Ranting about migrants eating pet cats and dogs was not a good look for Trump.

Those are good points. And Trump used his extra time to rant full MAGA. He looked old and seething with intense anger. He grinded his teeth. He couldn’t even look at her. And she stared him down all night. And she performed very well.

Taylor Swift 😳

Harris campaign just challenged Trump to another debate. Boss move

They would not stand up to Trump. He took extra time EVERY round. She was denied her ONE request.

FoxNews: “Trump had a bad night. Harris had a good night. It was her night tonight’

Trump kept taking extra time and Harris was denied the ONE time she requested Harris triggered Trump all night long. He was raving MAGA rally. Middle America won’t like it.

@Shodburrito Have you seen the right wing media? They are in meltdown. The left media is celebrating And the polls will favor Harris.

@Shodburrito The right wing media is having a meltdown right now. Trump is unhinged and lunatic. Harris looks much more presidential