All methods have flaws, at least that one is mostly fair.
That said, a crucial flaw and one that is easily exploited in a live debate is the use of the gish gallop method of rapid fire questions/accusations/falsehoods that are difficult to both address in a limited timespan, as well as also fit in time for your own speaking points.
But losing the moderators would be a good move. The fact there's even "fact checkers" is even more ludicrous considering that it's basically enshrining the literal idea of politically correct speech. That in and of itself should be called out as basic pro-establishment abuse of power.
theoretically I don't have issue with live fact checking. however, the fact check would have to come from an actually neutral source that is actually interested in the truth.
the moderators in these debates are blatantly running cover for the Democrat candidate, and I don't really trust any media institution to do differently.
"Fact checking" is explicitly antithetical to the nature of a debate though. The whole point is that both sides are meant to argue for their points and against their opponents. That isn't the role of the moderator, it's the role of the people debating.
There's no kind way of sugar-coating it: stop conceding ground.
And so you rightfully address that as a form of improper decorum within a debate setting. Why are we relying on a third party to make the arguments on behalf of the debaters? If the debaters cannot handle themselves, that is a failure of the debaters.
Also, weren't you the one that suggested the idea of rigid time limits which is far more susceptible to the abuse of Gish Galloping?
I also conceited that rigid time limits are not perfect, just better than what was presented.
As far as life fact check goes, there is a difference between arguing a point and making a false assertion. A proper and truly neutral live fact check would shut down false assertions, allowing the debaters to focus purely on arguing points.
Hell, both teams get their own moderators. If we're going to treat these farces like trials, why not basically make it akin to clients with their lawyers? Take away the charade, not play along with it.
Honestly, a Joe Rogan interview would have more value than the existing format. Two hours of people talking about whatever they want, and then the internet can fact check it all.
Sean Hannity would be a better moderator than any mainstream network anchor, you don't even have to go to a guy like Kirk or Posobiec or Tucker or Joe Rogan.
It was a mistake on their part to say they weren’t going to fact check when they did it anyway and then got called on it so hard they had to cut his mic.
It was before my time but i have seen videos of previous political candidate debates, including the presidency where they just talked about a topic for as long as needed, with each member had a rebuttal or counter point. it was civil and there were no moderators cutting off the mic or cutting the discussion short.
People who are already hardcore in either the left or right camps aren't going to be swayed to change their vote no matter what. Thus, the only votes that are up for grabs are the largely disinterested masses in the middle.
The people in the middle aren't the sorts of people that are going to sit down and watch a debate, much less the Vice Presidential debate. They aren't the sorts of people that are going to go investigate what actually happened. All they are going to hear about this is what they might bumble into in a 10 second clip from the media, what they might happen upon in some front page reddit sub, etc. When that happens, who is going to be the one that was in charge of writing that narrative, and what will it be?
The point is the same as always. The right has almost zero power to reach anyone not already on the right. The left has near total control over what the idiotic/disinterested masses in the middle stumble into during the business of going about their day. Thus - once again, the same as always - the left does whatever it wants to generate something - anything - that allows them to spin up a bunch of clips, articles, whatever that they can blast the public with, and hopefully set the narrative, and what is the narrative that these people will happen upon? "JD Vance was upset that he lied, and they wouldn't let him get away with it!!!"
It doesn't matter if Vance was right. It doesn't matter that the leftist moderators broke the rules they agreed to.
None of the people in the middle (or, more accurately, I guess, - a far greater portion of the people in the middle) are going to hear that. They're only going to hear how the left spun it. That's why they do it. The left has the ability to have a constant dark cloud hanging over anyone not in their camp.
Reddit is a strong example of why you don't always take the time to look at how your enemies talk, with r/Politics being one of the biggest progressive Marxist cancer centers on the Internet. Some are so unhinged that looking only a few sentences of their line-of-thought is enough to shut a critically-thinking brain down.
It’s still a front page r/popular sub. Even if the disinterested masses don’t take the time to actually read the article/comments, millions of those people scroll past it, see the ridiculous headline, and have the narrative colored by it.
Blasting the world with endless propaganda has an effect.
I suddenly understand why women have always been most represented in K-8 schooling to the beginnings of America and beyond. The tip of the iceburg of Kamala is every awful Vice President any school could ever have, no concrete thoughts but a desire to use rules as a weapon against anyone she hates and a condescending wino cackle at her power.
This is why I've been saying that people need to stop pretending the problem is the migrants' abstract legal status, a matter of paper work and bytes of data, but rather their physical presence here and the type of people they are. In other words, the biggest issue with "illegal Haitians" isn't the illegal part. It's the Haitian part.
Some years back I was talking to someone who moved here from Ireland. They were thrilled at how much cheaper the US was compared to Dublin then went on to complain about how few government services there were and how the government here needed to do more to help the poor
I think it was somewhere in the middle of that conversation when I decided I didn't want people moving here from Europe either.
Why? The left has near total domain over how our children are educated. Once they are out of school, they have near total control over how they are propagandized.
If people don't take an extremely active role in their children's upbringing - in particular, in pointing out the left's indoctrination, and propaganda - those children will naturally end up with leftist views on the world.
Why aren't those hard working people working hard for their countries and their neighborhoods? Do they have zero sense of collective betterment and a desire to throw anyone underfoot for a leg up? Are their countries fundamental shitholes? Is there something about the West and Western nations and Western people that is far superior? Why is this mass migration starting on Europe and America, when Mexico Israel South Africa Egypt India China and Brazil supposedly just as powerful and strong (It recently started going after Japan too)
Some people are so deep into it that they think that this piece of paper makes you, say French. Now that is interesting. Would there be no Frenchmen if there was no French state, or if it wasn't distributing citizenship? That is implied by the idea that there is no standard for being French other than what the state says.
being of a number more than two or three but not many
So assuming you mean 3+ and a generation being 20-30 years, you're basically saying that anyone descended from those that immigrated to the US since WWII up to the Hart-Keller Act? Man, retard, you really want a civil war.
I don't think you'd get most right-leaning thinkers to agree to that outside of wignats, as believing in de-naturalization is really shredding the Constitution and acting like assimilation is not possible, implying no monoculture in the US. That rather makes sense, given that not a single state in this glorious Union has the same sub/regional cultures either.
Holy shit, the amount of exclusively upper-class liberal topics is fucking unbearable in this debate. If Vance didn't bring up immigration it wouldn't have even been mentioned.
the amount of exclusively upper-class liberal topics
This was always my problem with the presidential debate format, even before bias was as obvious as today. I don't care about any of the questions the liberal media moderators ask, I never did, and I doubt most Republicans cared either, so I never understood why the parties kept doing these debates this way.
Trump is such a threat because he dare asks "What if this party wasn't controlled opposition?" He isn't even necessarily a Republican, he just knows what the people forced to vote for the GOP wish their party was.
I found a transcript here. Asking GPT to give me the summarized list of questions returned this (check for yourself, I'm not vouching for accuracy of the chatbot):
Questions Asked by the Moderators:
Governor Walz, if you are the final voice in the situation room, would you support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran?
Senator Vance, the same question, would you support or oppose a preemptive strike by Israel on Iran?
Senator Vance, according to CBS News polling, what responsibility would the Trump administration have to try and reduce the impact of climate change?
Governor Walz, would you like to respond to the Senator's allegations?
Senator Vance, your campaign is pledging to carry out the largest mass deportation plan in American history. Could you be more specific about how this will work?
Governor Walz, do you care to respond to any of those specific allegations regarding children?
The Governor mentioned that President Trump has called climate change a hoax. Do you agree?
Governor Walz, how would you pay for the proposed economic plans without ballooning the deficit?
Senator Vance, how do you pay for your economic plan without ballooning the deficit?
Governor Walz, can you explain the discrepancy about your presence in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square protest?
Senator Vance, you have called Donald Trump unfit for office and stated he could be America's Hitler. Why should Americans trust that you will give him the advice he needs to hear, and not just advice he wants to hear?
Governor Walz, after Roe v. Wade was overturned, is it true that you support abortion in the ninth month?
Senator Vance, earlier this year, do you think holding parents responsible could curb mass shootings?
Governor Walz, previously you opposed an assault weapons ban, why did you change your position?
Senator Vance, how will you solve the childcare shortage, and do you support a national paid leave program?
Governor Walz, do you think Congress will agree to your childcare tax credit proposals?
Senator Vance, can you clarify how the President's tax policy will solve the childcare shortage?
Senator Vance, will you seek to challenge this year's election results if every Governor certifies them?
It then further summarized that list into 10 specific topics:
The only two I even have enough effort to reply about are the tariffs and mandatory maternity leave.
With the tariffs, if businesses pass down the cost of the tariff by raising the prices of product, is there really a difference? I know there is, but that's 99% what's going to happen the moment that tariff would be enacted.
Mandatory maternity leave is pro-natal, and the only reason I can see people be against this is if they're against women in the workplace as a whole, which considering modern society I can completely understand, but that's a different, albeit related debate.
With the tariffs, if businesses pass down the cost of the tariff by raising the prices of product, is there really a difference? I know there is, but that's 99% what's going to happen the moment that tariff would be enacted.
From the libertarian and minarchist stand-point, I understand the criticism. However, I would argue that Trump will probably mitigate the effect by loosening regulations so that it's simply easier to start a new business in the US, than to keep importing Communist subsidized goods from slave states.
For the maternity issue, it's just not an election topic. No one was talking about it. It seems to be a luxury belief issue. I don't know any company that doesn't allow maternity leave.
However, I would argue that Trump will probably mitigate the effect by loosening regulations so that it's simply easier to start a new business in the US
For what it is worth, he has already signaled going down that route. Not only has he talked about cutting down regulations in general, he also has said he has such ideas as a significant corporate tax cut if and only if the factory set up is in the US. Which would arguably benefit smaller startups or regional/national builders over multinationals, since they will by default be entirely US based.
They don't always lose. Sometimes it's a guy in a red tie that erodes gun rights and imports invaders and sends our sons to die in the sand and boosts other countries. Bushes and the Hollywood Actor "Spoke Based" but were total globohomo losers. Nixon began the custom of pouring manufacturing dollars into China's throat creating a world enshittified (And Ford was there by accident).
I expect an apology for Republicans and Rightists claiming that JD Vance wasn't a good choice. I told you that he is our guy and he's fucking showing it.
I will admit I thought there were better picks among the field. But as soon as he started laying into the media with precise fire (I guess what do you expect from a Marine?), I immediately realized what the point was and that it was indeed a wise choice. Unlike the Dems who are now finding out that maybe rejecting Shapiro because "Der Juden" in favor of one of the most radical governors in the country was one of the worst mistakes they could have made.
Unlike the Dems who are now finding out that maybe rejecting Shapiro because "Der Juden" in favor of one of the most radical governors in the country was one of the worst mistakes they could have made.
Shapiro covered up a murder by a fellow Jewish guy in PA. The story was blasted on the internet at the 11th hour of the VP process. Technically Kamala also did the same thing in CA, so that might've made them an even better match, but the Rebecca Zahau case has way more plausible deniability than the Ellen Greenburg case where Greenburg getting stabbed 10 times in the back of the head and neck was ruled a suicide.
Oh, I am not denying that would have hurt him once it got out. But Shapiro had a reputation (even if it is a lie) of being a "moderate" governor who did have actual popularity in PA. Unlike Walz who brings literally nothing to the table other than doubling down on the radical wing of the party.
The Vice President doesn't really contribute to adding votes... unless you have one that's so good he can actually bring them along by addressing them directly. He hit the media strong, but then invited everyone else in and did it with a bit of grace.
Grace is not the technique of a Marine, but JD's pretty damned good.
As an Ohioan who put my credibility on the line telling family members to vote for him in the Senate primary a couple years back, I am feeling pretty good right now.
Because he wasn't a Good Ol' Party Boy like Pence, a line of leaches looking for a publicity bump for book deals, the worst of the worst of politicians
I think my way forward IRL with dedicated Trump-haters is to pivot to Vance, with this debate doing some service after cutting up out some sound bites.
He's reasonably young, well spoken, well articulated, and, well, not Trump.
Their brains are completely fused off by the constant barrage of anti-Trump rhetoric and lies. "Does this thing Vance say sound unreasonable?" "POTUS doesn't create law, Congress does. Wouldn't you want him as President of the Senate instead of that faggot Walz?"
This is why I'll predict this debate moves the needle quite a bit toward the R.
Some will say they're worried about Trump's 'temperament', but reassured that Vance will take over after impeachment if Trump runs amok. Instead of the 'fear factor' VP to ward off impeachment he's picked a guy that brings in new voters rooting for impeachment.
And others will say here's this obviously nice, smart, decent guy who's vouching for Trump and they'll say, well, if that guy can get behind Trump then I can too. RFK and Tulsi have that as well, but they've already been character assassinated by the media whereas that's been more difficult to do with Vance and especially after this debate.
They’ve spent so much time, money, and energy demonizing Trump as Hitler 2.0 that it will actually be difficult to transfer that baggage onto the next big conservative leader.
They did it for every single righty since WW2 except Eisenhower, and only because calling the general who fought the Nazis a Nazi is too retarded for normies to absorb.
It'll continue until Hitler fades to myth and the magic spell no longer works on the younger generations.
When I say "our guy" I mean for the dissident right generally.
I know that what you mean is for white people as a collective. Let me be clear: even for your definition, JD Vance is your guy because his effort to help working class whites is genuine and measurable. No one else is out to directly help them.
No one in the entire field of politics really gives a shit about anything except his ambition.
You can never just 'vote' and assume that things are going to work out. Unfortunately, because the one thing I want is to not have to deal with politics. Wouldn't it be great to have a system where no matter who's in office, he can't screw with you, and just takes care of the ship of state?
Then you don't understand why people don't like JD Vance. He's a tradcuck. He believes men should be enslaved to the State and to Women for "mah babies". He'll punish men for not enslaving themselves to women and refuse to force women to improve themselves nor make the situation better for men such that men have incentive to have children. If there's anyone who will table a tax on single people, it'll be JD Vance.
lol, speaking of, he tried posting about that recent Reddit thread calling having a family a fetish over on the "Funny" board.
Now first off, /Funny isn't funny most of the time so his post going down like a lead balloon is ironically not out of place there.
Second, to the surprise of nobody those who knows how the posts he still rants about the usual crap* regardless of what the topic might be. Even when he's the one making a thread about something.
Third, as is tradition he got downvoted to oblivion for continuing to be completely retarded.
Edit: Some highlights of what "the usual crap" is when in a thread about families having children.
wanting that many kids is a fetish
This is at least on topic. The rest however...
handshake
Because he still doesn't understand how the site as a whole works.
Melinda
Because why the fuck not? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Could you fit any more buzzwords in there?
The irony of this considering what follows is as the kids say: "peak".
"trans agenda"
JK Rowling
TERFism
All of those from the same post, mind.
Yawn...
One of his typical deflections.
tl;dr he treats every single poster he replies to as both a brand new person, "handshakes", and yet as if it's someone who would know the ins and outs of all the random colloquialisms he repeatedly uses over and over, "Melinda", "Yawn", and more.
So he's still as unhinged as ever.
Funny thing is I didn't even realise it was him posting that thread when I saw it at first. I just found both the post and OP comments to be retarded and downvoted both as such. Then the reason for it being retarded become apparent when I took a second look whom the OP was.
Also, you're not going to be enslaved to women. You get to choose if you want to be married. This is like the right wing version of the reaction to Jordan Peterson's "enforced monogamy"
Sen. JD Vance has a history of making disparaging remarks toward people without children, a CNN KFile review of his comments shows, including fundraising off his now-infamous “childless cat lady” remarks in a series of emails that called Democratic leaders “childless sociopaths” who “don’t have a direct stake in this country.”
In November 2020, Vance said on a conservative podcast that childless Americans, especially those in the country’s “leadership class,” were “more sociopathic” than those with children and made the country “less mentally stable.” Vance added that the “most deranged” and “most psychotic” commentators on Twitter – now known as X - were typically childless.
Vance, adding that his remarks were not about criticizing people without children, but rather focused on policy and claimed the Democratic Party has become “anti-family” and “anti-child.”
“There are just these basic cadences of life that I think are really powerful and really valuable when you have kids in your life,” Vance said in November 2020 on a conservative podcast. “And the fact that so many people, especially in America’s leadership class, just don’t have that in their lives.”
“You know, I worry that it makes people more sociopathic and ultimately our whole country a little bit less, less mentally stable,” he said. “And of course, you talk about going on Twitter – final point I’ll make is you go on Twitter and almost always the people who are most deranged and most psychotic are people who don’t have kids at home.”
In another tweet a month later, Vance wrote, “Our country’s low birth rates have made many elites sociopaths.”
Vance spokesperson Taylor Van Kirk said, “As [Senator Vance] has clearly stated, he was talking about politicians on the left who support policies that are explicitly anti-child and anti-family. The media can obsess over it all they want, but he’s not going to back down when it comes to advocating for policies that protect parental rights and encourage people to have more kids.”
The writing is on the wall. Enjoy slaving away for women! There's no way in hell some dude who married an Indian woman is going to promote patriarchal values to help promote the family and kids. He's going to extract every last resource he can from men to give to his precious women. The fact some of you can't see that is ridiculous.
Men are going to get fucked over no matter who gets elected.
The definition of tradcuck is someone who promotes traditional family values but does so in a manner that benefits women to the detriment of men. His words reveal he cares about traditional family values (having children) and I am making the assumption, he likely will promote these in a manner that is pro-women and anti-men. It is speculation but I think it's good speculation. Usually, the men in modernity who see married men as superior to unmarried men are almost always cucks. I've seen it a million times already on CuckPro.
Yes it fucking is. People using their house as an asset commodity which builds wealth. Saying that people shouldn't be trading up their houses is the exact reason how the middle-class gets to the upper-middle class.
"Which regulations?"
Bitch, federal pseudo-corporations own almost all mortgage debt in America. Do you even FHA?
Depends on the your definition of commodity. Most economic definitions of commodity consider only things that are mostly the same no matter who produced them because there's limited variability in the product to be commodities. Grain, potatoes, oil and gold are examples of commodities because they are the same no matter who produced them (for the most part). Housing is not a commodity.
I guess my issue is that housing is a commodity in the financial market, but so is everything else. It's not a great system, and the debt-mortgage system (which isn't great) is one of the primary ways anyone can exchange those commodities to actually build wealth. But, I'm willing to accept that it's debatable.
I still think you're using commodity in the wrong context based on this post of yours.
People exchange currency for real estate and accumulate debt by putting their real estate up as collateral to a debtor. People exchange commodities for currency which they then exchange for real estate. No one ever exchanges a commodity directly for real estate these days, which would be more bartar style of a transaction.
Well, I agree that that isn't what I'm trying to say...
Because the purpose is to build a mortgage as a financial vehicle (because you don't have the capital to build a liquid cash supply), you are swapping out commodities for debt, and building the vehicle. You're not swapping a commodity for a different commodity, you are swapping a commodity (after improving it's value) for another commodity.
You use the mortgage product as a stand-in for capital and assets. You get a house on a mortgage, improve it's value, sell the house, and then refinance your mortgage with the profits you made as capital & assets to buy a better house; rinse and repeat. This is how the middle-class moves into upper-middle class. After that, there's buying multiple houses, renting them out, and doing a similar thing using them as investment products. This moves the upper-middle class into the full blown upper class.
At the end of the day, from the financial market perspective, housing is a commodity like any other. The mortgage system, and the slowly increasing price of houses, makes it a different kind of commodity market than copper, but it's still a kind of commodity for the purposes of exchanging into a financial product.
I'd say you're using commodity incorrectly for the way most people use commodity. There is a definition of commodity that could perhaps fit your description but no one really uses that definition of commodity in normal usage for the most part because it makes the term mostly useless as a term.
A better way to say what you're trying to say is that housing represents one of the only investable assets that an average person can purchase with financial leverage. It isn't the only one though because you can get a 50% loan on a diversified equity portfolio easily enough but there's other issues with this avenue.
Keep in mind using leverage to make money carries more risk. Many people learned that lesson the hard way 15 years ago.
It was mostly boomer NPCs who heard his retarded comments from a few years ago and lacked the brainpower and independent thought capacity to look at what he's done since then to evaluate whether he has truly changed his mind since then or is just saying what people want to hear. Anyone who has been following him for the last couple years knew he's one of the best populist figures in American politics right now.
I didn't know much about him before the campaign other than a vaguely positive impression because he's on my side but he's extremely impressive. Even if the retard impression is correct (which it isn't, the guys who say this are very jealous and very stupid) and he doesn't really believe anything he's saying and just changed his mind to go with the increasingly popular and socially acceptable position of supporting Donald Trump because he's an empty suit striver, it's still a great sign.
how easy it is to fool you people... all it takes is one indian paid $2 an hour to build up a reputation of being annoying, then ANYTHING he says, good or bad, you rabidly reject.
how in the world is that guy a good pick when he has announced to the world his life's ambition is to pump halfbreed pajeets, just like the one above, into the US?
Vance marrying a Hindu Indian isn't great, but taking huge issue with individual choice isn't great either. The important thing is what he's doing to change the course of the population at large, which is always deterministic.
Most of the top players in the alt right are actually some level of mixed or non-white, as weird as it is. There's probably some social phenomenon there about people on the edge being more equipped to perceive and act on cultural taboos.
The early liberal response is startling. They're admitting that JD Vance really got to them. Vance wasn't cutting too many throats after half-time, but he seems to have genuinely got to them with grace and vibes.
I think they are really shook.
Robert Barnes is saying that Vance came in specifically to target undecided, working class, younger, women to move Trump, and I think he actually got them.
Is Citizenry of The United States of America so devalued that any chicom smart device with internet access and a free app all that it means to be American? To these people, yes.
If there is any "fact checking" it should only come from the opponent, which is walz. Thats why there are rebuttals. But we now have moderators doing it because kamala and walz are literal retards.
Look at Waltz's deer-in-headlight look at the 0:36 mark. It's abundantly clear to him, and everyone else, that Vance has done a lot more research, and come a lot more prepared, than he has.
JD vance looking retarded for even believing these cunts were ever gonna hold their word.
Im appalachian and I really dislike the guy, his family may be from appalachia, he may even have spent some time there. But his core values and words are not appalachian. Hes a city slicker through and through. And funny thing, growing up in the hills I never understood the term city slicker until I came to halifax nova scotia.
These people think they are just the bees knees and so slick because they have some money, some of the most retarded shit I ever seen.
So it's clear the media is going to biasly "fact check" every debate now. They need either a new format or Republicans need to stop doing them.
challenge them to a debate without moderators.
put the mics on timers that rigidly enforce equal speaking times. deliver the prompts through text.
are the flaws with this method? yes but it's much better than the 2 minutes hate we've currently got
All methods have flaws, at least that one is mostly fair.
That said, a crucial flaw and one that is easily exploited in a live debate is the use of the gish gallop method of rapid fire questions/accusations/falsehoods that are difficult to both address in a limited timespan, as well as also fit in time for your own speaking points.
But losing the moderators would be a good move. The fact there's even "fact checkers" is even more ludicrous considering that it's basically enshrining the literal idea of politically correct speech. That in and of itself should be called out as basic pro-establishment abuse of power.
theoretically I don't have issue with live fact checking. however, the fact check would have to come from an actually neutral source that is actually interested in the truth.
the moderators in these debates are blatantly running cover for the Democrat candidate, and I don't really trust any media institution to do differently.
"Fact checking" is explicitly antithetical to the nature of a debate though. The whole point is that both sides are meant to argue for their points and against their opponents. That isn't the role of the moderator, it's the role of the people debating.
There's no kind way of sugar-coating it: stop conceding ground.
without a live fact check, the winning strategy in a debate is Gish Gallop.
And so you rightfully address that as a form of improper decorum within a debate setting. Why are we relying on a third party to make the arguments on behalf of the debaters? If the debaters cannot handle themselves, that is a failure of the debaters.
Also, weren't you the one that suggested the idea of rigid time limits which is far more susceptible to the abuse of Gish Galloping?
I also conceited that rigid time limits are not perfect, just better than what was presented.
As far as life fact check goes, there is a difference between arguing a point and making a false assertion. A proper and truly neutral live fact check would shut down false assertions, allowing the debaters to focus purely on arguing points.
Fucking internet bloodsports would be better than this.
Nah, Republicans need to demand debates with "moderators" that favor them. I'd love to see Charlie Kirk and Jack Posobiac moderate one of these.
Hell, both teams get their own moderators. If we're going to treat these farces like trials, why not basically make it akin to clients with their lawyers? Take away the charade, not play along with it.
Damn, that’s a good idea.
Honestly, a Joe Rogan interview would have more value than the existing format. Two hours of people talking about whatever they want, and then the internet can fact check it all.
Sean Hannity would be a better moderator than any mainstream network anchor, you don't even have to go to a guy like Kirk or Posobiec or Tucker or Joe Rogan.
It was a mistake on their part to say they weren’t going to fact check when they did it anyway and then got called on it so hard they had to cut his mic.
It was before my time but i have seen videos of previous political candidate debates, including the presidency where they just talked about a topic for as long as needed, with each member had a rebuttal or counter point. it was civil and there were no moderators cutting off the mic or cutting the discussion short.
They did it to ron paul lol. An "accident" that only occurs for him. Now its on purpose. Gg.
Ross Perot and Ron Paul are the presidents we should have had in the last 20 years.
They do it because it works.
Look at how this one is playing out:
People who are already hardcore in either the left or right camps aren't going to be swayed to change their vote no matter what. Thus, the only votes that are up for grabs are the largely disinterested masses in the middle.
The people in the middle aren't the sorts of people that are going to sit down and watch a debate, much less the Vice Presidential debate. They aren't the sorts of people that are going to go investigate what actually happened. All they are going to hear about this is what they might bumble into in a 10 second clip from the media, what they might happen upon in some front page reddit sub, etc. When that happens, who is going to be the one that was in charge of writing that narrative, and what will it be?
Oh, stuff like this:
and this:
And on, and on, and on.
The point is the same as always. The right has almost zero power to reach anyone not already on the right. The left has near total control over what the idiotic/disinterested masses in the middle stumble into during the business of going about their day. Thus - once again, the same as always - the left does whatever it wants to generate something - anything - that allows them to spin up a bunch of clips, articles, whatever that they can blast the public with, and hopefully set the narrative, and what is the narrative that these people will happen upon? "JD Vance was upset that he lied, and they wouldn't let him get away with it!!!"
It doesn't matter if Vance was right. It doesn't matter that the leftist moderators broke the rules they agreed to. None of the people in the middle (or, more accurately, I guess, - a far greater portion of the people in the middle) are going to hear that. They're only going to hear how the left spun it. That's why they do it. The left has the ability to have a constant dark cloud hanging over anyone not in their camp.
Reddit is a strong example of why you don't always take the time to look at how your enemies talk, with r/Politics being one of the biggest progressive Marxist cancer centers on the Internet. Some are so unhinged that looking only a few sentences of their line-of-thought is enough to shut a critically-thinking brain down.
It’s still a front page r/popular sub. Even if the disinterested masses don’t take the time to actually read the article/comments, millions of those people scroll past it, see the ridiculous headline, and have the narrative colored by it.
Blasting the world with endless propaganda has an effect.
Walz claimed immigration is down under Biden. No fact check.
Listen to that nasty bitch's voice drip with schoolmarm scorn.
The womansplaning having a major role in presidential and vice presidential debates is very annoying.
You never fact check your friends, only your enemies.
One feels for this nasty bitch's husband who has to listen to that voice, day in, day out, day in, day out.
FTFY
this is why cats eat their owners when their owners die
I suddenly understand why women have always been most represented in K-8 schooling to the beginnings of America and beyond. The tip of the iceburg of Kamala is every awful Vice President any school could ever have, no concrete thoughts but a desire to use rules as a weapon against anyone she hates and a condescending wino cackle at her power.
"If we just immediately give everyone legal status, conservatives can't complain about immigration anymore. Checkmate Trump-tards!"
This is why I've been saying that people need to stop pretending the problem is the migrants' abstract legal status, a matter of paper work and bytes of data, but rather their physical presence here and the type of people they are. In other words, the biggest issue with "illegal Haitians" isn't the illegal part. It's the Haitian part.
Some years back I was talking to someone who moved here from Ireland. They were thrilled at how much cheaper the US was compared to Dublin then went on to complain about how few government services there were and how the government here needed to do more to help the poor
I think it was somewhere in the middle of that conversation when I decided I didn't want people moving here from Europe either.
The inability for the masses not to understand cause-effect is truly one of the most boggling things to me.
The majority of people are just animals and have no business making any decisions for themselves. It's a sad reality I wish wasn't the case.
Why? The left has near total domain over how our children are educated. Once they are out of school, they have near total control over how they are propagandized.
If people don't take an extremely active role in their children's upbringing - in particular, in pointing out the left's indoctrination, and propaganda - those children will naturally end up with leftist views on the world.
The Irish are bleeding heart cretins. It's why they generally vote Democrat.
Why aren't those hard working people working hard for their countries and their neighborhoods? Do they have zero sense of collective betterment and a desire to throw anyone underfoot for a leg up? Are their countries fundamental shitholes? Is there something about the West and Western nations and Western people that is far superior? Why is this mass migration starting on Europe and America, when Mexico Israel South Africa Egypt India China and Brazil supposedly just as powerful and strong (It recently started going after Japan too)
Some people are so deep into it that they think that this piece of paper makes you, say French. Now that is interesting. Would there be no Frenchmen if there was no French state, or if it wasn't distributing citizenship? That is implied by the idea that there is no standard for being French other than what the state says.
It's magic dirt theory.
It's worse. Magic paper.
I want to deport foreigners.
Even the ones who have been here for several generations.
Fight me.
i want everyone who's come here since '65 and their progeny gone. and anyone that gets in the way of this can go with them.
"Cool, when are you leaving?"
You'll certainly get a fight if you try to deport them.
Which is why it was so important to not let things fester for so long and just keep them out as some sensible preventative maintenance.
"Second Generation Refugee" is nuspeak for "Refugees that got cozy and started to pop out a litter"
So assuming you mean 3+ and a generation being 20-30 years, you're basically saying that anyone descended from those that immigrated to the US since WWII up to the Hart-Keller Act? Man, retard, you really want a civil war.
I don't think you'd get most right-leaning thinkers to agree to that outside of wignats, as believing in de-naturalization is really shredding the Constitution and acting like assimilation is not possible, implying no monoculture in the US. That rather makes sense, given that not a single state in this glorious Union has the same sub/regional cultures either.
I want people whose progeny will turn this country into a third world nation gone, yes.
I make zero apologies for that stance and anyone who's opposed is either stupid, immoral or is someone who would be getting thrown out.
Can you even prove that 30 million illegal immigrants would cause housing demand, maggot?
Holy shit, the amount of exclusively upper-class liberal topics is fucking unbearable in this debate. If Vance didn't bring up immigration it wouldn't have even been mentioned.
This was always my problem with the presidential debate format, even before bias was as obvious as today. I don't care about any of the questions the liberal media moderators ask, I never did, and I doubt most Republicans cared either, so I never understood why the parties kept doing these debates this way.
Republicans are professional losers.
Trump is such a threat because he dare asks "What if this party wasn't controlled opposition?" He isn't even necessarily a Republican, he just knows what the people forced to vote for the GOP wish their party was.
Because the Republican and Conservative establishment are controlled opposition who are supposed to go to debates to lose.
What were the specific topics they asked about anyway?
I found a transcript here. Asking GPT to give me the summarized list of questions returned this (check for yourself, I'm not vouching for accuracy of the chatbot):
It then further summarized that list into 10 specific topics:
Awesome, thank you.
I'll take it over a comparable or higher income tax or property taxes.
The income tax was always unconstitutional, and property tax was always bullshit.
The only two I even have enough effort to reply about are the tariffs and mandatory maternity leave.
With the tariffs, if businesses pass down the cost of the tariff by raising the prices of product, is there really a difference? I know there is, but that's 99% what's going to happen the moment that tariff would be enacted.
Mandatory maternity leave is pro-natal, and the only reason I can see people be against this is if they're against women in the workplace as a whole, which considering modern society I can completely understand, but that's a different, albeit related debate.
From the libertarian and minarchist stand-point, I understand the criticism. However, I would argue that Trump will probably mitigate the effect by loosening regulations so that it's simply easier to start a new business in the US, than to keep importing Communist subsidized goods from slave states.
For the maternity issue, it's just not an election topic. No one was talking about it. It seems to be a luxury belief issue. I don't know any company that doesn't allow maternity leave.
For what it is worth, he has already signaled going down that route. Not only has he talked about cutting down regulations in general, he also has said he has such ideas as a significant corporate tax cut if and only if the factory set up is in the US. Which would arguably benefit smaller startups or regional/national builders over multinationals, since they will by default be entirely US based.
They don't always lose. Sometimes it's a guy in a red tie that erodes gun rights and imports invaders and sends our sons to die in the sand and boosts other countries. Bushes and the Hollywood Actor "Spoke Based" but were total globohomo losers. Nixon began the custom of pouring manufacturing dollars into China's throat creating a world enshittified (And Ford was there by accident).
When I say "our guy", I don't mean "spoke based".
It's time to stop.
I expect an apology for Republicans and Rightists claiming that JD Vance wasn't a good choice. I told you that he is our guy and he's fucking showing it.
I will admit I thought there were better picks among the field. But as soon as he started laying into the media with precise fire (I guess what do you expect from a Marine?), I immediately realized what the point was and that it was indeed a wise choice. Unlike the Dems who are now finding out that maybe rejecting Shapiro because "Der Juden" in favor of one of the most radical governors in the country was one of the worst mistakes they could have made.
Shapiro covered up a murder by a fellow Jewish guy in PA. The story was blasted on the internet at the 11th hour of the VP process. Technically Kamala also did the same thing in CA, so that might've made them an even better match, but the Rebecca Zahau case has way more plausible deniability than the Ellen Greenburg case where Greenburg getting stabbed 10 times in the back of the head and neck was ruled a suicide.
Oh, I am not denying that would have hurt him once it got out. But Shapiro had a reputation (even if it is a lie) of being a "moderate" governor who did have actual popularity in PA. Unlike Walz who brings literally nothing to the table other than doubling down on the radical wing of the party.
The Vice President doesn't really contribute to adding votes... unless you have one that's so good he can actually bring them along by addressing them directly. He hit the media strong, but then invited everyone else in and did it with a bit of grace.
Grace is not the technique of a Marine, but JD's pretty damned good.
Not necessarily, but the VP candidate needs to at least appear to be capable of assuming the role of President. Walz does not.
...With a proven record for being a fabulist
As an Ohioan who put my credibility on the line telling family members to vote for him in the Senate primary a couple years back, I am feeling pretty good right now.
Frankly, I'm more upset with the Republican GOP who for underselling him so badly.
Because he wasn't a Good Ol' Party Boy like Pence, a line of leaches looking for a publicity bump for book deals, the worst of the worst of politicians
I think my way forward IRL with dedicated Trump-haters is to pivot to Vance, with this debate doing some service after cutting up out some sound bites.
He's reasonably young, well spoken, well articulated, and, well, not Trump.
Their brains are completely fused off by the constant barrage of anti-Trump rhetoric and lies. "Does this thing Vance say sound unreasonable?" "POTUS doesn't create law, Congress does. Wouldn't you want him as President of the Senate instead of that faggot Walz?"
Dunno if it'll work, but it's a last-ditch thing.
Vance is clearly aware of how to manage people's feelings, and definitely came across with a "I used to be like you once" attitude.
This is why I'll predict this debate moves the needle quite a bit toward the R.
Some will say they're worried about Trump's 'temperament', but reassured that Vance will take over after impeachment if Trump runs amok. Instead of the 'fear factor' VP to ward off impeachment he's picked a guy that brings in new voters rooting for impeachment.
And others will say here's this obviously nice, smart, decent guy who's vouching for Trump and they'll say, well, if that guy can get behind Trump then I can too. RFK and Tulsi have that as well, but they've already been character assassinated by the media whereas that's been more difficult to do with Vance and especially after this debate.
They’ve spent so much time, money, and energy demonizing Trump as Hitler 2.0 that it will actually be difficult to transfer that baggage onto the next big conservative leader.
It will be difficult, but they will still try. The left can't win on the issues, so control through fear is the only arrow they have in the quiver.
They did it for every single righty since WW2 except Eisenhower, and only because calling the general who fought the Nazis a Nazi is too retarded for normies to absorb.
It'll continue until Hitler fades to myth and the magic spell no longer works on the younger generations.
Happening sooner than you would imagine.
I think we have very different definitions of what that term means, but I'll grant you that he seems to have some fight in the debate ring.
When I say "our guy" I mean for the dissident right generally.
I know that what you mean is for white people as a collective. Let me be clear: even for your definition, JD Vance is your guy because his effort to help working class whites is genuine and measurable. No one else is out to directly help them.
We'll have to settle for agreeing on this point. No one in the entire field of politics seems to really give a shit about White people.
No one in the entire field of politics really gives a shit about anything except his ambition.
You can never just 'vote' and assume that things are going to work out. Unfortunately, because the one thing I want is to not have to deal with politics. Wouldn't it be great to have a system where no matter who's in office, he can't screw with you, and just takes care of the ship of state?
HE'S A PALEO-CON!
GET 'EM!
Then you don't understand why people don't like JD Vance. He's a tradcuck. He believes men should be enslaved to the State and to Women for "mah babies". He'll punish men for not enslaving themselves to women and refuse to force women to improve themselves nor make the situation better for men such that men have incentive to have children. If there's anyone who will table a tax on single people, it'll be JD Vance.
calm down imp
lol, speaking of, he tried posting about that recent Reddit thread calling having a family a fetish over on the "Funny" board.
Now first off, /Funny isn't funny most of the time so his post going down like a lead balloon is ironically not out of place there.
Second, to the surprise of nobody
thosewho knows howthe posts he still rants about the usual crap* regardless of what the topic might be. Even when he's the one making a thread about something.Third, as is tradition he got downvoted to oblivion for continuing to be completely retarded.
https://communities.win/c/Funny/p/1995H1ADJ5/its-a-fetish-you-fucking-losers-/c
Edit: Some highlights of what "the usual crap" is when in a thread about families having children.
This is at least on topic. The rest however...
Because he still doesn't understand how the site as a whole works.
Because why the fuck not? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
The irony of this considering what follows is as the kids say: "peak".
All of those from the same post, mind.
One of his typical deflections.
tl;dr he treats every single poster he replies to as both a brand new person, "handshakes", and yet as if it's someone who would know the ins and outs of all the random colloquialisms he repeatedly uses over and over, "Melinda", "Yawn", and more.
So he's still as unhinged as ever.
Funny thing is I didn't even realise it was him posting that thread when I saw it at first. I just found both the post and OP comments to be retarded and downvoted both as such. Then the reason for it being retarded become apparent when I took a second look whom the OP was.
He also made a whole community just to summon me there.
https://scored.co/c/TheCultureWar/p/17txoa4Bj5/the-feminist-regime-is-installed/c
He's gotten nuttier and nuttier since 10/7.
It's a real possibility.
He hates every woman, with the conspicuous exception of his mother.
He's literally not a tradcuck, but okay.
Also, you're not going to be enslaved to women. You get to choose if you want to be married. This is like the right wing version of the reaction to Jordan Peterson's "enforced monogamy"
The writing is on the wall. Enjoy slaving away for women! There's no way in hell some dude who married an Indian woman is going to promote patriarchal values to help promote the family and kids. He's going to extract every last resource he can from men to give to his precious women. The fact some of you can't see that is ridiculous.
Men are going to get fucked over no matter who gets elected.
You posted that as if I didn't agree with it.
Then you're a tradcuck.
No. JD Vance is not a tradcuck, he just wants people to have children instead of us dying on a civilizational demographic bomb.
The definition of tradcuck is someone who promotes traditional family values but does so in a manner that benefits women to the detriment of men. His words reveal he cares about traditional family values (having children) and I am making the assumption, he likely will promote these in a manner that is pro-women and anti-men. It is speculation but I think it's good speculation. Usually, the men in modernity who see married men as superior to unmarried men are almost always cucks. I've seen it a million times already on CuckPro.
"Housing isn't a commodity"
Yes it fucking is. People using their house as an asset commodity which builds wealth. Saying that people shouldn't be trading up their houses is the exact reason how the middle-class gets to the upper-middle class.
"Which regulations?"
Bitch, federal pseudo-corporations own almost all mortgage debt in America. Do you even FHA?
Depends on the your definition of commodity. Most economic definitions of commodity consider only things that are mostly the same no matter who produced them because there's limited variability in the product to be commodities. Grain, potatoes, oil and gold are examples of commodities because they are the same no matter who produced them (for the most part). Housing is not a commodity.
I guess my issue is that housing is a commodity in the financial market, but so is everything else. It's not a great system, and the debt-mortgage system (which isn't great) is one of the primary ways anyone can exchange those commodities to actually build wealth. But, I'm willing to accept that it's debatable.
I still think you're using commodity in the wrong context based on this post of yours.
People exchange currency for real estate and accumulate debt by putting their real estate up as collateral to a debtor. People exchange commodities for currency which they then exchange for real estate. No one ever exchanges a commodity directly for real estate these days, which would be more bartar style of a transaction.
Well, I agree that that isn't what I'm trying to say...
Because the purpose is to build a mortgage as a financial vehicle (because you don't have the capital to build a liquid cash supply), you are swapping out commodities for debt, and building the vehicle. You're not swapping a commodity for a different commodity, you are swapping a commodity (after improving it's value) for another commodity.
You use the mortgage product as a stand-in for capital and assets. You get a house on a mortgage, improve it's value, sell the house, and then refinance your mortgage with the profits you made as capital & assets to buy a better house; rinse and repeat. This is how the middle-class moves into upper-middle class. After that, there's buying multiple houses, renting them out, and doing a similar thing using them as investment products. This moves the upper-middle class into the full blown upper class.
At the end of the day, from the financial market perspective, housing is a commodity like any other. The mortgage system, and the slowly increasing price of houses, makes it a different kind of commodity market than copper, but it's still a kind of commodity for the purposes of exchanging into a financial product.
I'd say you're using commodity incorrectly for the way most people use commodity. There is a definition of commodity that could perhaps fit your description but no one really uses that definition of commodity in normal usage for the most part because it makes the term mostly useless as a term.
A better way to say what you're trying to say is that housing represents one of the only investable assets that an average person can purchase with financial leverage. It isn't the only one though because you can get a 50% loan on a diversified equity portfolio easily enough but there's other issues with this avenue.
Keep in mind using leverage to make money carries more risk. Many people learned that lesson the hard way 15 years ago.
All of the retards who said Vance was a bad choice deserve to eat shit.
It was mostly boomer NPCs who heard his retarded comments from a few years ago and lacked the brainpower and independent thought capacity to look at what he's done since then to evaluate whether he has truly changed his mind since then or is just saying what people want to hear. Anyone who has been following him for the last couple years knew he's one of the best populist figures in American politics right now.
I didn't know much about him before the campaign other than a vaguely positive impression because he's on my side but he's extremely impressive. Even if the retard impression is correct (which it isn't, the guys who say this are very jealous and very stupid) and he doesn't really believe anything he's saying and just changed his mind to go with the increasingly popular and socially acceptable position of supporting Donald Trump because he's an empty suit striver, it's still a great sign.
Go fuck yourself you piece of shit retard.
It's the notorious troll who advocates for pedophilia. He's probably best ignored.
how easy it is to fool you people... all it takes is one indian paid $2 an hour to build up a reputation of being annoying, then ANYTHING he says, good or bad, you rabidly reject.
how in the world is that guy a good pick when he has announced to the world his life's ambition is to pump halfbreed pajeets, just like the one above, into the US?
what, as long as they're legal? is that it?
Vance marrying a Hindu Indian isn't great, but taking huge issue with individual choice isn't great either. The important thing is what he's doing to change the course of the population at large, which is always deterministic.
Most of the top players in the alt right are actually some level of mixed or non-white, as weird as it is. There's probably some social phenomenon there about people on the edge being more equipped to perceive and act on cultural taboos.
I was with JD Vance before this troll said anything.
You got to tell them to go fuck themselves sometimes.
I think they want that. Guy's a dedicated no-lifer who has dozens of accounts and manually posts crap in the hope of getting people to react.
They've suddenly realised just how fucked they are when it's a younger guy up there who can actually think and react, haven't they?
BE QUIET WOMAN A MAN IS TALKING
The early liberal response is startling. They're admitting that JD Vance really got to them. Vance wasn't cutting too many throats after half-time, but he seems to have genuinely got to them with grace and vibes.
I think they are really shook.
Robert Barnes is saying that Vance came in specifically to target undecided, working class, younger, women to move Trump, and I think he actually got them.
I was hoping he'd slam that dunk by finishing with "all they did was download an app from the app store "
Is Citizenry of The United States of America so devalued that any chicom smart device with internet access and a free app all that it means to be American? To these people, yes.
Did the clip cut off before the end? All I heard was the moderator talking over him with her obnoxious fried voice, not cut him off.
They probably expected Vance to just sit there and take it like a meek puppy, rather than be combative when they present their lies.
''Moderators'' being partisan for Democrats as usual.
The difference is how brazen and agressive they are about it this time.
Live Viva & Barnes: https://rumble.com/v5h2uh7-tampon-tim-awol-walz-vs.-jd-vance-vp-debate-live-commentary-viva-frei.html
When did the mic get cut? I could hear him all the way to the end of that clip.
https://x.com/davidjharrisjr/status/1841290216663048660
Here we can hear he got cut off at 1 minutes
If there is any "fact checking" it should only come from the opponent, which is walz. Thats why there are rebuttals. But we now have moderators doing it because kamala and walz are literal retards.
"Vote for Harris Walz, unelected officials will run defense for them" is all anyone should take away from these debates.
any other highlights of the debate?
Tampon tim claimed to be friends with school shooters. Twice.
Look at Waltz's deer-in-headlight look at the 0:36 mark. It's abundantly clear to him, and everyone else, that Vance has done a lot more research, and come a lot more prepared, than he has.
And just like that, I now like the guy. He refused to take their shit, we need more of that.
JD vance looking retarded for even believing these cunts were ever gonna hold their word.
Im appalachian and I really dislike the guy, his family may be from appalachia, he may even have spent some time there. But his core values and words are not appalachian. Hes a city slicker through and through. And funny thing, growing up in the hills I never understood the term city slicker until I came to halifax nova scotia.
These people think they are just the bees knees and so slick because they have some money, some of the most retarded shit I ever seen.
He should have brought a bullhorn.
Or better yet, stop agreeing to these fake “debates” hosted by paid propagandists.
Isn't it strange how all of these "fact checkers" just so happen to be democrat mouthpieces?
Faggot.
Hey you, faggot. Faggot, faggot, yeah you. Yes faggot I'm talking to you. Shut up
Comment Reported for: Rule 12 - Disinformation
Yes, and it seems to mostly just be a troll