Trump Harris: Who won the debate ?

[spidermike007]

11 hours ago, still kicking said:

Huge danger sign for Donald Trump after disastrous debate against Kamala Harris

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/huge-danger-sign-for-donald-trump-after-disastrous-debate-against-kamala-harris/news-story/489e762ecce6b340eb8c9cc048858e5a

My favorite quote from that article. 

 

Theoretically, all that stuff could have been fixed with a little more diligence and focus in the lead-up, but Mr Trump has always been a fundamentally lazy politician. He doesn’t care about details, and he doesn’t do his homework. He’s the kid at school who shows up on the day a book report is due and wings it without having read a single page.

 

That was fine when the person opposite him was Joe Biden, himself too blunted by age to provide a challenge, or Hillary Clinton, reviled by a hefty chunk of the country, or even when he faced the other candidates for the Republican nomination in 2016, most of whom had as much charisma as a toaster.

 

It wasn’t fine today. Kamala Harris, as you would expect from a former prosecutor, had quite obviously prepared meticulously for the debate. Of course she had. When you are a woman at the highest level of politics, you don’t get to skate by on bluster alone.

 

So true. And a lazy man who refuses to prepare for a debate, would be a very dangerous president. 

[LosLobo]

10 minutes ago, mdr224 said:

But putin has been doing nothing but winning since democrats took power. Your logic makes no sense

My logic?

Your argument lacks any reasoning and is a word salad of logical fallacies:

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (False Cause): You claim "Putin has been winning since Democrats took power" as if Democrats are the cause of Putin's success. Just because these events happened in sequence doesn’t mean one caused the other. Putin's "winning" is influenced by a variety of factors, not simply which party controls the U.S. government.
    

2. Oversimplification: You’re reducing a complex geopolitical situation to a simple claim without evidence. Putin’s success in various areas isn’t a direct result of Democrats being in power but rather his own long-term strategies and the exploitation of international opportunities.
    

3. Strawman Fallacy: You’re focusing on Democrats supposedly helping Putin, which isn’t the issue we’re discussing. The key point is Putin’s interference in U.S. elections to benefit Trump, which continues regardless of who holds power. You’re misrepresenting the argument to shift focus away from Russian disinformation and its role in the 2016 and 2020 elections.

By focusing on these fallacies, your logic diverts from the original discussion: Putin has consistently interfered in U.S. elections to sow division and support Trump.

 

Edited September 12 by LosLobo

[mdr224]

Just now, LosLobo said:

My logic?

Your argument lacks any reasoning and is a word salad of logical fallacies:

1. Post hoc ergo propter hoc (False Cause): You claim "Putin has been winning since Democrats took power" as if Democrats are the cause of Putin's success. Just because these events happened in sequence doesn’t mean one caused the other. Putin's "winning" is influenced by a variety of factors, not simply which party controls the U.S. government.
    

2. Oversimplification: You’re reducing a complex geopolitical situation to a simple claim without evidence. Putin’s success in various areas isn’t a direct result of Democrats being in power but rather his own long-term strategies and the exploitation of international opportunities.
    

3. Strawman Fallacy: You’re focusing on Democrats supposedly helping Putin, which isn’t the issue we’re discussing. The key point is Putin’s interference in U.S. elections to benefit Trump, which continues regardless of who holds power. You’re misrepresenting the argument to shift focus away from Russian disinformation and its role in the 2016 and 2020 elections.

By focusing on these fallacies, your logic diverts from the original discussion: Putin has consistently interfered in U.S. elections to sow division and support Trump, not just to “win” after Democrats took power.

Yeah he wanted trump to win in 2016. Now he wants kamala. China wants kamala so they can invade taiwan

[impulse]

2 hours ago, thesetat2013 said:

I tried arguing this point with another Democrat. It is without a doubt a waste of time. They can not or will not submit the lady said absolutely nothing about what she would do if elected. Or how she would do it.

 

And that's what's going to make the debate win pretty much meaningless, after the initial sting. 

 

Americans did not get to see what they tuned in to see- a discussion of Harris's policy and what both of the candidates plan to do for them.

 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

17 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

What facts did they add?

 

 

That there was no credible reports of it happening. Contacted the city manager.  Such a silly thing to say. Same as saying Democrats supports executing  babies after being born. Worth fact checking. Different to fact checking some vague economic statistic or something. Not like they fact checked all his lies. 

Edited September 12 by Fat is a type of crazy

[LosLobo]

9 minutes ago, mdr224 said:

Yeah he wanted trump to win in 2016. Now he wants kamala. China wants kamala so they can invade taiwan

Your latest argument introduces several more logical fallacies:

1. Non sequitur: You claim that because Putin wanted Trump to win in 2016, he now wants Kamala Harris in power, and China supposedly supports her for the purpose of invading Taiwan. These conclusions don't logically follow from the premise. There’s no clear connection between Harris and China’s geopolitical ambitions in Taiwan, nor any evidence that either Putin or China would back her presidency for that reason.

2. Hasty Generalization: The statement "China wants Kamala so they can invade Taiwan" is a sweeping and unsupported claim. Complex geopolitical actions like an invasion aren't determined by who is in the White House alone, and there’s no clear evidence that China’s actions hinge on Kamala Harris becoming president.

3. False Dilemma: You're presenting the situation as if the U.S. only has two options—Trump’s leadership to prevent disaster or Kamala’s presidency leading to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. This oversimplifies international relations and ignores the broader strategies that countries like China and the U.S. use to interact on the global stage.

4. Appeal to Fear: You’re invoking the possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan without offering credible evidence, likely to provoke fear. Using scare tactics like this doesn’t make for a rational argument, as it’s not grounded in facts or realistic assessments of the geopolitical landscape.
    

On top of these fallacies, let's be real: Trump's performance in debates was abysmal, often relying on half-baked claims and empty bravado. Unfortunately, your argument here isn't much different—full of speculation and lacking substance. Let’s stick to facts rather than unfounded scenarios when discussing serious topics like election interference and international relations.

Edited September 12 by LosLobo

[Thailand]

1 hour ago, maesariang said:

Dumb photo. Staring at the ground is better?

Most people would call it paying respects.

 

 

Edited September 12 by stats
off topic diversion removed

[impulse]

3 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

That there was no credible reports of it happening. Contacted the city manager.  Such a silly thing to say. Same as saying Democrats supports executing  babies after being born. Worth fact checking. Different to fact checking some vague economic statistic or something. Not like they fact checked all his lies. 

 

Walz, however, signed an omnibus bill in 2023 that allowed physicians to refuse life-saving care to infants born after failed abortions.

 

Twenty-four abortion procedures between 2015 and 2022 led to live births, according to Minnesota Department of Health records. Of the infants born alive during abortion procedures between 2015 and 2022, medical professionals provided seven with “comfort care” in an attempt to make their deaths more comfortable whereas “no specific steps taken to preserve life were reported” in one 2017 case, the National Catholic Register reported.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/11/abc-debate-moderators-fact-check-ignores-what-tim-walzs-state-can-do-to-infants-born-alive-after-attempted-abortions/

 

“First of all, city officials have not said it’s not true. They said they don’t have all the evidence,” Vance said. “We’ve heard from a number of constituents on the ground Kaitlan, with first hand and second hand reports saying this stuff is happening. So they, very clearly, meaning the people on the ground dealing with this, think it is happening, and I think that it’s for journalists to actually get on the ground and uncover this stuff for themselves when you have people on the ground saying ‘my pets are being abducted, or geese at the city pond are being abducted and slaughtered right in front of us.’ 

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/11/jd-vance-media-migrant-crisis-cat-memes/

 

[maesariang]

3 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Your latest argument introduces several more logical fallacies:

1. Non sequitur: You claim that because Putin wanted Trump to win in 2016, he now wants Kamala Harris in power, and China supposedly supports her for the purpose of invading Taiwan. These conclusions don't logically follow from the premise. There’s no clear connection between Harris and China’s geopolitical ambitions in Taiwan, nor any evidence that either Putin or China would back her presidency for that reason.

2. Hasty Generalization: The statement "China wants Kamala so they can invade Taiwan" is a sweeping and unsupported claim. Complex geopolitical actions like an invasion aren't determined by who is in the White House alone, and there’s no clear evidence that China’s actions hinge on Kamala Harris becoming president.

3. False Dilemma: You're presenting the situation as if the U.S. only has two options—Trump’s leadership to prevent disaster or Kamala’s presidency leading to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. This oversimplifies international relations and ignores the broader strategies that countries like China and the U.S. use to interact on the global stage.

4. Appeal to Fear: You’re invoking the possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan without offering credible evidence, likely to provoke fear. Using scare tactics like this doesn’t make for a rational argument, as it’s not grounded in facts or realistic assessments of the geopolitical landscape.
    

On top of these fallacies, let's be real: Trump's performance in debates was abysmal, often relying on half-baked claims and empty bravado. Unfortunately, your argument here isn't much different—full of speculation and lacking substance. Let’s stick to facts rather than unfounded scenarios when discussing serious topics like election interference and international relations.

AI cut and paste.

[maesariang]

1 minute ago, impulse said:

 

Walz, however, signed an omnibus bill in 2023 that allowed physicians to refuse life-saving care to infants born after failed abortions.

 

Twenty-four abortion procedures between 2015 and 2022 led to live births, according to Minnesota Department of Health records. Of the infants born alive during abortion procedures between 2015 and 2022, medical professionals provided seven with “comfort care” in an attempt to make their deaths more comfortable whereas “no specific steps taken to preserve life were reported” in one 2017 case, the National Catholic Register reported.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/11/abc-debate-moderators-fact-check-ignores-what-tim-walzs-state-can-do-to-infants-born-alive-after-attempted-abortions/

 

“First of all, city officials have not said it’s not true. They said they don’t have all the evidence,” Vance said. “We’ve heard from a number of constituents on the ground Kaitlan, with first hand and second hand reports saying this stuff is happening. So they, very clearly, meaning the people on the ground dealing with this, think it is happening, and I think that it’s for journalists to actually get on the ground and uncover this stuff for themselves when you have people on the ground saying ‘my pets are being abducted, or geese at the city pond are being abducted and slaughtered right in front of us.’ 

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/11/jd-vance-media-migrant-crisis-cat-memes/

 

I believe it. A Chinese restaurant I know got busted killing ibis birds and selling them as duck meat.

[mdr224]

4 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Your latest argument introduces several more logical fallacies:

1. Non sequitur: You claim that because Putin wanted Trump to win in 2016, he now wants Kamala Harris in power, and China supposedly supports her for the purpose of invading Taiwan. These conclusions don't logically follow from the premise. There’s no clear connection between Harris and China’s geopolitical ambitions in Taiwan, nor any evidence that either Putin or China would back her presidency for that reason.

2. Hasty Generalization: The statement "China wants Kamala so they can invade Taiwan" is a sweeping and unsupported claim. Complex geopolitical actions like an invasion aren't determined by who is in the White House alone, and there’s no clear evidence that China’s actions hinge on Kamala Harris becoming president.

3. False Dilemma: You're presenting the situation as if the U.S. only has two options—Trump’s leadership to prevent disaster or Kamala’s presidency leading to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. This oversimplifies international relations and ignores the broader strategies that countries like China and the U.S. use to interact on the global stage.

4. Appeal to Fear: You’re invoking the possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan without offering credible evidence, likely to provoke fear. Using scare tactics like this doesn’t make for a rational argument, as it’s not grounded in facts or realistic assessments of the geopolitical landscape.
    

On top of these fallacies, let's be real: Trump's performance in debates was abysmal, often relying on half-baked claims and empty bravado. Unfortunately, your argument here isn't much different—full of speculation and lacking substance. Let’s stick to facts rather than unfounded scenarios when discussing serious topics like election interference and international relations.

Alright remember what i said though when china invades taiwan. You type too much im not reading that <deleted>

[ExpatOilWorker]

2 hours ago, maesariang said:

People are cheering Trump not Harris.

Trump is just showing respect to the 47th president of US of A.

[maesariang]

Just now, ExpatOilWorker said:

Trump is just showing respect to the 47th president of US of A.

Himself

[Eric Loh]

17 minutes ago, mdr224 said:

Yeah he wanted trump to win in 2016. Now he wants kamala. China wants kamala so they can invade taiwan

Correction required for your faux claim. China want Trump to win as he will not defend Taiwan. 
 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/07/17/donald-trump-defend-taiwan-china/

Edited September 12 by Eric Loh
Wrong words

[mdr224]

4 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Correction required for your faux claim. China want Trump to win as he will not defend Taiwan. 
 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/07/17/donald-trump-defend-taiwan-china/

Another no logic poster. Chinas not waiting until trump is in office to invade taiwan, Xi actually respects trump. Nobody in Asia respects western liberals

[Phulublub]

2 hours ago, thesetat2013 said:

I tried arguing this point with another Democrat. It is without a doubt a waste of time. They can not or will not submit the lady said absolutely nothing about what she would do if elected. Or how she would do it.

 

She has no plan except to help the middle-class. If you google it, the middle class takes up 50 % of the population so it is easy to surmise she is only saying that to win votes. Her only solid plan was to make a bill to give the people 6000 USD so they can buy car seats for kids. 

Either

"she said nothing about what she would do...£

OR

..."Her only solid plan was..."

 

Well done in contradictig yourself.

 

She also summarised a few other plans.

 

At least she has some plans, rather than just "concepts of plans"

 

PH

[Phulublub]

2 hours ago, maesariang said:

She looks crazy

 

2 hours ago, maesariang said:

She gets told what to say. 

 

2 hours ago, maesariang said:

People are cheering Trump not Harris.

 

2 hours ago, maesariang said:

What did she win? Nobody can name anything useful she said. Weird faces, and dodgy ABC hosts are what people remember. She has done 1/2 an interview and said Trump was bad a lot.

More deeply insightful and well thought out points gthat add to our knowledge.  Keep it up.

 

PH

[thesetat2013]

 

[JonnyF]

18 minutes ago, impulse said:

Americans did not get to see what they tuned in to see- a discussion of Harris's policy and what both of the candidates plan to do for them.

 

She's copying Starmer. Say nothing, and then implement all kind of hair brained schemes after elected. 

[maesariang]

1 minute ago, Phulublub said:

 

 

 

More deeply insightful and well thought out points gthat add to our knowledge.  Keep it up.

 

PH

So lets talk issues

Debt no answer

Border no answer

Wars no answer

 

Hard to take that idiot seriously when she dodges questions and pulls faces.

[maesariang]

Just now, JonnyF said:

 

She's copying Starmer. Say nothing, and then implement all kind of hair brained schemes after elected. 

Kevin Rudd did that. His own party dumped him soon after.

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, thesetat2013 said:

 

 

Yeah it was like a boxing match where the referee and one of the judges jump in the ring and put one fighter in a headlock.

 

Still couldn't beat him. 

 

 

[impulse]

47 minutes ago, mdr224 said:

Yeah about inflation…buy bitcoin. Thats all i have to say about that

 

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of the crypto projects have gone tits up? 

 

And has Bitcoin outlived tulip bulbs?

 

Edited September 12 by impulse

[mdr224]

Just now, impulse said:

 

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of the crypto projects have gone tits up?

 

Who cares. Politicians are stealing your money thru inflation. Buy bitcoin and protect yourself

[Felton Jarvis]

MAGA cultists will always say that Trump won, regardless of facts. Harris stomped a mudhole in him and walked him dry.

[earlinclaifornia]

Drudge Report Sums Up Donald Trump's Debate Performance With 2 Final Words

https://www.yahoo.com/news/drudge-report-sums-donald-trumps-082244010.html

“The Night Trump Lost It All.”

https://deadline.com/2024/09/presidential-debate-highlights-recap-trump-harris-1236084242/

[ExpatOilWorker]

25 minutes ago, maesariang said:

Himself

At this point Trump is not even a potential candidate anymore. His campaign is just window dressing 👗 and symbolic going forward. 

My girl Kamala is the next president. 

[Eric Loh]

18 minutes ago, mdr224 said:

Another no logic poster. Chinas not waiting until trump is in office to invade taiwan, Xi actually respects trump. Nobody in Asia respects western liberals

Trump's praise for Xi is not reciprocrated. Your dear leader eccentricity and his loose values not like by the conservative Asians. 

 

Xi has strong words for Trump: ‘In our culture, we punch back’ — report

[maesariang]

Just now, ExpatOilWorker said:

At this point Trump is not even a potential candidate anymore. His campaign is just window dressing 👗 and symbolic going forward. 

My girl Kamala is the next president. 

Trump is the likely winner.

[mdr224]

Just now, Eric Loh said:

Trump's praise for Xi is not reciprocrated. Your dear leader eccentricity and his loose values not like by the conservative Asians. 

 

Xi has strong words for Trump: ‘In our culture, we punch back’ — report

I noticed you posted no links this time. Your opinion is worth less than leftwing media which i didnt think possible