The Debates - who won?

[Pat Hartman]

Ignore works for me too.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Why block, it's free entertainment

 

[Isaac]

Why block, it's free entertainment

It's a bitter, jealous Brit mocking Americans - no thanks, I can do without quite happily

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Isaac, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but Col is mostly harmless. Sort of like the evaluation of the Earth in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I do have to admit, though, that I don't know where his poetry falls when compared to Vogon poetry.

 

[Isaac]

Not to my view, but I agree to disagree, but that's easy with you - since you are not someone who constantly insults and mocks the cultures of those he is speaking with. You have something called Class (going beyond even basic respect).

 

[The_Doc_Man]

TYVM, Isaac. I try to set an example. I think you know about the person I have primarily tried to guide towards class improvement, but so far - no luck.

 

[Steve R.]

Last night we had the vice-Presidential debate. My initial reaction was that it was a draw. On reflection, it became obvious that Pence won the debate. My initial reaction to the debate had been "neutral" since Pence had not effectively refuted the false Democratic fiction that the Trump administration failed to control the virus and tanked the economy. Unpacking the Democratic fiction contains a lot of nuances, which (for now) I will be skipping.

My big disappointment. The debate moderators, in this case Susan Page, are blatantly pro-Democratic Party despite the alleged claim of being non-partisan. Susan Page (like Chris Wallace) never pressed Harris (Biden) on actually articulating what their policies would be or clarifying inconsistencies. This is exactly what the moderators should be eliciting from the candidates. It took a while, but I started to see on Fox News a scattering of commentators finally bringing this issue up, one of them being Ted Cruz (which provided me some validation for my perception). Should the next debate occur, will we once again be faced with a moderator demanding "answers" for adversarial no-win questions from the Republicans while Democrats get positive soft-ball questions with little if any follow-up?

 

[Isaac]

It was interesting. I think it met my expectations fairly accurately. Pence more or less did his best. I wish he would have showed a little more emotion. His demeanor is SO disciplined, polite and professional, it almost could use a bit more emotion, to achieve maximum appeal.

Which brings me to Harris's demeanor. At the risk of sounding like Britney Spears: OH.MY.GOD. The facial gyrations! Smirking, laughing, shaking, scowling, and other expressions that can't really be adequately described (or as Karl Rove simply put, "all the smirking, scowling & funny faces") did NOT do her any favors. They were incredibly unprofessional, inappropriate, condescending, and plain annoying. Between her repeated failure to answer the supreme court packing question and her general theatrics, I think those were her 2 most damaging aspects. I'm not referring to her overall wobbling/bobbling/bouncing way, that's perhaps just 'her', but the facial theatrics were totally within the realm of something you either choose to do or not do, and it was a poor choice. Benefit of the doubt...She may not have realized that many networks were airing them almost continually on a split screen, close up. But this experience might leave people wondering if her emotions escape too much restraint.

It was one thing to avoid answering the S.C. packing question - that's nothing new, and Republicans avoid questions too. However: actually responding to the question by "Hold on, Well if you'd let me talk, I'm trying to get to that"--and then totally NOT answering it--more than once, just looked ridiculous. It is one thing to tell someone "If you'd let me talk I'd answer you", it's quite another to say that--twice--and then actually not give the answer. Pence also avoided questions, but in a much less palpable way. I'm not on a moral highground with this one--every politician must provide careful answers that often avoid direct answers if it seems best at the time--but making it sound like Pence just wouldn't let her answer the question [queue indignant huffing and puffing as if she's trying to say Yes or No], and then still not answering it, was to the point of silly.

Part of what makes her theatrical side damaging to her is that in many cases it seemed non-sensical. For example, Pence is talking about how the Green New Deal is on their website, and Harris is shaking her head incredulously and mouthing "that's not true", on something that you'd be a fool to deny, as we can all clearly see it on the website. Same deal on things she has said on video/tape. She should have reserved this behavior only for Pence assertions that truly ARE subjective--or at least aren't physically available as proof right in front of us. Shaking your head "that's not true" in response to this screenshot makes you look very confused:

I give them both credit for providing us a much more watchable debate than the last one! And I give Trump a huge thumbs down for what he did during that one.

One other thing I hope voters remember is her extreme condescension. While it's never a good idea to make voters feel they are stupid (and yes, I know Republicans have their share of violations here!), one thing that I will never forget is, (paraphrased to the best of my memory):

....He has 400 million dollars in DEBT! And you at home watching, just so you know. "Debt" means when you owe somebody MONEY

Thank you, Kamala, for that explanation. It took someone whose identity is centered in how smart an Attorney General must be to school us, there!

 

[AccessBlaster]

Kamala and the moderator not telling VP Pence about the fly, tells you everything you need to know about this bunch.

 

[Steve R.]

A problem with the debate structure, is that Harris can spew out alleged "truths" such as (paraphrased) "Trump only paid $750 in taxes" or that he was $400 million in debt; is that they are taken out-context to smear Trump. Whether the payment of $750 in taxes is true or not, it misses the consideration of Trump, as a business person, offsetting expenses against income and using the tax code to his advantage. Trump, as a matter of fact even stated once that he was abiding by the tax code as established by the Obama administration. So an outrageous counter claim can be made that it was the Obama adminstration that made it possible for rich people to avoid paying taxes.

As for being in "debt" to the tune of $400 million, does that mean that your debt exceeds your assets by that much or does it simply represent the amount of a loan backed by a hypothetically extravagant asset base of $4 trillion dollars making the "debt" inconsequentially? Unfortunately, we will never see the moderators and/or "left wing" media fact checking these derogatory claims by Harris or any other Democrat. The electorate will be left with a misleading false impression of the Republicans.

 

[Isaac]

Kamala and the moderator not telling VP Pence about the fly, tells you everything you need to know about this bunch.

Fair point. On a humorous note, I calculate that the fact he genuinely didn't seem to notice it also tells you something about the amount of hairspray or whatever he must have had. (Remember Talladega Nights? How's my hair? "Strong"!

 

[Steve R.]

Kamala and the moderator not telling VP Pence about the fly, tells you everything you need to know about this bunch.

Fair point. On a humorous note, I calculate that the fact he genuinely didn't seem to notice it also tells you something about the amount of hairspray or whatever he must have had. (Remember Talladega Nights? How's my hair? "Strong"!

Recall in the "5th Element" that a cockroach was used for spying. Was the fly a Democratic operative?

 

[Isaac]

A problem with the debate structure, is that Harris can spew out alleged "truths" such as (paraphrased) "Trump only paid $750 in taxes" or that he was $400 million in debt; is that they are taken out-context to smear Trump. Whether the payment of $750 in taxes is true or not, it misses the consideration of Trump, as a business person, offsetting expenses against income and using the tax code to his advantage. Trump, as a matter of fact even stated once that he was abiding by the tax code as established by the Obama administration. So an outrageous counter claim can be made that it was the Obama adminstration that made it possible for rich people to avoid paying taxes.

As for being in "debt" to the tune of $400 million, does that mean that your debt exceeds your assets by that much or does it simply represent the amount of a loan backed by a hypothetically extravagant asset base of $4 trillion dollars making the "debt" inconsequentially? Unfortunately, we will never see the moderators and/or "left wing" media fact checking these derogatory claims by Harris or any other Democrat. The electorate will be left with a misleading false impression of the Republicans.

Yep.
In my opinion, the whole thing stops at the words "anonymous sources". I just pay zero attention, it's worthless even as a hypothesis.
I don't usually say this, but anyone who puts any stock in what an opposite-political-party-media outlet comes up with against any political candidate, throwing anything they want on the publishing printer with the citation "anonymous sources" at the end, is a moron.

 

[Steve R.]

Have to toss this in, since I overlooked this earlier. One of the perpetual questions that debate moderators continuously ask, concerns the transition to a Biden administration should Trump lose. This perpetually running question (like the White supremacy denunciation demand, and Charlottesville) demonstrates that the supposed moderators appear more interested in making the Republican candidates look "bad" than they are in asking legitimate questions concerning proposed Republican policies. Pence gave an outstanding response, that the Democrats impeded the transfer of of power in 2016 to the Trump administration and continue to actively obstruct the Trump administration.

That actually brings me to a very recent NBC scandal. Evidently, on one town hall meeting a set of Biden supporters were present. On a second town hall meeting some of these very same people were presented as undecided voters. On its face, that is corrupt; but I had a deeper question. How is it that the very same people appear on two different shows? Seems that NBC is not making a valid attempt at randomly selecting members of the public to obtain a spectrum of viewpoints.

 

[AccessBlaster]

This is the logic you have to deal with. As though Kamala wasn't capable of debating because she is a women and a person of color. How demeaning and disrespectful of the left.

 

[Isaac]

A very silly quote from Mark Ruffalo in the first place, considering
1) Mike Pence did not 'constantly interrupt and speak over' Kamala. He may have interrupted her a couple times--in 90 minutes. Mostly, he just went "over" his time a few times
2) Kamala spent the entire time-100%-making facial gyrations, smirks, shaking, scowls, laughs, silently mouthing things to the camera, just making a complete circus of it, while Pence was, almost the entire time, projecting a reserved, neutral, quiet, still demeanor.

Kamala's disrespectful behavior towards Pence was a thousands times more than anything Pence might have done to her

That quote is awesome. It should live in infamy as the perfect example of the verbal idiocy that results from those individuals who are determined to find racism everywhere. What happens is you end up saying really dumb things in your efforts to find it.
It has been amusing watching liberals try to find fault with Mike Pence--the challenge is, you really can't...

 

[Jon]

This is the logic you have to deal with. As though Kamala wasn't capable of debating because she is a women and a person of color. How demeaning and disrespectful of the left.

I see it as Mark Ruffalo being sexist and racist for suggesting you should treat people differently based on their gender or skin colour.

 

[Steve R.]

Conspiracy theory? Republican pundits have raised the hypothesis that the Commission on Presidential Debates purposely abruptly released the unilateral rule changes for the next Presidential debate at 7:30AM this morning to get the news cycle off Harris's debate failure as a means of hiding the Biden campaign from adverse scrutiny. How true that is, is anyone's guess.

Katie Pavlich, of Fox News, concerning the debate moderators, noted that one needs to also examine the controversial questions that the moderators are avoiding to ask. She noted that the moderators are not asking questions related to public controversies that would make Democrats "uncomfortable". Examples, gun control, illegal immigration, health care for illegal immigrants, Hunter Biden.

 

[Isaac]

If you want to see a much worse moderator bias, check out the McSally/Kelly debate. I watched it here locally. Man, one of those male moderators was HARD on McSally. There was a whole lot of questions structured like so:

Given the fact that [insert some horrible unproven story about Trump, or totally subjective thing], how do you feel about ____________ ?

 

[Steve R.]

If Biden/Harris refuse to answer questions that the electorate needs before making a voting decision, why should anyone vote for Biden/Harris? The purpose of campaigning is to inform the electorate what you plan to do so that they can make an informed decision. Biden is denying the electorate of the knowledge they need.