[ENTJ] The First 2020 Presidential Debate (Biden vs Trump)

Who won the debate?

  • Biden.

    Votes: 2 50.0%

  • Trump.

    Votes: 2 50.0%
  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .
Reason said:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/fbi-investigates-ballots-for-trump-found-in-pennsylvania-garbage/

https://nypost.com/2020/08/05/84000-mail-in-ballots-disqualified-in-nyc-primary-election/

28 Million Mail-In Ballots Went Missing in Last Four Elections

Between 2012 and 2018, 28.3 million mail-in ballots remain unaccounted for, according to data from the federal Election Assistance Commission. The missing ballots amount to nearly one in five of all absentee ballots and ballots mailed to voters residing in states that do elections exclusively by mail.

States and local authorities simply have no idea what happened to these ballots since they were mailed – and the figure of 28 million missing ballots is likely even higher because some areas in the country, notably Chicago, did not respond to the federal agency’s survey questions. This figure does not include ballots that were spoiled, undeliverable, or came back for any reason.
Click to expand...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mail-in-ballots-missing/

Yes, voting fraud is a possibility, but can anyone assess the probability of this happening to a non-trivial extent? He was very vague about it during the debates besides talking about alleged creeks and waste baskets.

Also, an even more important consideration is not what a candidate says, but why they say it. If a candidate is advocating for something or expressing concern, people need to be convinced that it's a sincere, objective concern. Trump has established no convincing precedent that he would be concerned of voter fraud if he himself won, and that alters/colors the perception of that concern.

In my opinion, he should be spending more time on detailing out why his economy would be better.
 
Pin said:

Let's watch the United States presidential debate live- click on the video above. We're going to comment together here about what the candidates say. The candidates are Joe Biden and Donald Trump. I'm not going to describe their platforms here. I will let both candidates speak for themselves.
Click to expand...

We a politician who cars for his people and nation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pin
Huge economy hamberders Gina have you seen the stocks the stock market is a enormous Mexican border wall, the best absolutely wonderful covfefe, and anyone who says otherwise is fake news.
 
I couldn't get through it. I listened to their answers to the first question about the supreme court and then they started bickering.

Good luck.
 
There wasn't a winner. Trump bullied his way through it. I like to read conservative message boards to see their response to things and even many conservatives online were saying they wished Trump would have shut up and let Biden speak because he just looked like a bully.

The lowest points were interrupting Biden to attack his son and dog whistling white nationalists. I was glad Biden didn't return the favor and attack Trump's kids. That speaks volumes. And I felt for him when he looked into the camera and said something like, 'My son had a drug problem and overcame it. I'm proud of him.' Trump then telling him, "I don't know Beau," about Biden's other son who was a veteran AND Delaware attorney general who died of cancer in 2015. Fucking cold, man.

Biden missed a lot of opportunities to defend himself. He seemed thrown off by Trump's belligerence. Two that stand out to me were when Trump charged that Obama left a ton of court seats vacant for him to fill like it was a dereliction of duties, Biden could have pointed out that gridlock in Congress led by Mitch Mcconnell prevented filling those vacancies. Trump attacked Biden saying no law enforcement endorsed him. And Biden didn't give a response. Fox News has even reported that 175 current and former law enforcement officials have endorsed Biden. Maybe Biden just doesn't focus on endorsements like Trump does because he is more concerned with policy than popularity contest though.

It was really hard to get any substance or policy ideas from it because the whole thing was just saturated in tension. I was too distracted by the emotions of both speakers.
 
Last edited:
I've been watching the first 2008 debate for a sense of contrast:


The issues and differences are clear, they're respectful and yet direct. There are no ad hominems, no distractions of personal animosity, and no dragging the names of each other's children through the mud (wtaf).
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
I don't know why people are saying that 'they are both as bad as the other'. It seemed to me that Biden tolerated Trump's bullshit for 45 minutes to an hour before he had to say 'will you shut up, man?'.
Click to expand...

There are a couple of things I've noticed over the years that lead to this mentality:
  • The assertion that all politicians are equally fake and disingenuous. This has always seemed like a fallacious argument to me, because there's always a spectrum to the extent of behavior, disorder, etc.
  • A moral/emotional conundrum that leads to an overly defensive mentality: I want to support candidate X for my own reasons, but candidate X is attacked for trait A, so if I assert that candidate Y has trait B which could be interpreted as something just as heinous, I will be morally justified to support candidate X.

    I'd rather people just say "Yeah, candidate X is a piece of shit, but because I think his policies are better, I'm going to vote for him."
 
noisebloom said:
There are a couple of things I've noticed over the years that lead to this mentality:
  • The assertion that all politicians are equally fake and disingenuous. This has always seemed like a fallacious argument to me, because there's always a spectrum to the extent of behavior, disorder, etc.
Click to expand...
Yup. The false equivalence fallacy seems to be an emotional get-out clause to allow people to resign the responsibility of making a choice or a preference.
  • A moral/emotional conundrum that leads to an overly defensive mentality: I want to support candidate X for my own reasons, but candidate X is attacked for trait A, so if I assert that candidate Y has trait B which could be interpreted as something just as heinous, I will be morally justified to support candidate X.

    I'd rather people just say "Yeah, candidate X is a piece of shit, but because I think his policies are better, I'm going to vote for him."
    Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you're right.
Deleted member 16771 said:
I've been watching the first 2008 debate for a sense of contrast:


The issues and differences are clear, they're respectful and yet direct. There are no ad hominems, no distractions of personal animosity, and no dragging the names of each other's children through the mud (wtaf).
Click to expand...
The funny thing about this is that any toxicity of that election was mainly due to Trump, too, fanning the birther flames.
 
noisebloom said:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mail-in-ballots-missing/

Yes, voting fraud is a possibility, but can anyone assess the probability of this happening to a non-trivial extent? He was very vague about it during the debates besides talking about alleged creeks and waste baskets.
Click to expand...
They had to throw out 20 percent of the votes in the New York primary that used the universal mail in ballot system. Elections are decided by single percentage points. 20 percent being thrown out for the voter having already voted, having a signature that isn't even close to matching official records, or just straight up being dead at the time of election is a fuckton of fraud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top