2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
Exact parity feels surreal
This is absurd. I am 100% positive that I would not get perma'd by a mod of any subforum on this site. Even a temp ban would be highly unlikely. And it isn't because I am habitually polite or because I censor myself. It is trivially easy to avoid bans. It's really that simple.
Sure. You can just state mainstream lib or con opinions and never fear a ban.
Can you guys take this to the mod thread instead of stinking up the election thread with your petulant whining?
This is absurd. I am 100% positive that I would not get perma'd by a mod of any subforum on this site. Even a temp ban would be highly unlikely. And it isn't because I am habitually polite or because I censor myself. It is trivially easy to avoid bans. It's really that simple.
you're also of the old guard and a former mod at the risk of drawing more of your ire, you are a unique case and also very much part of the in crowd and someone with a legacy account that predates more than 99% of most forum posters
likewise, i know that i'm granted certain liberties myself that a fresh account would probably receive a swift ban for posting - i've seen several posters get banned for things that feel like are things i personally do all the time
i also don't think it's intentional in that you are consciously a suckup, but your personality and demeanor is that of a teacher's pet and hence why you are not pre-dispositioned to getting a ban, like i don't recall you ever trying to make a joke at someone else's expense as an example - you are not representative of how regular people interact
you're also of the old guard and a former mod at the risk of drawing more of your ire, you are a unique case and also very much part of the in crowd and someone with a legacy account that predates more than 99% of most forum posters
likewise, i know that i'm granted certain liberties myself that a fresh account would probably receive a swift ban for posting - i've seen several posters get banned for things that feel like are things i personally do all the time
i also don't think it's intentional i
Is this just you being mad you can't post transphobic slurs anymore?
It is hard to see what is impressive about a vice presidential candidate that refuses to acknowledge election outcomes. It would seem to be the absolute minimum you should expect from someone holding or running for public office. If he did not do it because he believes the lies, then he is dangerously ignorant. If he did not do it out of political ambition, then he has no integrity. Either alternative is bad.
If he at a later hypothetical time refuses to perform his duties as a vice president or
I am not saying he was impressive in terms of substance but in terms of style. I 100% agree that he is doing it out of political ambition and lacks integrity. And last night he did it well and that makes him scary.
Democrats consistently fall into this trap where they nominate someone with substance and no style and then are surprised when they underperform in a popularity contest.
pretty crazy that a guy can lie, get fact checked, then cry about how they promised they weren't going to be fact checking, and still have half the internet think that guy "won". politics are grand.
pretty crazy that a guy can lie, get fact checked, then cry about how they promised they weren't going to be fact checking, and still have half the internet think that guy "won". politics are grand.
What's the point of the no fact check rule? Why make that a rule for the debate in the first place if the view is that fact checking lies is ok? Seems weird.
I am not saying he was impressive in terms of substance but in terms of style. I 100% agree that he is doing it out of political ambition and lacks integrity. And last night he did it well and that makes him scary.
Democrats consistently fall into this trap where they nominate someone with substance and no style and then are surprised when they underperform in a popularity contest.
Well when truth , integrity and ethic isn’t in fashion anymore it’s normal .
Hopefully a majority will « believe » in politics those values will always be more important then anything else to run a country ….
Well when truth , integrity and ethic isn’t in fashion anymore it’s normal .
Hopefully a majority will « believe » in politics those values will always be more important then anything else to run a country ….
It doesn’t have to be an either/or. Obama had substance and off the charts charisma. Bill Clinton had it too. In a nation of 300 million+ people being an s tier public speaker when running for vp/pres should be table stakes.
It doesn’t have to be an either/or. Obama had substance and off the charts charisma. Bill Clinton had it too. In a nation of 300 million+ people being an s tier public speaker when running for vp/pres should be table stakes.
So what the **** happened to the democratic party which has both candidates who are tragic jokes?
I understand what happened with trumpism, if he owns the party that's your problem.
But what is the excuse for the "morally superior" democrats? Half the democratic Senate is made up of people who are exceptionally, pareto better than Walz alone
What's the point of the no fact check rule? Why make that a rule for the debate in the first place if the view is that fact checking lies is ok? Seems weird.
as a political society we've lost track of the difference between spin and lying. if i say "overall crime is down" and you say "well actually in this category crime rose by 3%", that's you rebutting spin. however republicans now argue that me saying "crime is down" is somehow equal to them completely fabricating a nonsense story and saying "Haitians are stealing cats and grilling and eating them". these two things aren't the same, and we shouldn't allow them to be treated as similar.
ideally at a debate we don't want the moderators interrupting to correct "spin", that's on your opponent to rebut. however what is even the point of having a debate at all if you can say things like "immigrants are eating our pets" and "the election was stolen" with no pushback from the moderators?
as a political society we've lost track of the difference between spin and lying. if i say "overall crime is down" and you say "well actually in this category crime rose by 3%", that's you rebutting spin. however republicans now argue that me saying "crime is down" is somehow equal to them completely fabricating a nonsense story and saying "Haitians are stealing cats and grilling and eating them". these two things aren't the same, and we shouldn't allow them to be treated as similar.
ideally
I guess in the future they should better clarify what 'no fact checking' means.
As to your last paragraph, having a debate and a platform where candidates can openly state positions is good. It's probably best for moderators to stay neutral and simply ask questions.
Let all the post-debate analysts fact check and critique.
I'm curious how many people fall in this venn circle
1) are unsure who they are voting for
2) watch the debate to make their decision
3) look at zero post debate analysis
It has to be pretty small.
Fact checking post debate ought to be just as effective. Or if someone is saying something completely ludicrous, let them opponent call them out.
I guess in the future they should better clarify what 'no fact checking' means.
As to your last paragraph, having a debate and a platform where candidates can openly state positions is good. It's probably best for moderators to stay neutral and simply ask questions.
Let all the post-debate analysts fact check and critique.
I'm curious how many people fall in this venn circle
1) are unsure who they are voting for
2) watch the debate to make their decision
3) look at zero post debate analysis
It has to b
yeah the onus should be on the opponent not the moderators, especially since the moderators are missing facts that could have been checked as well
as far as the specific vance thing, i felt like it was an important distinction he made and it was a good thing that he refused to yield and explained his position - which while it may or may not be true, is entirely reasonable an explanation to express the difference of opinion that caused for it to be fact checked in the first place
This is absurd. I am 100% positive that I would not get perma'd by a mod of any subforum on this site. Even a temp ban would be highly unlikely. And it isn't because I am habitually polite or because I censor myself. It is trivially easy to avoid bans. It's really that simple.
Not really true. I got nuked for saying 2+2 made poor business decisions which hundreds of people have said before with no incident snd is not against any rules and no less polite than stufff Mason or Sklansky say about others.
pretty crazy that a guy can lie, get fact checked, then cry about how they promised they weren't going to be fact checking, and still have half the internet think that guy "won". politics are grand.
Haha yeah. Vance was wrong on the details, got time to clarify was still wrong then tried to take over the next question lol.
ABC News: Bombshell special counsel filing includes new allegations of Trump's 'increasingly desperate' efforts to overturn election
Special counsel Jack Smith has outlined new details of former President Donald Trump and his allies' sweeping and "increasingly desperate" efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss, in a blockbuster court filing Wednesday aimed at defending Smith's prosecution of Trump following the Supreme Court's July immunity ruling.
Trump intentionally lied to the public, state election officials, and his own vice president in an effort to cling to power after losing the election, while privately describing some of the claims of election fraud as "crazy," prosecutors alleged in the 165-page filing.
...
In addition to outlining the instances when Trump was directly corrected about his allegations of voter fraud, the filing said Trump privately called allegations of voter fraud made by his lawyer Sidney Powell as "crazy" -- despite employing similar arguments to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election, prosecutors allege.
Source:
Extremely non political filing of "bombshell" allegations, by the "independent" DoJ one month from the election, sent to you by the "lovers of democracy"
Extremely non political filing of "bombshell" allegations, by the "independent" DoJ one month from the election, sent to you by the "lovers of democracy"
The only reason Smith had to refile was because of the democracy-loving SCOTUS's July ruling saying a US President can commit crimes while in office with impunity.
The only reason Smith had to refile was because of the democracy-loving SCOTUS's July ruling saying a US President can commit crimes while in office with impunity.
They already refiled.
Here they re-refiled a "bombshell" which certainly was necessary today I believe it.
It's because of a rightwing conspiracy that they had to re-refile now
They already refiled.
Here they re-refiled a "bombshell" which certainly was necessary today I believe it.
It's because of a rightwing conspiracy that they had to re-refile now
Throughout the document, Smith argues that the actions Trump took to overturn the election were in his private capacity – as a candidate – rather than in his official capacity, as a president. That argument flows from the Supreme Court’s decision in July, which granted the former president sweeping immunity for official actions but left the door open for prosecutors to pursue Trump for unofficial steps he took.
Again, wouldn't have happened without the SCOTUS trying to protect Trump from prosecution.
