quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:
[QUOTE]
What do you have to freaking learn at this point? It's about watching the President pin his ears back.

+1,000

Kills me that people don't realize how much President Trump loves this country and is fighting with everything he has to save it. Fuck civility, I want a fighter!

Just lovely. Watching the interview style you're going to learn something new.

Haven't you learned anything? The corrupt media will let the weasel Biden get away with lies. At least in a brawl, the President can call him out.

quote:

Originally posted by Ackks:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
^^^

and thats the reason I think an interview style would be far more appropriate and more enlightening as to the positions and policies

the talking back and forth, talking over each other, finger pointing, being called liars left me feeling like my time was wasted - I learned nothing new

I already knew I was going to vote for Trump and that Biden was a moron

I came away with no new insights - I watched some replays this morning and glad I didn't waste my time watching the rest of the show

What do you have to freaking learn at this point? It's about watching the President pin his ears back.

I was thinking more about someone undecided or on the fence on who they want to vote for

elections are won or lost on less than 2% of the vote, its that 1 - 2% that the debate was supposed to try to sway to come over to our side

Have either of these candidates run against each other, with the same issues this country faces today? No, so it's absurd to use historical election stats and say 1-2% of the vote matters.

Is anyone else listening to Levin right now? He is on point.

"Screw the debates. The bottom line is do you love this country or not? Biden started the interruptions because that is who he is and President Trump doesn't take bull. He was fighting for his accomplishments, his beliefs, and the country and came back swinging. Nobody changed their vote."

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Breitbart identifies 6 Biden hoaxes that the Trump campaign should now hammer.

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...in-the-first-debate/

Biden was particularly cloddish throwing these turds in the punch bowl. He pulled them out when he had nothing else, they were all distractions from the "discussion" at hand. These six examples stuck out like sore thumbs, highlighting Joe's cornered rat go-to strategy. I'm beginning to wonder if his trademark C'mon Man comes from having heard that many times himself.

quote:

Originally posted by Ripley:
Joe's cornered rat go-to strategy.

So is his fake-ass laugh and huge grin that he breaks into. It's what he does when he needs time to think of an answer or a comeback.

I watched an hour-long video of Dan Bongino going over the Debate. He repeatedly opines that this is not a race to be won by convincing undecideds to vote for you, but in assuring that all of your already-convinced base will come out and vote. He called it a "Base race" election. He said that President Trump's actions fired up his base and VP Biden's turned off a significant part of his (by denying and denouncing key parts of the Democrat platform on live TV). It was a very interesting video.
https://youtu.be/_AdHYoSr7gQ

flashguy

Forget a debate. They should put the gloves on and go a few rounds.

In this corner The President of the United States and in this corner three time Presidential Campaign loser.

Fourth times a charm, right? <insert verboten Biden catch phrase here>

Well it was entertaining with the President wining.

Wallace pissed me off with his questions - nice hit job Wallace. Hit bit hard on Trump, and gummed Biden at best.

Debates are a farce with the moderators being anything but neutral parties, favoring the left candidate.

The debate was almost a 'interview' type format anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
I watched an hour-long video of Dan Bongino going over the Debate. He repeatedly opines that this is not a race to be won by convincing undecideds to vote for you, but in assuring that all of your already-convinced base will come out and vote. He called it a "Base race" election.

IMO, the "undecideds", the Indies, the undeclared moderates, will vote against riots, defunding police, prolonged Covid lockdowns and masks, more taxes, and socialism. And many of them will connect these with local and state Democrats, leading to national Democrats.

Are there any measures being taken that would prevent a person from mailing in a ballot, and also voting in person?

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
Are there any measures being taken that would prevent a person from mailing in a ballot, and also voting in person?

Are you insane? Next you'll be saying that dead people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Vote Fraud is my fear. Wait until election night - he will win, but not be declared due to the need to count the mail in votes...or hey, we found these new votes! Trump will win, but the dims will make it painful

quote:

Originally posted by RAMIUS:
Are there any measures being taken that would prevent a person from mailing in a ballot, and also voting in person?

I have no idea how it’s done (or not) elsewhere, but in Colorado the mail ballots are returned to the county clerk in an envelope with the voter’s name on the outside. Inside is the ballot contained inside a “security sleeve.” Although I’ve never seen the process myself, I believe that when the envelope is opened the ballot and sleeve are removed for consolidation and later counting. The outer envelope with the name is then compared with the in-person voting record to ensure there are no duplicates, i.e., that the person hasn’t voted twice. As I recall there’s some sort of warning that if someone does vote twice the vote will be discarded.

I can think of ways that the process might not be implemented properly and thereby make it ineffective, but if done right and without corrupt vote counters*, it should work.

* (And yes, if the people running the show and counting the votes are corrupt then the whole process would be corrupt, but there’s nothing about in-person voting that would make that impossible—as has been demonstrated countless times in the past.)

^^^^ I can't imagine how that could possibly be effectively done with millions and millions of mail-in ballots.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
^^^^ I can't imagine ....

Yes, it makes one wonder how people in the past managed elections with millions of voters before the days of computers or even typewriters and mimeograph machines. At one point it was all done with handwritten records and handset type.

I’m not attesting to the system’s security or defending the process whatsoever. I wasn’t involved in its design or ever even in its implementation at the local level. One thing that I do know, however, is that my inability and failure to imagine or understand how countless things are done has no effect whatsoever on the fact that they are accomplished successfully.

About the process I described, though, that I have no problem whatsoever imagining how it could be accomplished with millions of mail-in ballots. Whether that’s how it’s done, I don’t know, as I say, but it’s not hard to think of how it would be possible.

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:
Now the Commission on Presidential Debates is talking about "tweaking" debate standards and formats to ensure more "orderly discussion"

GTFOH, you know what they are going to do, right?

Cut Trump's mike off each time he tries to respond to moderator and Biden BULLSHIT

But of course they'll never ever cut Biden's off, no sir.

It was a set-up for Biden...

The Presidential Debate Commission Tried, And Failed, To Ambush Trump

Tuesday night’s presidential debate was not supposed to go down like that. Most everyone agrees that the debate, which quickly devolved into a chaotic shouting match between President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden (with frequent, one-sided interruptions by moderator Chris Wallace), was a disaster.

But for the Commission on Presidential Debates, the body that oversees and runs these things, it was a complete failure. The debate was supposed to be an orchestrated ambush of Trump, with Wallace playing a key role helping Biden land punches and avoid getting flustered by Trump.

But it didn’t work out that way. Wallace’s obvious bias against Trump was off-putting, while Biden, despite Wallace’s help, couldn’t land any punches or fend off Trump’s attacks. (Biden’s habit, obviously coached, of looking into the camera as a way to avoid answering Trump and address the voters directly, was particularly strained and ineffective.)

All in all, the debate was probably a wash, which translates to a victory for Trump given the field was so deliberately and obviously tilted against him.

It certainly wasn’t a win, or even a draw, for Biden. You can tell because the next day, the media reacted by demanding that Biden not debate Trump again. Elected Democrats, on the other hand, know that if Biden refused to debate it would be a political disaster—their already weak nominee would look even weaker, and Trump would never shut up about it. That’s why top Democrats are calling for the debates to go on.

But since the first debate didn’t work out like it was supposed to, Democrats want the debate commission to institute some changes for the next debates, like cutting off Trump’s mic if he speaks over Biden.

The commission, which is run by a board of old liberals whose average age is over 70, was more than happy to comply. On Wednesday, it issued a statement saying it will change the rules for the next two debates.

“Last night’s debate made it clear that additional structure should be added to the format of the remaining debates to ensure a more orderly discussion of the issues,” the statement read. Although it didn’t say what changes were coming, the commission said it “intends to ensure that additional tools to maintain order are in place for the remaining debates.”

In other words, the problem Tuesday night wasn’t too much biased moderating, it was too little. The candidates were too free to simply talk as they pleased, and we can’t have that.

The irony of course is that this is the opposite conclusion one should take from Tuesday’s debate. As National Review’s David Harsanyi put it, the answer isn’t to crack down on the candidates but to let them fight it out. “As with most issues pertaining to the debates, the Commission has it backward: We don’t need more rules, we need more open-ended discussion.”

But that’s not what’s going to happen. Instead, the commission will change the rules so the media have even more power over the proceedings.

Most likely, the moderator will get a mute button or the commission will allow C-SPAN’s Steve Scully, the moderator of the Oct. 15 debate in Miami, to cut Trump’s mic whenever he pleases. Scully is no Wallace. He’s not going to argue and plead and interrupt Trump, so the commission needs to find a way to give him the ability to undercut Trump without looking transparently partisan.

Part of the calculus behind all this is to force Trump to pull out of the upcoming debates. That would avoid another effective Biden loss while preventing him from appearing weak. Short of that, the idea is to limit Trump’s ability to shape the conversation or alter the overall narrative, which, as we saw with Wallace, aligns almost perfectly with Democratic talking points.

But understand this: the setup failed the first time around, so Democrats and the commission, together with the media, are working to orchestrate a do-over.

https://thefederalist.com/2020...led-to-ambush-trump/