Let the debate begin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frugal-one

IMO.... the majority of questions answered by Vance were related to immigration. EVERYTHING, according to him, is because of the immigration problem.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by catherine

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.

---

I haven’t watched it actually. I probably will.

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frugal-one

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.

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?

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 jp1

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.’

---

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 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?

---

Tell me what consequences you want to see when people lie.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

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.

---

Thanks for your random whatever. I won’t even pretend to understand.