Presidential Debates 2020

[SydneyBillsFan]

3 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

You think this is going well for Biden?

 

Should change his username to 'WaCkY tAbAcKy'

[The Frankish Reich]

6 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

So in your estimation is one obligated to endorse every statement made by his appointee whether he agrees with it or not?

No, but you ought to have an explanation for the disagreement.

Look, it's not that hard to do ... you just mentioned some local antifa chapters that do seem to have a clear organizational structure. So it's not hard to wait your turn and say:

"Director Wray stated that Antifa is not an organized national domestic terrorism group, but I receive many credible reports that local Antifia organizations have a clear command and control structure, and that they use that structure to terrorize our cities."

See ... it's easy. If you are reasonably intelligent.

[billsfan89]

34 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

He is Trump's FBI Director. He is in charge of investigating domestic terrorism. He was in charge of the DOJ Criminal Division, appointed by the Bush 43 administration. He was nominated by Trump.

Really ... this arguing with his own Administration is just ridiculous.

YOU can argue with the Trump Administration all you want; he can't, at least not without looking like a fool.

 

Random people on the internet know better than the FBI whose expertise and billions of dollars in resources are dedicated to studying this. 

[Rob's House]

29 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

No, but you ought to have an explanation for the disagreement.

Look, it's not that hard to do ... you just mentioned some local antifa chapters that do seem to have a clear organizational structure. So it's not hard to wait your turn and say:

"Director Wray stated that Antifa is not an organized national domestic terrorism group, but I receive many credible reports that local Antifia organizations have a clear command and control structure, and that they use that structure to terrorize our cities."

See ... it's easy. If you are reasonably intelligent.

 

So now your argument is not that he was incorrect, just that he didn't explain it in a way that you found satisfactory?

[Rob's House]

15 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

Random people on the internet know better than the FBI whose expertise and billions of dollars in resources are dedicated to studying this. 

 

If my FBI director tells me that the people rioting in the streets are just an idea I don't question it.

[The Frankish Reich]

15 minutes ago, Rob's House said:

 

So now your argument is not that he was incorrect, just that he didn't explain it in a way that you found satisfactory?

I am suggesting that while maybe you are convinced by this form of argument: "I appointed this person to be my expert on [domestic terrorism/vaccine development] but I do not agree with his opinion."

 

Most people are not convinced by this. It is a very weak form of argument. (And it sometimes gets worse: "I have a very good brain," etc., etc.) Most people require some explanation. And that explanation usually involves something like: "He was right about [blank], but he wasn't asked about [blank]." Or "he was right at the time, but I recently consulted with [some other expert, pharma leaders, etc.] and I am confident we can have a vaccine significantly earlier."

 

[BillsToast]

I support Trump over Biden for political reasons. Nevertheless...

 

Trump did horrible tonight communicating his ideas tonight. He was too amped to make his points and not listen to Wallace's questions and Wallace planned for this in advance with his questions. 

 

Take Charlottesville for example. Trump already said he condemned white nationalists, yet Wallace allowed the lie and laid it up as a lie for Biden to hit. Biden ran with it. Trump was so amped up to debate he started from Biden's last point first and tried to work backwards. He couldn't. 

 

So Wallace does it to Trump directly, and Wallace knows the whole quote but he realized from other debates Trump usually is on the attack of what the last point was said, not his question, so he asks for a condemnation and he continues attacking Biden. 

 

Wallace knows he condemned white nationalists and Trump couldn't grasp what Wallace asked. 

 

When Trump asks him what to condemn he, in a confused way just say "well yeah, Proud boys..." in a confused manner. 

 

The left like BillSlime will just use this as a smear, or a lie, knowing he already condemned it, but he doesn't care. Win at all costs, even lying.

 

Trump really could have focused on jobs before Covid, the fact the jobs are lost most by left governors, that Biden has said many racist things, but he wasn't explaining himself only trying to attack Biden.

 

Wallace was an absolute douche though. Racial Sensitivity isn't what's being taught, it's white man bad theology by the new saints and Inquisition. Trump really botched a chance to explain how evil it is but instead he appealed to Wallace and the crowd as "you know how bad it is" without explaining how or why. Why not just say it's a leftist smear of racism against whites as all racists just for being white. 

 

Biden lied more, but communicated better to the public. Green New Deal? He owns it. 

 

I think Trump won the crowd about the police and then challenging Joe to name one police force who supports him. That played to his base and really hurt Joe.

Edited September 30, 2020 by BillsToast

[TtownBillsFan]

4 hours ago, Albwan said:

They gotta do everything they can to push the old man over the finish line before they toss him off a cliff

I told my wife as we were watching, so typical, 2v1, Trump versus a stacked deck.  I hope we get one Trump-friendly moderator to off-set this, and then one, TRULY neutral moderator.  Why they can't have THREE-NEUTRAL moderators (or one each for each debate), I DON"T KNOW.  It shouldn't be slanted like it is.  But thinking Wallace is anything but a talking-head that pretends to be a journalist, a 'fair' person, is fooling yourself.  You don't need to watch more than a day of his coverage to see where he leans.

 

Hell, give any random person a chance at it, or remove the single-moderator platform, and let people line up to ask them questions;  Anything would be better than this slanted moderation we get.  And it's NEVER FOR the right.  It's ALWAYS SLANTED to help the left.  Every single freaking time.  The fact that the "Right" ever wins is a testament that the nation is NOT the left (thank the Lord!), and swings back and forth wildly.

[TtownBillsFan]

4 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I had high hopes for Wallace. He might be a Democrat, but I thought he could be fair.  I lost count of how many times he saved Biden as Biden started to falter.  In the end, Wallace ended up debating Trump.
 

Honestly, I did too.  He claims he's a true Journalist, and a-political.  He showed his stripes tonight, and, I guess it didn't surprise me.  But I really thought he had an opportunity to make a name for himself as a journalist, and not take sides.  I don't even think he realized he did it.  But the way he scolded one for talking over, and interrupted, and the way he addressed both, just the way he moderated;  I think he likely showed his political stripes more than he wanted to.  I bet he watches this back, and cringes, as he lost the 'moderate/moderator/journalist' tag for good.

 

 

[TtownBillsFan]

4 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

I think another big misstep was Trump saying you just lost the far left. That seems to me to speak more to the moderate undecided voters that could be concerned Biden is too left.

 

Far left is locked in to vote Trump out, so it's not like he's taking votes away from Biden.

TOTALLY disagree with this part.  Trump made the point that he just lost the far left by saying Biden fumbled through an answer about that.  It was more pointing out that the left is off the rails.  The fact that Biden is even IN that party, I think, brings to focus that, if you even THOUGHT of voting for this guy, those are the things his party is going for right now.  Because he couldn't say he favored it, in a debate, and be in favor of it, look at the puppet:  if you put him in, THOSE are the things that are going to be initiated in his name.

4 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Biden called Trump:

1) Liar
2) Racist
3) Clown
4) What was the fourth?
 

 

Probably not a personal attack, other than he said "shut up".  Just my guess as to their count.

[TtownBillsFan]

4 hours ago, GETTOTHE50 said:

1) He mentioned increasing pharmaceutical competition by allowing lower priced foreign drugs to be sold in the country. 
 

2) He also took away the individual mandate from ObamaCare.
 

3) He also mentioned how he believes pre-existing conditions should still be covered. 

 

 

And I'm sorry, but the same way that my car can't be covered after being in an accident, or my roof can't be covered after being in a tornado, I'll say it where others can't, IF IT'S INSURANCE, you CANNOT INCLUDE PRE-EXISTING conditions.  THIS coming from a colon-cancer patient/survivor/whatever you call people these days.  It's just NOT fair to EVERYONE ELSE that gets on insurance before or after.  It's called insurance, because you're paying to insure against it not happening/or in case it does.  It's NOT "insurance" if you can buy in after it happened!

4 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Huh, interesting... this is on Biden's website.

 

Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected.

He said tonight he does not support the Green New Deal, he supports the Biden Plan. So, is that just the Green New Deal in Biden-speak?

UGH, and read the first two sentences of his 'quote' on the website.  Is there not a bigger jumbly-gobblity-***** of words?  The words mean nothing at all!  Good grief, it hurts my head to read nonsense-words and phrases like that!  I'm mean, FFS, "the US urgently needs to embrace greater ambition", that already made my head hurt, the rest is definitely no better!

[TtownBillsFan]

4 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

He’s been under audit since 2010, which was one of the biggest takeaways from the NYT article.

 

Another of the biggest takeaways was that Trump made large tax payments based on estimates which were later to be partially refunded due to overpayment. He elected to let the Treasury keep that money in prepayment of future tax bills due. The $750 due in 2017 reflects his tax bill, not his tax liability, most of which he had already paid in prior years.

Oh boy, you're asking general morons to understand how paying taxes work, if they don't get a refund because their employer over-held for them.  Don't expect good response from this post.  But yes;  people that care about their money know it's better to owe 'at-the-end-of-the-year', meaning you didn't over-pay, giving the government an intrest-free-loan.

[transplantbillsfan]

3 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

I told you.  He just wants the base fired up.  He did that.  

 

And its 47% and that will be enough again.  Unless they get enough fake ballots.   

 

I just want to emphasize the amazingness of this post.

 

This is just how desperate Trump is. And it's just how blind the Trump cult is.

 

It's a statement that tacitly acknowledges that Trump can't win the popular vote while simultaneously believing Trump can't lose the election unless it's "rigged."

 

Just incredible.

[TtownBillsFan]

4 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

And that may be the case. Look, if he's under audit he (his attorneys and accountants) have no doubt already presented their theories of tax liability. There's no reason not to release the taxes with those explanations. Is it Trump being stubborn, or still hoping to hide something (probably the follow-up questions)? All I know is right now this strategy is unlikely to help him.

It's likely that he's not quite the Billionaire that he's been made out to be.  I don't hear TRUMP out there saying he's a Billionaire;  but I don't hear him correcting many, either.  Likely, he's not nearly-close to the Billion on paper, but he doesn't want to correct any of the financial rags that say so, for many number of reasons.  None of which are in any way illegal, nor even shady.  If you think I smell like roses, and I don't always, who am I to correct you

 

Just my guess.

[transplantbillsfan]

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The Mueller investigation already had full access to them.

 

Access perhaps but didn't investigate for fear of being fired.

 

Weissman himself has come out and complained they weren't allowed the path to investigate this.

[TtownBillsFan]

4 hours ago, dgrochester55 said:

I feel like Biden had nothing to say and was classless in his own way(telling Trump to shut up, calling him names four times), but Trump blew it by being too aggressive.    It was the football equivalent of running an exotic scheme with heavy blitzing against a team with Nathan Peterman or Ryan Leaf as quarterback.    Sometimes it is better just to dial it down and let the other side get the turnovers.

I do kinda get what you're saying here.  I heard myself yell at Trump to shut up and let Joe hang himself a couple times.  But when you're fighting two-vs-one, sometimes you have to fight harder.  I really do hope they figure out a couple fair debates for the two remaining (and that'd be one held by someone like O'Reilly (to be  the right-side of the 'fair' side), and then someone completely a-political, likely maybe one of the South Park guys, to host the third.

[Hedge]

Maybe nothing. Maybe.

 

[TtownBillsFan]

4 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

Don't forget Trump dropped Pocahontas in there as well among some others. It's not like Trump didn't use any of his Twitter name calling.

I wish Trump would say it right, it's FAUXahontas.  He keeps mispronouncing that one.  I do wish he'd get that one right.  But that wasn't anything about Biden.

[TtownBillsFan]

4 hours ago, Taro T said:

Disappointed in Chris Wallace, though it was not unexpected.

 

Thought 45 had 3 bad moments.  Chris Wallace framed CRT as "racial sensitivity" & 45 said he was opposed to it because it was un-American (& it is), but he needed to point out that CRT goes WAY beyond sensitivity training & it is racist indoctrination.

 

Also, thought saying he condemns the KKK would've been a slam dunk easy thing to say as he's done that many times in the past.

 

And, he came across as angry on the question about mail in voting & waiting for an outcome.  It was another item that IMHO he is on the right side of the issue but his inability to articulate a complex thought bit him on that one.

 

Had Biden been fact checked / stopped short by the moderator more than just partially on the GND issue, expect he would've puked over himself.  But he never did that.  

 

Don't believe either guy won, but 45 probably had a bit of a loss.  Doesn't seem to be the board concensus; oh well.

Agree completely on all points you made.  Trump could have interrupted to say he doesn't support KKK (he doesn't, and that's a really bad lie that we all know the context), the voting by mail issue is an easy one, that he was trying to explain, but was interrupted in the middle of (we're not against mail-in, but against un-requested), and the GND thing, I honestly don't remember what that was.  But the other two were just so UCK, if any fair moderator would have been employed, they could have really brought out the points of those issues, as none of us are in favor of KKK (or any race for or against another), and the voting thing is easy to understand, if you understand requested ballot versus mass-mailing.

 

[TtownBillsFan]

4 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

That's Biden's only base and they were voting anyway.  Probably already have.  It doesn't matter.  

Probably three times by now!