Topic: Line of the day
boof started this discussion 1 year ago #120,984
"The rules were you guys weren't going to fact check"
RisingThumb !8QC2aOJrlQ joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 10 hours later[^] [v] #1,323,429
The risk is low, why not make stuff up? We're all cancelled already anyway.
boof (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 12 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,323,447
hmmmm
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,323,465
If they agreed to let the VP candidates speak without interjecting to give their own ideas, then there is a problem. They lied to the candidates and then surprised them with a new part of the debate.
A lot of fact checking implicitly uses a strawman, there are differing sources that give different data, and unresolved issues that are not established yet. If they wanted the moderators to be speaking up throughout the debate to give their self-declared objective evaluation then they should have been honest with both participants.
A lot of fact checking implicitly uses a strawman, there are differing sources that give different data, and unresolved issues that are not established yet. If they wanted the moderators to be speaking up throughout the debate to give their self-declared objective evaluation then they should have been honest with both participants.
boof (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,323,466
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,323,473
@previous (boof)
A liar would tell someone the rules of a debate, and then surprise them with completely different rules in the middle of the debate.
A liar would tell someone the rules of a debate, and then surprise them with completely different rules in the middle of the debate.
boof (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 37 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,323,475
@previous (C)
I have no sympathy for a liar feeling like someone was unfairly treating him, with what could be called also lying
I have no sympathy for a liar feeling like someone was unfairly treating him, with what could be called also lying
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,323,477
@previous (boof)
You're siding with liars right now. They said the rules would be one way, and then broke those rules to influence the debate. That makes them liars.
If they were honest about the rules, then maybe Vance would have a chance to clarify where he got his information, and refute the information they gave supposedly debunking him.
Right after "fact checking" him he tried to respond and they cut him off. Why do that if they are correct, unless they are worried that he can give a reasonable response? It's lying about the rules, and then refusing to let him respond that both show the bias.
You're siding with liars right now. They said the rules would be one way, and then broke those rules to influence the debate. That makes them liars.
If they were honest about the rules, then maybe Vance would have a chance to clarify where he got his information, and refute the information they gave supposedly debunking him.
Right after "fact checking" him he tried to respond and they cut him off. Why do that if they are correct, unless they are worried that he can give a reasonable response? It's lying about the rules, and then refusing to let him respond that both show the bias.
Dana joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,323,478
@previous (C)
Perhaps the greater principle was that his lies about the Haitians are causing death threats, not only to the Haitians, but to the entire town and government structure of Springfield, Ohio. Some things are more important than technical rules.
Perhaps the greater principle was that his lies about the Haitians are causing death threats, not only to the Haitians, but to the entire town and government structure of Springfield, Ohio. Some things are more important than technical rules.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 24 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,323,482
@previous (Dana)
Delegitimizing the debate causes problems with the democratic system.
When the moderators take a stance, and break their own rules it makes them look biased. The way the system is supposed to work is that his opponent, Waltz, is supposed to respond and debunk him.
Why can't Waltz do it? Why are the moderators dropping their impartiality to do Waltz's job for him? That makes it look like he is incapable, and gives fuel the next time Trump wants to paint the media as one-sided.
Delegitimizing the debate causes problems with the democratic system.
When the moderators take a stance, and break their own rules it makes them look biased. The way the system is supposed to work is that his opponent, Waltz, is supposed to respond and debunk him.
Why can't Waltz do it? Why are the moderators dropping their impartiality to do Waltz's job for him? That makes it look like he is incapable, and gives fuel the next time Trump wants to paint the media as one-sided.
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,323,497
The heartland will see the moderators breaking their own rules and know what agenda the media is pushing, as always.Millionaire TV stars who filled in the role of priests and dictate the truth to their followers do not want a society that works for everyone. They want uncontrolled immigration to push down labor costs and push up housing prices.
If Americans are allowed to question the merits of immigration the elites risk losing the ponzi scheme that enriches them.
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
