2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
This is a terrible way of measuring moderation. Imagine a debate between Candidate A who lies 200 times and Candidate B who lies one time. (I understand that this is more extreme than the actual disparity between Trump and Kamala. I am making it more extreme to make a point.)
By your logic, if the moderators fact checked Candidate A four times and Candidate B one time, then Candidate A's supporters would be able to plausibly claim that
I pointed out 5 or so lies she told during her debate and as I said earlier I've only watched the first half but so far they have fact checked her 0% of the time. I think it is debatable if he lied more than her.
To your example if you have candidate A lying 200 times and B only lied once I think you either fact check all 201 lies or 0. Anything else is unfair, IMO.
On top of the outright lies they both told there were obvious mis-truths that at least in some cases were just as bad as the lies. Example: kamala suggested economists think the US economy is better off under her plan than trump's and site some economists who are paid/funded by the US govt and considering their conflict of interest should not be considered. I don't think any respected economist in the private sector would say any plan a repub has put out in the last 50 years could be worse than someone suggesting price controls, taxing unrealized cap gains, raising corporate taxes and raising taxes on the rich.
Being mad that a serial liar who is demonstrably incapable of either telling the truth or accepting the slightest bit of criticism doesn’t get to gaslight the audience with impunity is really a choice that says more about how amoral you are than how biased ABC is
Feel free to tell me which time the moderator stepped in was an overreach because it wasn’t a massive lie by trump. And to rococo’s point these checks were to a fraction of the whol
The candidates that hate the fact checkers the most are the lying pieces of **** like Trump.
It's pretty amazing that the only maga take on the debate is to complain that someone corrected their guy when he continues to spew lies.
I can't speak for the mega crowd, but from what I've heard (and what I have a problem with) is fact checking one candidate and not the other. I am in no way saying we shouldn't have fact checking - I am saying have it for both, but if you can't do that fairly then have it for neither.
My roommate when I was about 20 years old one time came home with a duck that he shot at the local park.
Don't be so modest, you certainly can.
but from what I've heard (and what I have a problem with) is fact checking one candidate and not the other. I am in no way saying we shouldn't have fact checking - I am saying have it for both, but if you can't do that fairly then have it for neither.
Ah, you want the fact checkers to say that both candidates are lying when in fact only one is lying, in the interests of "fairness". I see. Very on brand "logic" for you. After all, based on your performances here, it's pretty clear that you see lying as a legitimate debate tactic. Either that, or you think that "truth" is whatever is convenient to the propaganda du jour that you're pushing. I'm not even sure which.
\ I don't think any respected economist in the private sector would say any plan a repub has put out in the last 50 years could be worse than someone suggesting price controls, taxing unrealized cap gains, raising corporate taxes and raising taxes on the rich.
Trump's mass deportations plus mass tariffs is probably the worst plan ever from a major party candidate though.
I can't speak for the mega crowd, but from what I've heard (and what I have a problem with) is fact checking one candidate and not the other. I am in no way saying we shouldn't have fact checking - I am saying have it for both, but if you can't do that fairly then have it for neither.
Keep drinking the kool-aid.
sure, 'fact check' both sides.
on one side, you'll be exposing a lie and on the other side, you'll be reaffirming truth.
....let's see how that goes over with them
Trump's mass deportations plus mass tariffs is probably the worst plan ever from a major party candidate though.
I am no fan of tariffs, but if the goal of them is to say they are long-term, but in reality they are only on for a year and the goal is to get china to stop stealing intellectual property they seem ok.
I support trump's plan of deportations (depending on how he does it) only if we also have a goal to drastically increase legal immigration.
In saying that neither mass deportations or tariffs come close to being as bad as allowing the govt to dictate the price of goods and services, raising taxes on corporations and the rich, raising taxes on realized gains or taxing unrealized gains.
Ah, you want the fact checkers to say that both candidates are lying when in fact only one is lying, in the interests of "fairness". I see. Very on brand "logic" for you. After all, based on your performances here, it's pretty clear that you see lying as a legitimate debate tactic. Either that, or you think that "truth" is whatever is convenient to the propaganda du jour that you're pushing. I'm not even sure which.
They let plenty of Trump lies go by as well. But if you say people are killing babies and eating people's pets you sort of force their hand.
short sighted...need to let this play out another 10 hours until it goes full circle to "killing pets and eating babies..."
I am no fan of tariffs, but if the goal of them is to say they are long-term, but in reality they are only on for a year and the goal is to get china to stop stealing intellectual property they seem ok.
I support trump's plan of deportations (depending on how he does it) only if we also have a goal to drastically increase legal immigration.
In saying that neither mass deportations or tariffs come close to being as bad as allowing the govt t
If you're fine with massive price increases with no gain Trump's plan is okay. Trained economists do not think it is. Otherwise it is awful. And of course he's already been president and had an economic collapse on his watch due to incompetence.
Imagine a political party that is up in arms because someone called one of theirs on a (well, more than one) blatant lie. Hilary had it right.
One of the other weird debate moments was Trump's closing statement making no mention of anything he wanted to do. Which is maybe okay because he either has only a concept of a plan or he can't even say like on abortion.
I am no fan of tariffs, but if the goal of them is to say they are long-term, but in reality they are only on for a year and the goal is to get china to stop stealing intellectual property they seem ok.
I support trump's plan of deportations (depending on how he does it) only if we also have a goal to drastically increase legal immigration.
In saying that neither mass deportations or tariffs come close to being as bad as allowing the govt t
No idea why u think tariffs would be ok short term (while prices would go up) but being against prices control short term ( which would prevent prices going up) is not ok .
Especially with your “truthful” ideology of defending the common men …..
If you're fine with massive price increases with no gain Trump's plan is okay. Trained economists do not think it is. Otherwise it is awful. And of course he's already been president and had an economic collapse on his watch due to incompetence.
This is one kind of interesting part of the debate strategy in general. I get that as a general rule, you don't want to give oxygen to your perceived weakness. In this case, Trump is seen as being stronger on the economy. But if this is also the #1 concern of your audience, why not just tackle it? You could blow this farce out of the water without getting too data wonky.
Tariffs w/o domestic manufacturing increase is a disaster that will raise prices.
Taxes for billionaire class which blow massive holes in the deficit.
Massive trade deficits.
Stagnant GDP growth (didn't Trump promises 5%+?).
Stagnant real wage growth.
Loss of manufacturing jobs.
Record level subsidized farming.
And so on... him being great on the economy is complete BS.
Also, why not just say, Biden took over when the pandemic hit it's peak (March/June 2020). Maybe that had something to do w/ inflation? 😀
I get what the strategy was... it was maybe the safer play... but the knock-out blow imho was challenge him on this one lie they are running on, that he's supposed perceived strength.
I think he's just pathological and people that liked him for being a birther, being anti immigrant etc come up with ways to deal with it.
You said it, not me. I generally just say he appeals to racists, misogynists, and xenophobes by saying that he speaks people's language very effectively.
One of the other weird debate moments was Trump's closing statement making no mention of anything he wanted to do. Which is maybe okay because he either has only a concept of a plan or he can't even say like on abortion.
It was unconventional, but I think it might have worked because he's running more against the status quo than on his own record.
There's the "are you better off than you were ~4 years ago?" rhetoric that's very conventional, but Trump takes it further to "are you as well off as you think you should be, and if not, they're why" messaging. It works because the general sentiment is concern over the economy, inflation, and immigration.
I pointed out 5 or so lies she told during her debate and as I said earlier I've only watched the first half but so far they have fact checked her 0% of the time. I think it is debatable if he lied more than her.
To your example if you have candidate A lying 200 times and B only lied once I think you either fact check all 201 lies or 0. Anything else is unfair, IMO.
What if one candidate lied 10000 times and the other lied once? Or 100,000 times?
Deontology without thresholds are absurd, look at Kant defending giving up the location of an innocent person to a murderer because he thinks lying (even by omission) in any situation is unacceptable.
On top of the outright lies they both told there were obvious mis-truths that at least in some cases were just as bad as the lies. Example: kamala suggested economists think the US economy is better off under her plan than trump's and site some economists who are paid/funded by the US govt and considering their conflict of interest should not be considered. I don't think any respected economist in the private sector would say any plan a repub has put out in the last 50 years could be worse than someone suggesting price controls, taxing unrealized cap gains, raising corporate taxes and raising taxes on the rich.
You're lying about price controls for one, and yes absolutely the private sector economists will hate insane tariffs that will send our economy into a depression over some cringe tax policy.
I support trump's plan of deportations (depending on how he does it) only if we also have a goal to drastically increase legal immigration.
bahbah, where do you stand on the initial deportations NOT including illegals that have been gainfully employed for several years with sterling records? Pardon and allow emigration?
Funny Republican complaining about fact checking for obvious lies…
Is it fact checking if I say tomorrow it’s Christmas?
Are they really that dumb anyway to believe people eating cats will move the needle for non idiots voters ?
Is cat eating such a national interest for the voters ?
Was republicans expecting adding another constitutional amendment of preventing American eating cats ?
FWIW I wonder if instead of eating the cat that controversy would be as worst if they would have use it for sacrificial religious purpose ….
Save Garfield 2024 !
I saw the debate and thought Trump was doing very well in his aggressive takedowns of Harris. Like always, he was going to appeal to his MAGA base in a huge way.
I was surprised that Kamala didn't take on Trump on his immigration lies which he repeatedly said (foreign governments are emptying asylums and jails, crime is going up in the US as a result, crime is going down in South American and Central American countries, she is the "Border Czar", etc.)
Then I saw a poll that had the debate at 63% for Kamala and 37% for Trump and that looked almost exactly like his MAGA fans and hard core Republicans thought he won and just about everyone else thought he lost.
The complaint about ABC hosts fact checking is comical when Trump pretty much lied every time he spoke. Kamala said some things that were potentially untrue like Trump was given $400 million by his father, she supported fracking in 2020, Putin would be in Kiev if Trump was President (it is entirely possible that Putin wouldn't have attacked Ukraine if Trump was President). But I was a little shocked that the ABC hosts didn't do a lot more fact checking (I would have) on things like nobody was leaving his rallies (blatantly false), his rallies were bigger than anyone's ever (false), crime is going up in the US (absolutely the opposite has been happening for the last 6 months), his economy was the best ever (he inherited Obama's amazing 6 year stretch and his numbers graphed almost the same as Obama's and then Covid took everything he had done down), etc.
There was another poll that had 97% of people saying Kamala did better than Trump. So there is that.
Probably my absolute favorite thing about the debate was that after the debate it came out that Taylor Swift announced her support for Kamala holding a cat and referring to herself as a cat lady. Followed by listening to Walz on MSNBC. Turns out he is an amazingly touching speaker and I immediately got why she picked him. Anyone who hears him speak will be moved.
The polling numbers for Kamala have been not so good in the past 10 days leading up to and including yesterday's debate.
Per 538.com in most swing states Kamala's numbers stayed the same (within 0.2%) and Trump's numbers went up so basically undecideds/RFK Jr supporters started moving towards Trump
AZ: Trump now leads by 0.7% (Kamala no change, Trump +1%)
FL: Trump lead still 4.2% (Kamala +0.5%, Trump +0.5%) There were 2 recent polls that had Kamala trailing by 3% and 2% so not sure what could happen with Trump at 48.4%
GA: Trump now leads by 0.6% (Kamala -0.4%, Trump +0.6%)
MI: Kamala up 1.9% (Kamala no change, Trump +0.7%)
NC: Kamala now leads by 0.2%! (Kamala +0.6%, Trump no change) Only state Kamala gained ground. Possibly because of Republican Governor nominee who is off the charts crazy...
NH: Kamala up by 6.5% at 50.1% (Kamala -0.1%, Trump +0.6%) This is likely not a swing state anymore...
NV: Kamala up 0.2% (Kamala -0.2%, Trump +0.8%)
PA: Kamala up 0.6% (Kamala -0.1%, Trump +0.7%)
WI: Kamala up 2.6% (Kamala -0.2%, Trump +0.8%)
Nate Silver had Kamala's lead in VA rise by 1.3% to 6.8% due to 2 recent polls and she is now at 49.9% so VA is likely not a swing state at this point.
This all could be because of RFK Jr. dropping out and it isn't clear if it will continue or not.
It will be interesting to see if Taylor Swift's support for Kamala will be significant with regards to polling. Though it will be hard to know if Kamala gains ground whether its because of the debate or Swifties.
sure, 'fact check' both sides.
on one side, you'll be exposing a lie and on the other side, you'll be reaffirming truth.
....let's see how that goes over with them
was listening to npr where they were talking to a group which does fact checking and while trump obviously takes the cake, there were a good half dozen things kamala said which was not true as well
obviously one is an 11 outright making stuff up whereas kamala was just phrasing things to make them appear worse - so he's obviously much worse but without a doubt kamala told several lies herself
