What's new

Sep. 29th 2020 Presidential Debate Discussion

mastermalone

Use only logic, please
as a person from another country with no stake in it.

moderation was bias- questions were way harder for trump, he was aggressively chased on questions but biden got easy questions, then when he fumbled the moderator quickly cut to the next question.

biden is visibly wearing a wire. You can see it popping out his jacket and his sleeve.

Trump came out too aggressively and looked bad, biden flip flopped on that green deal and STILL wont condemn antifa, insulting everyone’s intelligence saying theyre an idea is wild. Everyones latching onto trump not condemning white supremacy, he should have just done it there to save himself bother. He has publicly done it though before so dont know why he had to again.

theyre both moronic.
Here, I'll clear this up for you. Trump got the questions that he has refused to address as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. Trump has gotten himself into lots of hot water for shady business as well as commuting prison sentences for folks that did illegal favors for him. You don't get prison time if you don't do the crime in most cases. The evidence was clear and they stood by waiting for their sentence to be lifted. Case in point, Roger Stone. Trump seems to divide the country and not give a shit about folks that did not vote for him. I would't care if folks voted for me or not if I were president. I would still do my best to get them the help they need to live, even racist folks that would rather seem me dead. Yes, I would still help them out because I would be the President, it's what I'm supposed to do.

  • Biden is not the president. He has not done any of the stuff that Trump got questioned on so no questions could be asked of him related to those.
  • The green new deal is NOT Biden's plan. That was Senator Warren's plan (IIRC)
  • Antifa stands for "Anti-fascist", you know, what the Allied Soldiers were in WWII. Hitler was a fascist, you know, the bad guys. It is not some organization. It is an ideology.
  • Trump's father had charges filed against him for discrimination from withing his establishments. Trump himself called for the death penalty for the 5 kids that were wrongly accused of raping a woman in New York back in the 90's. He too has a history of racial discrimination against non-white folks in his establishments. He was seen on a video in the past stating that black people in the U.S. have it better than whites. That's comedy gold right there when you consider how many times we get discriminated against. As a white man, I wonder if he's ever been spit on or attacked and called a [ban incoming] and told to go home or what have you? If you don't have to live through it, I guess it is not real to you.
In any case, that is why that happened. Also, Chris Wallace, the moderator, is a conservative. So no one can say he was biased against Trump.
 

Marlow

Premium Supporter
Premium Supporter

Anarchist_Gib

Shao Kahn main, please your send prayers!
I challenge you to say the word, "immigrant" and not picture a person from south of the border. I'm sure you don't think of someone from say, England, as an immigrant when that word is tossed around.
I personally have a generally larger association with the word in regards to Middle Eastern immigrants and east European due to my background and former religious associations. Now that I reside in Texas the word certainly does have a far stronger association with Hispanics, but understandably so considering the proximity to Mexico. In my former residency of St. Charles the most predominate demographic of immigrants is Asian. There is far more nuance to this than how you represent. I think your distinction becomes more valid when specifically talking about illegal immigration for sure, but this is also more understandable given that logistically you'd of course get far more from your geographical neighbors than from the other side of the globe. You mentioned illegal immigration from Canadians in your original post, which of course is on the rise relative to the previous few years. Yet in 2019 there were only 960 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/illegal-border-crossings-canada-quietly-rising-data-shows-n981131) apprehensions from the Canadian border, while on our Southern border there were 851,508 (https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration). In that context it's not unreasonable for it to take center stage when discussing this issue.

Fair is fair so if you are going to be about it, be about it and stop those folks at the airport and/or border. We can't have strong borders if all these European folks keep flying in and overstaying their Visas. Not only that, most of you live in areas where folks from south of the border do not live or have any impact on you whatsoever.
A) I agree that laws should be universally applied and enforced.
B) This is speculative. My father was displaced in the restaurant industry by immigrants, and this was in hick zone areas of Missouri

If Obama did the same stuff that Trump has done, "severe" as you state, then where are the actual articles that describe them? Don't send any far right documentation either.
Severe in terms of volume, not necessarily in terms of harshness.
 

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
I mentioned the statues from my previous residency; some of Borromeo whose anti-reformation legacy was oppressive to protestants, and others of figures who had a hand in driving indigenous populations out of the region. Nobody I've never met in all my years there ever defended those statues on the basis of racial supremacy or righteous motive, it was always in the vein of awareness and geographical history(St. Charles is MO's 3rd oldest city, founded in 1769). To want to preserve pieces of history is NOT to necessarily endorse them or the ideals they stand for.
Germany does a great job of 'awareness' without keeping any statues of Hitler around. It's not necessary to have monuments to reprehensible men and parks named after them.
 

ChaosTheory

A fat woman came into the shoe store today...
i mean ive seen him denounce white supremacy before.

the media calls everyone and everything a white supremacist for absolutely no reason in america so probably wouldnt be saying much in his position past setting my own view that its wrong.
That's exactly right and one of the issues. E.g., "Blue Lives Matter" on your Facebook page is why Kyle Rittenhouse is labeled a white supremacists (Biden getting sued for that one, btw).

The other issue is that even if he does openly condemn, it's always going to be a "dog whistle" or "soft" or otherwise dismissed. It's never going to be enough, so it's pointless.

Here's the full context of the comment and @1:55 is the part that everyone likes to omit. Again, not like it matters.

By the way, speaking of taking down statues... Trump in this clip brings up taking down statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

He was lambasted at the time for being ridiculous and facetious. That he was just trying to undermine and distract (heard that language recently?).

Just a sidenote, but looking back from 2020... How silly of him, right?
 
Reactions: nwo

Anarchist_Gib

Shao Kahn main, please your send prayers!
Germany does a great job of 'awareness' without keeping any statues of Hitler around. It's not necessary to have monuments to reprehensible men and parks named after them.
Of course it's not necessary. It's also not necessary to remove them. I've already stated that I personally have no particular love for the statues in question, but do not assign by definition negative intent to those that do. If a locality votes to remove them, I'm for it. If they vote to keep it, I'm for it. My preferred method would be what I responded to Vslayer: to have them moved to a place solely dedicated to historical preservation, both for the compromise between preservationists and those who desire to see them removed from public spaces as well as simply being in the best interest of the piece themselves(dedicating caretaking and such).
 

mastermalone

Use only logic, please
I personally have a generally larger association with the word in regards to Middle Eastern immigrants and east European due to my background and former religious associations. Now that I reside in Texas the word certainly does have a far stronger association with Hispanics, but understandably so considering the proximity to Mexico. In my former residency of St. Charles the most predominate demographic of immigrants is Asian. There is far more nuance to this than how you represent. I think your distinction becomes more valid when specifically talking about illegal immigration for sure, but this is also more understandable given that logistically you'd of course get far more from your geographical neighbors than from the other side of the globe. You mentioned illegal immigration from Canadians in your original post, which of course is on the rise relative to the previous few years. Yet in 2019 there were only 960 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/illegal-border-crossings-canada-quietly-rising-data-shows-n981131) apprehensions from the Canadian border, while on our Southern border there were 851,508 (https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration). In that context it's not unreasonable for it to take center stage when discussing this issue.



A) I agree that laws should be universally applied and enforced.
B) This is speculative. My father was displaced in the restaurant industry by immigrants, and this was in hick zone areas of Missouri



Severe in terms of volume, not necessarily in terms of harshness.
All very nicely put in to context. I appreciate your answers and the articles. My thought on the Obama references to immigration when the word, "severe" was used was in equivalence to Trumps handling of the the border situation. Yes, Obama deported a lot of folks which is what the Federal Border patrol is supposed to do.

As for your father's situation, that is very unfortunate and I feel bad about that. The problem in that situation from legal immigrants is competition, nothing more. You are correct about the proximity to the border and the numbers of illegal immigrants from the southern border. But, by far and large, the northern immigrants from Canada are treated much differently than folks from the southern border. Make no mistake. Regardless of the numbers, the treatment should be the same. Otherwise, I will call B.S. where I smell it. In most cases, our Canadian brothers have no reason to come here. On the flip side, the folks from our southern countries have a reason fro trying to get here. Usually life and death is the issue.
 

Obly

Ambiguous world creator
If you intended this to apply to me, then this is where you point out when and where I insinuated the above notion. I challenged the specific example brought up, as I don't think it's a good one. This does not translate to an endorsement of any particular rhetoric or group.
I was referring to your comments on Trump's Charlottesville remarks. We can debate the context and literal semantics of "fine people on both sides" in the instance he said it, but to imply that it was innocuous or genuinely intentioned--and therefore exempt from criticism--is minimizing (and yes, dishonest) when considered in the larger context of Trump's considerable corpus of similar remarks. But if I over-inferred about your stance that Trump is in general exempt from criticism about his race-related remarks, then I apologize.
 

Obly

Ambiguous world creator
I dont support trump at all. I think hes a moron. He harbours plenty of dumb views. Im just referring to the fact the far left are way worse.

your entire argument there went like this.

heres my opinion
If you dont agree with my opinion youre lying or racist?

Not one thing backed up

see the issue? At least others who i might not agree with are making cases.
No, I don't see the issue. Your reply honestly doesn't even make sense.

I stated one fact: That Trump threatened continued funding for the U.S. military over the issue of renaming some Army bases. It's an undisputed fact and I can link to a dozen news articles if you like, but I really didn't think it was necessary.

I stated one opinion: That attempting to deny, distort, or draw false equivalencies about Trump's obviously racist beliefs and actions is intellectually dishonest. Which it is. I can cite manuals from any high school debate team if you like, but again I really didn't think it was necessary.

But I also specifically said your beliefs are your own business. I didn't say nor imply that you are a racist yourself, or that you are one if you don't agree with me. Where you're coming up with that, I have no idea, but it's entirely out of your own head. Not sure how I'm supposed to "back up" something you're imagining.

I'm perfectly willing to reconsider anything I said and admit I was wrong, but you need to come up with a little more than, "neener neener I know you are, but what am I?"
 

CrimsonShadow

Administrator and Community Engineer
Administrator
Of course it's not necessary. It's also not necessary to remove them. I've already stated that I personally have no particular love for the statues in question, but do not assign by definition negative intent to those that do. If a locality votes to remove them, I'm for it. If they vote to keep it, I'm for it. My preferred method would be what I responded to Vslayer: to have them moved to a place solely dedicated to historical preservation, both for the compromise between preservationists and those who desire to see them removed from public spaces as well as simply being in the best interest of the piece themselves(dedicating caretaking and such).
And I'm guessing we have a vote on whether to support the tons of people flying Nazi flags and yelling racist and antisemetic slogans there, too?

Seems this group of people aren't too excited about erecting monuments down there to the actual heroes of the war, nor for making sure the ideals that the war was won on (and that lots of actual patriotic Union soldiers died for) remain in place.. So it's hard to buy the argument that they're really concerned about the public good.
 

Anarchist_Gib

Shao Kahn main, please your send prayers!
And I'm guessing we have a vote on whether to support the tons of people flying Nazi flags and yelling racist and antisemetic slogans there, too?

Seems this group of people aren't too excited about erecting monuments down there to the actual heroes of the war, nor for making sure the ideals that the war was won on (and that lots of actual patriotic Union soldiers died for) remain in place.. So it's hard to buy the argument that they're really concerned about the public good.
A) No, people have a right to vote on public displays and where tax dollars are otherwise spent but have no right to impose on the expression of others during lawful assembly. I do indeed support the right of people to display their Nazi flags and hate speech, in no small part because I don't like virulent racist who keep it to themselves ( I want to know who and where they are so I can not go to their businesses and spend money as well as not associate with them socially).
B) It's not hard at all, but you simply choose to take the least generous version of motives and reasoning and roll with it as if it represented the views/values of the majority of preservation advocates.
 

M2Dave

Zoning Master
To my friends on the right and center-right, I honestly could not care less who endorsed Hillary Clinton. Trump's denunciation of the Proud Boys was most certainly inadequate. In fact, the organization is using Trump's "stand back and stand by" statement to sell merchandise, which Amazon has blocked. Even Republicans have been criticizing Trump on this issue, which is not political.
 

Lt. Boxy Angelman

I WILL EAT THIS GAME
Also, if anyone on the Trump or Republican side can explain to me how this party has been crying for twelve years about repealing and replacing Obamacare, yet neither they not their leader haven't anything close to a replacement plan in place, I would really love to know.
It reminds me of Chris Rock's old bit about how illegal cigarettes would be if they'd been invented by a black man. Which is ironic, because it was Mitt Romney who basically created the first version of the ACA and implemented it in Massachusetts.

And here comes the part where someone bashes me for crying about racism, even though y'all know damn well the GOP wouldn't fight it as hard as it has if it'd had Romney's name on it instead of Barack's. Take it how you want. I don't care anymore. There's a meteor coming in a month and two days. This isn't fun anymore.

Also twice, while revisiting the debate: how about that whole "did you just say smart?" tough guy bit. Jesus Merciful Horse Christ. I can't find words to describe how hard that made me cringe.
 

M2Dave

Zoning Master
Germany does a great job of 'awareness' without keeping any statues of Hitler around.
I understand your argument, but this example is flawed. Hitler promoted a unified Germany. The Confederacy wanted to secede from the Union unless slavery remained legal. In my opinion, if you wave the Confederate flag and talk about "southern pride" and keeping Confederate statues in the public, you support treason and anti-Americanism, which is the primary argument that liberals ought to be making.
 

KingHippo

Alternative-Fact Checker
It's not talked about a lot, but the makeup and history of the South following the Civil War, the Reconstruction era, is largely skipped over for a lot of people, but it didn't go very well for a lot of people. In fact, it was a disaster. Almost every southern state terrorized free blacks, and the Klu Klux Klan had an outsized influence on the politics and were known to muddle in the election processes with other "Redeemer" Democrat paramilitary organizations.

After the insanely close election in 1876, an informal deal (The Compromise of 1877) was reached, in which Northern Republicans essentially ceded their last political holdouts to the Southern Dems in exchange for the Presidency. Left in charge, the Redeemers, composed largely of the former white overseer wealthy class, took control of nearly all the former Confederacy and immediately began passing legislation to disenfranchise blacks and terrorize the ones who still held political office. By the 1900s, voting had been gutted in the South and discrimination was policy thanks to Jim Crow. It was then that the commission of statues of the former Confederate leaders began to spring up.

Again, not a lot of people talk about the overt terror tactics that took during Reconstruction, particularly against the poor whites and blacks, and its failures are often put upon greedy Northerners. As always, the truth is a little muddled, but the fact remains that there was a hard political movement meant to regain power and disenfranchise the 4 million freed slaves after the Civil War, and only after they achieved total power were those statues created by the state legislatures, who, again, had kept it from being a public issue thanks to mass voter disenfranchisement.

Aside from Blacks' obvious objections to it, even most poor whites would have agreed that traitorous soldiers against the United States would not be appropriate iconography in a still-United States. But they didn't really get a say.
 

DeftMonk

Noob
Except illegal immigrants do pay taxes. Something like 6 million of them filed tax returns. I guarantee there are millions of illegals paying more in income tax than $750.

Ya that is just some dumbass shit that people use because they thought it up in their head to support their botard canditate. Even drug dealers pay taxes.
 
It's a sympathy ploy / get out of further debates card / see how fast I recovered it is just like the flu downplay.

Because people said mean things about someone's debate performance.