Kamala-Trump Debate

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, questionreality said:

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.

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. 

[questionreality]

4 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Going to stop you right there. Left-wingers didn't incite a violent coup because they lost an election.

The gaslighting by folks who are trying to downplay and make excuses for the MAGA Cult is insane (though its completely in line with how fascism tends to operate).

You are way too deep in your leftist ideological bubble if you can't see the problems with the leftists. 

3 hours ago, zurew said:

And, you claimed bias and they gave Trump the last word almost every case.

Why do you suddenly talk about her strategy, when this specific thing wasn't about her, but about what the moderators did.

Also the thing you are saying there doesn't make any sense, because they could have let him ramble on without giving him the last word in almost every  round

Which is a made up rule you created.

Trump didn't get fact checked on everything.

If you want to argue there shouldn't be any fact checking by the moderators in principle - go for it, but if you want to argue bias, you will need to make a seperate argument for that , because so far you had no good response to the times where Trump got almost all the last words in the debate and other than that, the moderators could have gone 100x more harder on Trump if they really wanted to.

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?

 

 

[questionreality]

38 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

That’s some rich gaslighting.

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.

Quote

Kamala asked for a follow response ONE time and the moderator denied her hard. She didn’t ask again after that.

And? She only asked one time. Trump was also denied a response at least once, it's just he asked many times. 

Quote

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. 

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.

 

Edited September 12 by questionreality

[questionreality]

22 hours ago, questionreality said:

Kamala clearly won the debate, she defeated him psychologically. From the very beginning she went up to him, shook his head when he didn't expect him and threw him off guard.

The turning point was when she commented on his crowd sizes and said that people were leaving them early because the rallies are boring. He never really recovered after that - it triggered him very badly.

She won the psychological fight - she used his weaknesses against him (his fragile ego).

You can see how comfortable she looks from her body language, and how she controlled the debate throughout most of the time.

 

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).

 

[Joshe]

10 minutes ago, questionreality said:

Just because the moderators allowed Trump the extra time, doesn't mean that they were not biased.

I think ABC was biased but that doesn't necessarily mean their bias made things unfair. If ABC feels it's their responsibility to not be a conduit of blatant, verifiable propaganda and misinformation, that's their prerogative and IMO, it was the responsible thing to do. Had Harris attempted to spread overt falsehoods, I do believe they would have fact checked her as well. 

Did you notice they let Trump get away with lots of lies but only pushed back on the most blatant ones? If you cross a certain threshold of deception, you get called out... so it seems to me. 

Edited September 12 by Joshe

[questionreality]

10 minutes ago, Joshe said:

I think ABC was biased but that doesn't necessarily mean their bias made things unfair.

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.

 

10 minutes ago, Joshe said:

Had Harris attempted to spread easily verifiable falsehoods, I do believe they would have fact checked her as well. 

I would hope so, and probably think that they would.

Quote

Did you notice they let Trump get away with lots of lies but only pushed back on the most blatant ones? If you cross a certain threshold of deception, you get called out... so it seems to me. 

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.

Edited September 12 by questionreality

[Forestluv]

22 minutes ago, questionreality said:

 

In Trump's case, the extra time that he got actually made him look bad - he went on rants, looked angry and unhinged.

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. 

Edited September 12 by Forestluv

[questionreality]

8 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Extra time is a big unfair advantage in debates. If Trump used his unfair advantage to cause self harm, that’s on him. 

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.

Edited September 12 by questionreality

[Forestluv]

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

Edited September 12 by Forestluv

[questionreality]

2 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

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

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.

[questionreality]

30 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

As well, Harris was denied the opportunity of extra time.

The bias of extra time was against Harris

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.

Edited September 12 by questionreality

[Kid A]

49 minutes ago, questionreality said:

You are way too deep in your leftist ideological bubble if you can't see the problems with the leftists. 

What are your thoughts on the coup he was referring to? You claimed that the leftists are «just as bad» and that «over the last 10 years especially they have shown their true colors». If this is the case, then why haven’t they attempted a coup? 

[Frylock]

@questionreality Can you get your replies in one post, please? 3+ consecutive posts is clutter.

[LoseYourvelf]

 

[zurew]

1 hour ago, questionreality said:

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?

You dont understand that your argument is weak and it works both ways.

I could have claimed that the moderators were  biased,  but towards Trump, since he was  given the extra time to speak and since he had the last say every round.

And then you could say, but he was fact checked. And then I would reply with "just because he was fact checked doesnt mean they werent biased towards him".

 

The fact of the matter is that if you want to deal with raw reality and question reality as your name tells you to do so, then you should be intellectually honest first and don't play the centrist enlightened preacher here and acknowledge that there is counter evidence to them being biased.

I have seen you trying to play the centrist game here multiple times now, but I havent seen you being able to give nuanced takes about anything -  you are just both siding most issues and pretend that they are either closely or equally the same / bad. Thats one thing , the other thing with you guys who preach about bias, is that you almost never point to the meta values that are being violated and in most cases its not even clear how leftist values are incompatible with those meta values.

If the sentence "you guys are being biased" is just translated to "you guys are adhering to leftist values", that doesn't really hit hard as a criticism and that doesn't have much substance to it, although it sounds good rhetorically ,because you can sound smart and enlightened while doing so and maybe you can earn some brownie points by actualizers who care about empty rhetoric and virtue signaling.

[Emerald]

10 hours ago, questionreality said:

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.

The problem with this is that it falsely equalizes something that is not equal... which creates a distortion in the eyes of viewers.

Trump said that blue states have legal infanticide, and that Haitian immigrants are eating people's pets.

Those are egregious ridiculous lies that would be malpractice for a debate moderator to not call out. 

It's just that Kamala didn't tell any egregious ridiculous lies. So, the moderators didn't check her.

They also were consistent, and only called out his egregious ridiculous lies and let the other 5000 milder lies slide unchecked.

So, the moderators were actually pretty even-handed as the boundary-line for fact-checking was consistent for both candidates throughout the debate.

If anything, it was slightly more in Trump's favor because they always let him go over.

Yet again... that wasn't so much in his favor. And perhaps they gave him the advantage of time to give him more rope to hang himself by. In that case, it could be a stealthy 4-d chess level of bias against Trump that has the plausible deniability of looking like a bias against Harris.

But overall, they were really decent moderators.

[aurum]

Claims of ABC bias are almost entirely right-wing cope. Don’t buy it.

Right-wingers have no interest in an unbiased debate. 

Edited September 12 by aurum

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, questionreality said:

We clearly are in disagreement - like are we reading the same thing here?

You are perceiving me as disagreeing because you have a debate mindset. 

1 hour ago, questionreality said:

You are saying that ABC was not biased against Trump and that it was even - due to the fact that Trump got extra time.

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. 

Edited September 12 by Forestluv

[Forestluv]

37 minutes ago, Emerald said:

The problem with this is that it falsely equalizes something that is not equal... which creates a distortion in the eyes of viewers.

Trump said that blue states have legal infanticide, and that Haitian immigrants are eating people's pets.

Those are egregious ridiculous lies that would be malpractice for a debate moderator to not call out. 

It's just that Kamala didn't tell any egregious ridiculous lies. So, the moderators didn't check her.

They also were consistent, and only called out his egregious ridiculous lies and let the other 5000 milder lies slide unchecked.

So, the moderators were actually pretty even-handed as the boundary-line for fact-checking was consistent for both candidates throughout the debate.

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. 

[questionreality]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

You dont understand that your argument is weak and it works both ways.

I could have claimed that the moderators were  biased,  but towards Trump, since he was  given the extra time to speak and since he had the last say every round.

And then you could say, but he was fact checked. And then I would reply with "just because he was fact checked doesnt mean they werent biased towards him".

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.

Quote

 

The fact of the matter is that if you want to deal with raw reality and question reality as your name tells you to do so, then you should be intellectually honest first and don't play the centrist enlightened preacher here and acknowledge that there is counter evidence to them being biased.

I have seen you trying to play the centrist game here multiple times now, but I havent seen you being able to give nuanced takes about anything -  you are just both siding most issues and pretend that they are either closely or equally the same / bad. Thats one thing , the other thing with you guys who preach about bias, is that you almost never point to the meta values that are being violated and in most cases its not even clear how leftist values are incompatible with those meta values.

If the sentence "you guys are being biased" is just translated to "you guys are adhering to leftist values", that doesn't really hit hard as a criticism and that doesn't have much substance to it, although it sounds good rhetorically ,because you can sound smart and enlightened while doing so and maybe you can earn some brownie points by actualizers who care about empty rhetoric and virtue signaling.

I am going to quote LEO here:

On 9/5/2024 at 5:15 AM, Leo Gura said:

Because I don't need everyone to be a leftist. This expectation is such a disease on the left.

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?

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

The problem with this is that it falsely equalizes something that is not equal... which creates a distortion in the eyes of viewers.

Trump said that blue states have legal infanticide, and that Haitian immigrants are eating people's pets.

Those are egregious ridiculous lies that would be malpractice for a debate moderator to not call out. 

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"

Quote

Yet again... that wasn't so much in his favor. And perhaps they gave him the advantage of time to give him more rope to hang himself by. In that case, it could be a stealthy 4-d chess level of bias against Trump that has the plausible deniability of looking like a bias against Harris.

But overall, they were really decent moderators.

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.

41 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

You are perceiving me as disagreeing because of 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. 

I don’t see the situation as binary. 

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.

 

Edited September 12 by questionreality