I do like the fact checks. The NYT usually does a pretty good bipartisan job of that. I think I'd only do the QR thing if I really doubted the veracity of a claim on either side.
Printable View
I do like the fact checks. The NYT usually does a pretty good bipartisan job of that. I think I'd only do the QR thing if I really doubted the veracity of a claim on either side.
I just ran across an old article that said there were 5 U.S. bomb threats a day in the 1970’s.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tradd
Five bomb threats a day - in the whole country? In this instance, we're talking at least 5 a day in ONE CITY. And a fairly small city, at that. Not sure what you're saying, really - that the bomb threats Springfield Ohio had to deal with weren't over the top? Just looking for clarification here....
Five bomb threat a day and one small city is a lot, you are rightQuote:
Originally Posted by early morning
I have absolutely no idea how many there were in the 1970's but I do recall a stretch of the spring in ninth grade when we had 1-2 a week.
I managed to watch the whole thing. Vance is a slick talker and probably made a good impression based on that. I think his sort of friendly behavior was orchestrated to contrast with Trump and prove the GOP is human. He did it well, but was probably an act to some degree. The fact checkers I've seen give Vance more demerits that Waltz, but he did not go off the rails like Trump tends to do. Many of his arguments circled back to immigration as the root cause of all evil.
Waltz did adequately, but was probably outdone by Vance by what I'd guess as public perception. It's easy to look good in a debate if the truth isn't too important. The critical point for me was he pinned Vance down to climate change denial and the big election lie. He could have done better, but adequate.
They are saying the debate doesn't really matter in terms of votes, but maybe just a small amount can make a difference. With Trump's age it's not too much of a stretch to imagine Vance as a GOP leader.
My take.
I watched the whole thing, too. Right away, I saw that Waltz was not comfortable up there, at least for the first couple of questions. He looked nervous, and he frequently paused momentarily as if he were searching for the right word.. OTOH, Vance was the debate club king. He was very polished in terms of delivery.
However, Walz got increasing comfortable, but still did less well than Vance in terms of debate "points"--Pundits are saying that he really came into his own with the direct question: Do you think Trump lost the 2020 election? and when Vance danced around it, Waltz said, "Well, that's a damning non-answer." If he had started the debate with that posture, I think the debate performance between the two would have been much more even, or Walz could have won it, given the number of lies and mischaracterizations Vance was spewing.
That's my take.
On a related note, while I was watching, I recalled that both of these men are "one heartbeat away" from being President (depending upon who wins, of course). I'm not sure I'm totally comfortable with either one being President--neither has enough experience or authority. But I imagine J.D. Vance is more vulnerable to actually being in that position than Walz is.
I did not watch these debates, any of them, but for the bits highly publicized after the fact. I expected both of these guys to do well .
My general impression about Vance is that he would be an OK candidate if he were not under the mantle of Trump. I don’t know how much of his ridiculous utterings (as represented by headline news) is really Vance or just a VP candidate being attack Dog, or—-headline news. I think that’s their job, the VPs. The thing is, with Trump in the lead role, no one needs an attack dog.
I think I would like a Vance/DeSantis ticket Very much.
Dave Ramsey has an interview out with President Trump. Dave was adamant they would not sling mud at the other candidates as he wants to talk about policy issues especially the economy. So I will probably listen to that. Ramsey has not interviewed Kamala Harris because the Harris campaign has ot agreed to an interview.
Can you clarify, confused here:Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
Do you mean Dave would not sling mud or Donald Trump would not sling mud? Did you mean Ramsey has not interviewed KH because the Harris campaign has not agreed?
Not five bomb threats. Five actual bombings.Quote:
Originally Posted by early morning
https://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/
It’s one reason I have trouble taking all those “most divisive times ever” claims seriously. I just compare the bombers of the seventies with the internet trolls of the 2020s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tybee
you are right, the Harris campaign has NOT agreed to an interview. I fixed my post.
Dave does not want Trump slinging on at the other side. That is something I’m going to look for in this interview, how will Dave Ramsey stop that from happening?
I heard the VP debate described as “shockingly polite and substantive”.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
Absolutely. How many times did I hear "I actually agree with Senator Vance, but.." and "I think Tim and I share common ground here but.." They pledged support for each other when personal experiences come up, and they shook hands with congenial taps on the shoulders and elbows.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
It was shockingly respectful, and from a policy perspective, yes, much, much more substantive than theh presidential debate in the past. Some called it "boring" for that reason, but I'll take boring after being incredibly anxious throughout most of the other debates I've seen lately.
I see Trump has pulled out of an interview with 60 minutes and has turned down another debate. It might be best for him to keep a low profile.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
I'd be interested in hearing how Trump will reduce the national debt. It wasn't exactly his strong point last time around.
IMO.... the majority of questions answered by Vance were related to immigration. EVERYTHING, according to him, is because of the immigration problem. When asked if trump lost the election his comment was to look to the future. Would not answer the question. Hasn't he only been a senator for 2 years? His lack of experience would definitely be a major problem if the aged trump is dead or more infirmed.
I was worried about Walz but think he did better than expected. He, at least, tried to answer the questions.
Barak Obama was a U.S. senator for only 3 years before he became President.Does one more year make all the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Barack Obama was 47 years old when he assumed office, 7 years older than Vance is now. Plus he had more political experience in general--he worked within the system of community organizing and state legislature since he left law school. He think he had more political maturity than Vance.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
I can't believe Dave Ramsey is interviewing Trump! What platform? I'd actually watch that.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UD0ZOogTW5wQuote:
Originally Posted by catherine
is playing on Ramsey channels wherever you get the Ramsey show. I watch it on YouTube, I also listen on Spotify
I watched it.. I almost turned it off when he started talking "drill, baby, drill" but I was committed to watching it with an open mind.. I don't know why, frankly.. I knew Dave would be a big fan. He's very conservative, and very Republican, so the tenor was as if he had invited the minister to lunch. Very friendly, and less than half of the the time devoted to policy. The rest was general friendly conversation about golf courses (Trump's course in Scotland) and the evils of drugs, alcohol and cigarettes. I know you know what it was about, IL. I providing a synopsis for others.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
I thought so, too. 60 minutes had a feature on the Fentanyl crisis a couple of weeks ago. The border authorities they interviewed said that 90 percent of the Fentanyl entering the US from Mexico comes through regular legal busy ports of entry. Sort of makes sense since so many vehicles come through the busy ports and they can't check everything. And that two thirds of border crossing arrests are Americans paid by the cartels. No doubt there is other drug smuggling and probably mules swimming the Rio Grande, but until the main cause of the problem is correctly identified it's less likely to be solved. I could add drug smuggling illegal aliens to the list of major GOP deceptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
https://www.cbs.com/shows/video/8gTV..._4cFhfkCQSZ3N/
It’s not surprising that he circled everything back to immigration. Trump has long thought immigration was his path to winning the election. That’s why he’s vetoed the bipartisan immigration bill.
The interesting thing I learned from this debate is that for Magas it’s some sort of alpha move to be a whiny bitch. I thought it was a major cuck move when Vance whined about being called a liar by the female moderator but apparently in Maga world that’s viewed as an alpha move for some reason.
I haven’t watched it actually. I probably will.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
Your take? At the end of the debate, Vance was criticizing Democrats (according to him) for wanting to pass laws against misinformation saying this was curtailing freedom of speech. Vance admitted his words about Haitians eating cats and dogs was untrue and a way to get attention and look what a problem that caused Springfield!
Yes frugal-one, that may be my number one complaint about Democrats “wanting to pass laws against misinformation “in several actions with big tech, and then their aborted and ridiculous Ministry of Misinformation or whatever it was called. These attempts to tamp free speech are chilling.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
You didn’t really answer what I was asking IL. Should people who knowingly tell lies that cause unbearable pain or malaise get away with it? Should there be some way to curb these unscrupulous types? Is this really the voice of free speech or perversion?
Judging from Vance’s indignation at being called out during the debate as a liar it seems that republicans do in fact consider free speech to mean ‘free from the blowback that arises when one is a liar liar whose pants are on fire.’Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
I think that context and nuance are important to anyone wishing to correctly assess "facts". When you're not allowed to discuss that nuance, there's probably a reason and quite often it's to prevent people from understanding. Lack of free speech is the perfect way to protect a preferred narrative and I think that's what you saw during the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Tell me what consequences you want to see when people lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one
Rachel Maddow lied about Covid issues. Anthony Fauci lied about Covid issues. Their audiences were huge and no doubt caused at least some people “pain.” What should be, in your justice system, their punishment? Joe Biden lied when he was running for a 2nd term because he had said he would stay only 4 years.
I do not think either Rachel or Tony Fauci or President Joe should experience the heavy hand of law, they get enough pushback in the public square.
Thanks for your random whatever. I won’t even pretend to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
IL …Did you fact check all the “lies”? By your own admission you do not watch the new so wonder where you get your information? BTW I don’t have an answer to the question I posed earlier other than those who intentionally lie to cause problems should be vilified (ie saying Haitians are eating pets). To me, this is not free speech …
Is it a lie when you say or espouse something you believe to be true at the time, but turns out wrong, compared to knowing something isn't true and being intentionally deceptive? Are they both lies.Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
In a away we are a nation of deceivers, or at least I can get that impression after watching network TV ads.
I think the VP debate is a good example of how difficult regulating “the truth” can be. Margaret Brennan inserts herself into the debate by attacking Vance’s characterization of Haitian immigrants, Vance responds by pointing out that “temporary protected status” is a fig leaf category used to launder immigration statistics. Brennan makes a sneering comment and shuts off his microphone. The Washington Post editorial board calls her behavior ridiculous. Is there anyone completely right or wrong here?
For myself, I think we’d do more harm than good trying to create institutions to certify and enforce “truth” for the masses. What panel of epistocratic experts could we trust for that purpose? The people who told us Joe Biden was in great mental shape? Who said Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian trickery? The people who claimed the election was stolen?
Whose credentials would you trust to man the ramparts against lies, damned lies and biased fact-checking? None that I can think of. My hope is that any attempt to create government approved truth meets with the derision it deserves.
Exactly! about determining Truth with a capital T.Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
And I didn’t even know about the widespread immigration system use of “temporary protected status” until this debate.
Maybe TPS can be used responsibly, maybe it *Is* often used responsibly. But again, maybe not depending on the situation and it puts a new meaning on “legal” immigration.
Which circles back to my thought last week that maybe “legal” immigration isn't the answer if our government can easily flip a switch to redefine “legal.” This ties to the riots in the UK about immigration…governments are not limiting immigration in ways citizens wish they would.
I watched this Ramsey interview yesterday. It did not instill confidence in me in any way. MAYBE the only Trump bit I liked was his plan to lower business tax on those who manufacture their product in the U.S.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
Quote:
Originally Posted by iris lilies
I guess I should have said earlier that I don’t believe Fauci lied about covid issues because there was not a manual explaining what to expect or know. Fauci gave what he thought was sound advice and then science proved in some cases to be wrong. That is not lying IMO. He did not knowingly go out of his way to purposely cause pain or malaise. Nor do I feel Biden lied when he decided to run for a second term. He changed his mind after seeing the threat trump posed. We all have had times when we changed our mind because a situation has changed. And, I have no idea what you are referring to regarding Rachel?
Vance said he gave an alternative truth (ie lie) when he stated Haitians were eating pets. He is a liar. He shows his credentials are not worthy of consideration! trump has been shown to have committed over 30,000 proven lies. Neither can ever be trusted. Based on their previous history, everything out of their mouths needs to be scrutinized and fact checked IMO. It shows what the republican party has become by endorsing these two to be their representatives?Quote:
Originally Posted by LDAHL
The Haitian immigrants are here LEGALLY. there is no other way to describe them. You can argue about whether the way they came here was appropriate but you CAN NOT say they came here illegally. **** Vance and the ugly horse he rode in on. Side note you also can’t make up BS about them eating pets if they aren’t eating pets. That's just weird. But weird tracks for a loser like jd Vance.
+ 10,000. RobQuote:
Originally Posted by jp1
It's clear to me going forward that the GOP wishes to position itself as the enemy of the people it deems less than worthy of existence. Austria in 1938 much? RobQuote:
Originally Posted by frugal-one