i would really like to see someone successfully debate MAGA republicans that trump is unfit for office by reason of either, delusion, or insanity. That or concede that they are either, fascist, or equally deluded and insane.
The line of reasoning is very simple. It piggybacks off of the J6 report, which lines up the argument that there is no world in which trump knew that what he was doing on J6 was legal. The only presented alternative is that the entirety of the federal government is corrupt, and somehow only trump knows this, which is obviously indefensible. So it must follow that trump is either delusional, and unfit for office, or genuinely insane, and also unfit for office.
Therefore, if you don’t think that trump is insane, and unfit for office, you are either, fascist, or insane and equally delusional. There is no alternative reality, because any alternative reality hinges completely on the concept of the entire federal government being entirely corrupt. Which is unfalsifiable and arguably, not possible.
If you support trump in 2024, you are one of three things, stupid, delusional, or fascist. There is no other option. This is categorically provable.
if conservatives will concede this point, i will agree with them on the take of biden being unfit for office, however they will literally never cede this, as they are fucking delusional.
Crying 45 keeps on crying. The orange shitstain should shove off to Moscow and take all the MAGATs with him.
That’s something a dictator would do. 🤔
👶
Didn’t he say he won the debate? What’s he mad about?
I demand the shitgibbon be shutdown. Did you hear me? I demanded it!
I declare it!
I’m not sure there were opportunities to fact check harris and the one point where trump said it was disproven the “fact check” basically takes trump at his word that trump wasnt talking about the nazis.
Which is a black mark on snopes for allowing an unprovable statement as a fact by a guy known to lie and walk back his missteps.
Conservatives are mad that “they only fact checked Trump”, and yeah, there’s some truth to that…
But they let him tell so many little lies unchallenged. They only fact checked him on the egregious stuff like “Haitians eat pets” and “post-birth abortions”.
Harris may have said some half-truths or omitted context for a few things, but she never told a single non-truth comparable to the things Trump got fact checked for.
The worst actual post-debate criticism I’ve heard for Harris was that she continues to say that Trump will enact Project 2025 and a federal abortion ban as president, despite his statements denying support for these things. The thing is, Trump is a huge fucking liar, and a Republican, so yeah, she’s right to keep saying what he will absolutely do as president, despite his lies to the contrary.
the guy fights dirty. fact checking prevents him from wasting his opponent’s time. if an opponent had to counter all of his wacko statements they would never make progress. it would be some one-sided steamroller garbage. I hope they normalize the fact checking thing.
I think evidence points to the fact that while project 2025 may not be authored by Trump, it is probably something that would influence a trump presidency. kamala harris’ statements about it were correct.
Yeah trump didn’t make that shit up…but he’s a useful idiot who absolutely can be manipulated into letting it happen
a federal abortion ban as president, despite his statements denying support for these things
They straight up asked him the question, and he refused to answer it. So, she didn’t tell a “half truth” - he literally refused to say he would veto a national ban when directly given the opportunity to do so.
As for project 2025, it’s his playbook. Whether or not he will specifically call it that, doesn’t change the fact it’s how he wants to dismantle the federal government.
we know definitively that trump is tied to project 2025, so yeah she’s going to keep saying that.
Didn’t he also get like an extra 5-7 minutes of talk time? He would “answer” a question, Kamala would giver her rebuttal, then he would be like “wait a minute I need to respond to that” and they would let him.
They did that on purpose. Harris originally suggested open mics but Trump pushed back. I’m guessing she told the moderators not to worry too much about letting him get in an unsanctioned response, knowing that if he’s at the point where he’s barging in and ignoring decorum, he’s likely going to self-immolate on camera.
She wasn’t wrong. She was concise enough to get almost every question answered, and baited Trump into humiliating himself. Some of the most damaging things he said were said during time he wasn’t supposed to be speaking.
It’s the perfect trap. Giving him extra time sabotages him, but he can’t complain that getting extra time to speak was a trap, because, as you suggest, at face value, it was unfair to Harris.
It also potentially saved the debate from an early conclusion. Trump has walked out of interviews and debates in the past when they forced him to stop talking or move on.
They really played him well.
Yeah, definitely a double standard on mic control. Any time he opened his mouth they turned his mic on, she tried once and they did a hard pass. Hell, even while they refuted his dog eating claims his mic was on talking over the moderator.
And that’s because all of the media loves Trump. They have a bias, sure, but they know the crazy shit he says sells views/headlines and that’s their business, informing the public is a byproduct.
I did think it was weird that the one time Harris wanted extra time to rebut, they denied her. At the same time, I don’t think Trump really helped himself with all of his extra talking. Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake, and all that
That reminds me of the Obama/Romney debate
Harris may have said some half-truths or omitted context for a few things, but she never told a single non-truth comparable to the things Trump got fact checked for.
The problem with Harris is that she’s a professional politician who knows how to skirt the line. So you can challenge her on a point and she can clarify it in her favor and then PoliticoFactCheck has to do a 500 word article getting to the nut of the issue (and they’ll get called liars for their biased interpretation too).
But “Black people in Ohio are eating all your dogs” is much more straightforward and easier to debunk. Same with “infanticide is legal in California”.
Trump is a huge fucking liar, and a Republican
He’s ForwardsFromGrandma tier racist. Even as lying goes, it comes across as weird and vulgar.
A bunch of the stuff he said cant entirely be disproven. Even the eating pets thing wasnt proof, it was the word of a local government official who republicans are likely not to trust.
I don’t know there was more they can besides appeals to authority.
It’s not the job of the person disproving it to prove anything. It’s the job of the person making the assertion and “Well, someone said it on TV!” isn’t proof.
You’re falling for their propaganda.
Republicans started this racist rumor about Haitians in Ohio.
The media talks to city officials and determines that these claims are unfounded.
Republicans claim that the city’s response wasn’t an outright denial, and suggest that this lends some amount of legitimacy that it might be happening.
But that’s bullshit. Government PR (and pretty much every journalist) knows to never make statements of negative fact, because you cannot logically prove a negative. It’s the same reason newspapers use “allegedly” to describe accused criminals: because future events could hypothetically change the truthfulness of the statement.
And that’s all these claims will ever be: hypothetical. When all you have is a hypothesis, it is irresponsible to run away with it as if it were evidence of anything.
“Can’t be disproven” is the default state of most social issues. That alone is equivalent to having zero evidence, and so repeating the completely baseless claims that Haitians might be eating pets, while technically true in a hypothetical sense, could be said about literally any group you want, because there will exist the same amount of evidence of it being true (none).
One can only conclude that anyone peddling this narrative solely wishes to spread racist ideas about Haitians.
Don’t worry Mr. Orange, I called emergency services for you.
Eat a dick, cunt.
well, cunts tend to do just that
Vagina dentata that dick, cunt?
Well I demand trump be shut down. For being too old and senile! Bye dementia don
They barely even fact checked him in the first place. They called him on a total of, what, three things? As opposed to the probably dozens of other complete untruths he uttered, not even just about policy and so forth but actual empirically verifiable elements of reality?
Here’s just what I spotted:
- Lied about not being involved with Project 2025 and not knowing what it is. We know he is acutely aware of what it is, and in fact some members of his staff were involved in its framing.
- Lied about the number of immigrants coming into the country.
- Further lied stating that other countries were “sending all their criminals and mental patients.”
- Claimed people were “aborting” babies after birth (called out by moderators).
- Claimed Harris said she would ban fracking in Pennsylvania (called out by Harris).
- Lied about crime rates going “through the roof” (called out by moderators).
- Responded to this by claiming FBI crime stats were falsified by “leaving out problem cities.”
- Lied about migrants eating people’s pets (called out by moderators).
- Lied about inflation numbers post-pandemic.
- Lied claiming that “Biden” built the Nordstream pipeline.
- Lied claiming he won more votes than any sitting president in the last election (Biden got more)
There were probably others.
He also essentially admitted that his plan for the war in Ukraine was to just let Russia win. That should be pretty damn worrisome for anyone.
I learned that what he does actually has a special name. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper’s arguments at the expense of their quality.
Wait what? Why would Biden build the nordstream?
Go ask whatever parasite is running the show in Trump’s brain - it doesn’t make any sense and I remember being very confused by that claim in real time
Lied about Kamala being a Border Czar. She led a diplomatic initiative aimed at curbing immigration, she was never directly involved in border matters.
Lied about how much aid the US is giving Ukraine and how others are not. Lied about how the aid is given (it’s in US made products not in Cash, the money stays in the US).
- “Lied about migrants eating people’s pets (called out by moderators).”
Aliens are eating peoples cats, he said he saw it on TV
I’m sure he was completely truthful when he said he didn’t read Project 2025. It would be very surprising if he read anything besides Mein Kampf.
The only way he actually read Mein Kampf is if it came in picture book format
“Everyone says it, you know Trump really is a genius, they say it. I’ve read all the best books: the Hungry Caterpillar, Green Eggs and Ham, Goodnight Moon. I’m the biggest read person in the country. They say this. The Giving Tree. I hated that book, communist propaganda! Kambala probably wrote it.”
He read Maus but took the wrong lessons from it?
“I hate the art but I love the messaging.”
I want this to exist so badly.
Mein erster Kampf
Hell, I’d be surprised if he’s read more than the Berenstain Bear on audio book
I wish they had pushed him harder on the simple yes or no questions.
Also, Harris missed a perfect opportunity to point out that Trump has been the only president that has advocated a gun ban. “take the guns and figure out due process later”
That would make him enemies right in the middle of his fandom.
The yes/no about “should Ukraine win the war” he wouldn’t answer anything except that he would end the war. He would just give up Ukraine to Russia to end it, though, and he didn’t want to say that on TV.
He loves backstabbing allies. He’s a dishonorable man.
The Kurds remember.
You can’t force him to change his answer. Y’all think you could fact check trump better live.
No, I meant when he was asked a yes or no question directly, multiple times, he never gave an actual answer.
Oh my bad, I agree on that point. Sort of expected it though but it would be nice to hear a simple answer here and there.
Biden wasn’t a sitting president though.
That’s true on a technicality, but everyone knows what he meant. In the 2020 election, Biden got ~7 million more votes than Trump in addition to winning the electoral college. Trump’s intent was to be intentionally misleading and to twist the qualifications to imply that he should have won last time when, in fact, he didn’t.
It’s a sobering detail of our situation. In 2020, Trump really did receive more votes than any candidate in any previous election. That means a ton of people showed up to vote for him in 2020 that hadn’t in 2016.
He frames it weird (and it sounded weird when he said it) because otherwise it raises the obvious point that Biden also achieved that same record, plus an extra 7 million votes.
True, although population growth is a factor as well.
Like, it wouldn’t be surprising to see more total votes than in 1990, just because there’s a lot more people. Let alone 1890. The “most ever” has pretty declining meaning after going back just a couple of decades.
% of adult population would be more meaningful.
The problem is that no one fact checks him in his personal life, so he thinks it’s just a thing his political opponents do. But the reality is that no one thinks it’s worth the time to correct his wrong way of thinking, esp. when he can be a useful idiot and use his wrong ideas to distract from the issues at hand
That vile bitch! “You were talking about the economy!” Let him say what the fuck he was talking about. Take off the baby gloves.
Nope. Won’t do it. He wins and your ratings go up.
No matter how tempting, if this asshole wins I will not click a single post or video passed around by Fox News.
“The press is so dishonest in this country, it’s amazing,” Trump said. “Now, I didn’t mind because frankly I was pretty sure that’s what they would do. CNN was much more honorable—the debate we had with Biden was a much more honorably run debate.”
I felt better about the one where I creamed the senile old guy. The one where a younger, Black, WOMAN was awful.
He also said that the full context of his quotes on Charlottesville make it clear that what he’d said was “absolutely perfect.”
It was a perfect phone call!
Nevertheless, Trump claimed the evening had gone well for him. “I’ve been told I’m a good debater,” he said. “I think it was one of my better debates. Maybe my best debate.”
You’re right, you’ve never done better. Way to go, shithead.
“I’ve been told I’m a good debater,” he said. “I think it was one of my better debates. Maybe my best debate.”
Hmm, this is suspiciously good grammar.
He is steering and planting the thoughts of his believers.
“Maybe my best debate.”
Some person: He must have done really well if he thinks about it that way.
He’s a Master Debater