The oficially **official** Trump vs. Harris "debate" thread

[Occam's Banana]

Kamala FAILS At The Debate
https://odysee.com/@actualjusticewarrior:2/kamala-fails-at-the-debate:9
{Actual Justice Warrior | 11 September 2024}

In this video I discuss Kamala Harris vs Donald Trump at the 1st and possibly only debate between Trump & Kamala. I explain how despite Trump not destroying her. She didn't get what she wanted out of the debate & immediately demanded another chance.

Sources:

Full Debate: https://www.youtube.com/live/VgsC_aBquUE
Harris Debate Strategy: https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/harris-campaign-says-muted-mics-handcuffed-their-debate-strategy/
Trump In Lead: https://www.newsweek.com/trump-harris-debate-polling-forecast-nate-silver-before-debate-1951276
​

 

[Occam's Banana]

Why Trump Won the Debate
https://odysee.com/@mises:1/why-trump-won-the-debate:5
{Mises Media | 11 September 2024}

On this episode of Radio Rothbard, Connor O’Keeffe joins Tho Bishop to talk about last night’s debate. How should we think about the political circus? Will any of it matter in November? And what should we think about the corporate press’s role in the current election? Tune in for this and more.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Dave Smith | Debate RECAP | Part Of The Problem 1168
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t-YQQZFxqA
{Dave Smith | 11 September 2024}

On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave is joined by co-host Robbie "The Fire" Bernstein to discuss everything about the presidential debate, where key shots were missed by both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, bias on behalf of the moderators, previous debates and presidential seasons, and so much more!

 

[Occam's Banana]

You obviously haven't been listening to Trump very much. How can you tell he's lying? His lips are moving..

So your justification for Harris being held less (read: "not at all") accountable by the "moderators" of the "debate" for her lies is ... an ancient and moldy quip that originated as a joke about politicians in general (long before Donald Trump ever even made the scene) - precisely because politicians in general (of which Kamala Harris s one) are so notorious for being liars - but specially repurposed to apply to Trump, but not to Harris?

Ummm ... okay.

No, she shouldn't get a pass. Here's a link to today's article by Politifact in which it analyzes the claims of both Trump and Harris during the debate. https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/sep/11/2024-presidential-debate-fact-check-harris-trump/

Sorry, but no goalpost-move for you!

The issue at point is the on-the-spot, real-time "fact checking" by ABC's "moderators" (LOL) which was applied to Trump's lies, but not to Harris' lies - not some after-the-fact article from an entirely different venue. The latter does absolutely nothing to excuse the former.

Yes, they should. But I wonder if one factor was that Trump repeated lies he has spewed in the past and the moderators probably figured he'd do so again so they had the facts at hand, whereas Harris didn't have a long enough lying track record (compared to Trump, no one does) and they weren't sure what she was going to say.

Yes, I'm sure they so very much wanted to be even-handed in the application of their "fact check" gotchas to both Harris and Trump - but, gosh-darn it!, they just couldn't suss out anything Harris might possibly lie about - despite the fact that she's been VP for the last four years, and they knew exactly what she was going to talk about (because they knew exactly what questions they were going to ask), and despite that they could simply have confronted her about any of her previous lies if they actually wanted to, without having to anticipate or wait for her to repeat one of them before doing so, and so on and so forth.

I mean, it's just so hard being a "journalist" nowadays, and having to keep track of things this, that, or the other politician has said, and whether those things are true or not, and stuff like that, ain't it? Bless their hearts!

So if it would please you, have Fox News moderate the next debate. They wouldn't fact check Trump at all.

So let me get this straight: your rejoinder to my complaint that Harris' lies weren't being "fact checked" enough (read: "at all") relative to Trump's is to commend to my attention yet another gang of partisan hack frauds who will engage in the same corrupt shenanigans, but in the opposite direction?

Well, then ... I guess I'll just have to consider myself well and truly rebutted ...

 

[jmdrake]

Kamala FAILS At The Debate
https://odysee.com/@actualjusticewarrior:2/kamala-fails-at-the-debate:9
{Actual Justice Warrior | 11 September 2024}

In this video I discuss Kamala Harris vs Donald Trump at the 1st and possibly only debate between Trump & Kamala. I explain how despite Trump not destroying her. She didn't get what she wanted out of the debate & immediately demanded another chance.

Sources:

Full Debate: https://www.youtube.com/live/VgsC_aBquUE
Harris Debate Strategy: https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/harris-campaign-says-muted-mics-handcuffed-their-debate-strategy/
Trump In Lead: https://www.newsweek.com/trump-harris-debate-polling-forecast-nate-silver-before-debate-1951276
​

I'm about 1 minutes in and.....he said that the media said Joe Biden won the debate? In 2024? Ummmm....no. I don't recall a single media outlet saying Joe Biden won the debate. In fact what I remember directly after that debate is a steady and growing stream of people demanding Joe Biden drop out of the race in order to "Save our democracy." The spin was "Biden may have lost a step...or two...or three....but..but..but...Trump's just lying!"

That said, Kamala did seem to be serving up a lot of bathtub washed word salad.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Quis custodiet fact-checks ipsos custodes "fact checkers"?

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1834079194600669580

 

[nobody's_hero]

Whereas Harris didn't have a long enough lying track record (compared to Trump, no one does) and they weren't sure what she was going to say.

Fun fact:

Harris has been in politics longer than Trump has.

 

[nobody's_hero]

Ask Sonny Tufts. He's the one who seems to think it justifies holding Harris less accountable for her lies than Trump for his.

Yeah but arguing with Sonny would be like turning on MSNBC and yelling at my TV set. If I'm gonna argue against his talking points, I might as well go straight to the source.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Fun fact:

Harris has been in politics longer than Trump has.

Fun fact: you don't need to be in politics to be a chronic and habitual liar. In fact, in the real estate business it can be an asset.

And sorry to burst your deluded bubble, but I never watch or listen to MSNBC. You suffer the malady shared by many Trumpers: you think that anyone who dares to criticize him just has to be a MSNBC-loving left-wing nutcase who worships Harris and the other loonies in the Democratic party. In any case, I don't give a damn about your uninformed opinion.

I wish Barry Goldwater or someone like him were around (and given the sorry state of the GOP, that ain't gonna happen); he'd tear Trump a new asshole.

 

[acptulsa]

Fun fact: you don't need to be in politics to be a chronic and habitual liar. In fact, in the real estate business it can be a positive asset.

It's a bigger asset in your profession. Especially if you work for the state.

Trump has no natural advantage over Harris in lying ability.

 

[unknown]

 

[unknown]

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1834061680067989506

 

[Anti Federalist]

No candidate should ever consent to one of these dog and pony show shams ever again.

 

[unknown]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BtpdYlcbVRQ

 

[A. Havnes]

I wonder if this is true. It would explain a lot.

 

[nobody's_hero]

I wish Barry Goldwater or someone like him were around (and given the sorry state of the GOP, that ain't gonna happen); he'd tear Trump a new $#@!.

I can't disagree with the bolded.

Disagree with the italicized. —especially with the neocons in what seems to be a full rout back to the democrats. They can have all the Cheneys, Kristols, McCains and Romneys (or even Rockefellers) they want.



I don't think the GOP has ever been more primed for a better candidate to come along (I also realize just how fragile this foothold is). I wish we'd had this level of anti-establishment sentiment when Dr. Paul was running in 2008 and 2012 (or even 1988).

BTW, Did you catch where Ron was surprised how good of a liar Kamala is?

 

[Occam's Banana]

I wish we'd had this level of anti-establishment sentiment when Dr. Paul was running in 2008 and 2012 (or even 1988).

Someone had to be the harbinger.

One of the major reasons we have this level of anti-establishment sentiment is because Ron Paul ran in 2008 and 2012. [1]

Ron Paul was the necessary precursor - and unfortunately, we got Trump as the primary receiver of that benefaction (rather than the other way around).

But one way or the other, Trump's estate will pass on soon enough.

Hopefully, the next inheritor (if there even is one) will actually be worthy of it.



[1] And even he didn't originate it - but he did greatly amplify, focus, and galvanize it.

 

[ClaytonB]

Someone had to be the harbinger.

One of the major reasons we have this level of anti-establishment sentiment is because Ron Paul ran in 2008 and 2012. [1]

Ron Paul was the necessary precursor - and nfortunately, we got Trump as the primary receiver of that benefaction (rather than the other way around).

But one way or the other, Trump's estate will pass on soon. Hopefully, the next inheritor (if there even is one) will actually be worthy of it.



[1] And even he didn't originate it - but he did amplify it significantly.

^THIS

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again."

 

[Valli6]

Someone had to be the harbinger.

One of the major reasons we have this level of anti-establishment sentiment is because Ron Paul ran in 2008 and 2012. [1]

Ron Paul was the necessary precursor - and unfortunately, we got Trump as the primary receiver of that benefaction (rather than the other way around).

But one way or the other, Trump's estate will pass on soon enough.

Hopefully, the next inheritor (if there even is one) will actually be worthy of it.


[1] And even he didn't originate it - but he did amplify it significantly.

Yeah, I don't think Trump could've happened if Ron Paul hadn't happened before him.

Also, i think Trump was at CPAC the year a crowd kept yelling, "PRESIDENT PAUL! PRESIDENT PAUL!" and was probably amazed by what he was witnessing (actual enthusiasm). At one point he said that Ron Paul was right about a lot of things and deserved to be listened to (paraphrasing) - but some time later said forget it, he can't win - after that we all hated him.

Ron Paul woke US up. Years later, Trump woke up a much larger segment of the population.

 

[Occam's Banana]

One of the major reasons we have this level of anti-establishment sentiment is because Ron Paul ran in 2008 and 2012.

[...]

And even he didn't originate it - but he did greatly amplify, focus, and galvanize it.

It has since increased in magnitude, but decreased in focus.

That loss of focus was probably inevitable as the number of disaffected has grown.