(10-08-2020 06:55 AM)shere khan Wrote:  Bwahahaha

Pence wrecked her. Only people that think otherwise didnt watch.

Sadly a number of people on my social media feed think otherwise, but they seem to only judge her by 2 factors...(1) her skin tone is similar to theirs and (2) she is a (D).

I woke up to flies and mansplaning, so I think playing a soccer game last night was a much better option.

Do you find it helpful or damaging to a candidate when then have 2 minutes to answer the initial question and 1 minute for rebuttal and refuse to stop when the time limit is up?

2 minutes is 2 minutes. I would think that would be a huge mark against a person. 2 minutes are up. STFU or learn to get your points in quicker.

Also, is it helpful or damaging when to a candidate when the person completely ignores the question posed and just goes off on a loosely related (or completely unrelated) idea?

Q: "Do you plan on packing the court?" A: "Well, if we're gonna talk about packing, let's not forget Trump was packing kids in cages on the border..."


The moderator should have at some point nipped Pence in the bud for going over his 2 minutes and she should have, at some point, redirected Harris by saying, "Senator, you didn't address the question I asked."

(10-08-2020 08:44 AM)fsquid Wrote:  I woke up to flies and mansplaning, so I think playing a soccer game last night was a much better option.

Same. Went out to a nice dinner with no TV in sight. Got home, read the 30 for 30 cliffnotes and SpinRoom spin and went to bed.

(10-08-2020 08:44 AM)fsquid Wrote:  I woke up to flies and mansplaning, so I think playing a soccer game last night was a much better option.

Soccer "game?"

(10-08-2020 08:44 AM)fsquid Wrote:  I woke up to flies and mansplaning, so I think playing a soccer game last night was a much better option.

It was a good debate. Kamala did fine but Pence was really able to note the differences between candidates in: 1) Foreign Policy 2) Economics 3) Law and Order 4) Supreme Court: Checks & Balances 4) Personal Beliefs 5) Energy/Environment 6) Pandering to China vs. Negotiating

I’ll give Harris the nod on Healthcare since other than Trump/Pence giving word of not getting rid of preexisting conditions, I haven’t seen a true plan

I see no difference in what Biden/Harris are going to do with Coronavirus. Plan seems exactly the same as Trump/Biden except hesitation. Basically both campaigns are just waiting on a vaccine at this point. Pence highlighted Trumps ability to get Corps to come together and peoples freedom to make their own choices while Harris just said they’ve been a failure without noting anything they would have done differently or will do differently. Other than a possible mask mandate I see no change.

Pence won that’s why you only a hear about a fly. I did laugh for that minute or 2 like dude get that off of you lol.

(10-08-2020 08:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 08:44 AM)fsquid Wrote:  I woke up to flies and mansplaning, so I think playing a soccer game last night was a much better option.

Soccer "game?"

If I said match you ******* would still point it out.

It's interesting that all the media outlets are focused on a fly and "mansplaining" when there is a chance that Harris becomes POTUS by 2024.

(10-08-2020 06:12 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Thats a pearl necklace, but not the ones WIllie Brown gave her.

(10-08-2020 09:04 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 08:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 08:44 AM)fsquid Wrote:  I woke up to flies and mansplaning, so I think playing a soccer game last night was a much better option.

Soccer "game?"

If I said match you ******* would still point it out.

Haha.

(10-08-2020 08:56 AM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 08:44 AM)fsquid Wrote:  I woke up to flies and mansplaning, so I think playing a soccer game last night was a much better option.

It was a good debate. Kamala did fine but Pence was really able to note the differences between candidates in: 1) Foreign Policy 2) Economics 3) Law and Order 4) Supreme Court: Checks & Balances 4) Personal Beliefs 5) Energy/Environment 6) Pandering to China vs. Negotiating

I’ll give Harris the nod on Healthcare since other than Trump/Pence giving word of not getting rid of preexisting conditions, I haven’t seen a true plan

I see no difference in what Biden/Harris are going to do with Coronavirus. Plan seems exactly the same as Trump/Biden except hesitation. Basically both campaigns are just waiting on a vaccine at this point. Pence highlighted Trumps ability to get Corps to come together and peoples freedom to make their own choices while Harris just said they’ve been a failure without noting anything they would have done differently or will do differently. Other than a possible mask mandate I see no change.

Pence won that’s why you only a hear about a fly. I did laugh for that minute or 2 like dude get that off of you lol.

Exactly. Every single western democracy is using some version of the same plan we are using to combat the virus. Most are doing far less testing and most have higher rates of death among the sick than the US. The results are largely a result of population density and cultural differences in how compliant the population is. The US was born of revelation and built on individual freedom—the Americans population isnt great at compliance and tends to be a bit unruly. The reality is shutdowns and high mask compliance can only last so long in the US before the population revolts and begins ignoring the requirements. It’s just how we roll.

The bottom line is man kind only has a few tools to combat the virus at this time. Thus, Biden’s plan reads exactly like Trumps plan....except Biden’s plan speaks of a magic vaccine which we don’t have yet. The reality is there would have been no appreciable difference in how it affected the US. You see, under Biden, the initial wave of the virus would have been FAR more deadly because there would have been no early China travel ban. Thus, more areas of the US would have been “seeded” and the initial outbreaks would have been far widespread. Because Trump only had a few outbreaks to deal with early on, he was able to surge PPE/ventilators to those areas. Under Biden, the wide spread infection would have created 100s or 1000’s of hot spots, resources (PPE/ventilators) would have dried up quickly and could not have been effectively surged to just a couple of areas like Trump was able to do. Thus, Biden would have had to lock us down longer and harder—meaning we likley would be in a depression by now. Finally, the second wave would have hit (just as it has everywhere else) under Biden once we reopened. It’s inevitable with the shut down method of control. Which means a frightened Biden would have locked us down again—as he just listens to doctors—ignoring economic experts explaining the long term health effects of an extended period of economic shutdown and the resulting extended period of extreme wide spread poverty. .

(10-08-2020 06:12 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Not her first pearl necklace. right willie

My power was out from a nasty storm and I missed the whole thing - a f'kin blessing after reading all of this!

(10-08-2020 08:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  Do you find it helpful or damaging to a candidate when then have 2 minutes to answer the initial question and 1 minute for rebuttal and refuse to stop when the time limit is up?

2 minutes is 2 minutes. I would think that would be a huge mark against a person. 2 minutes are up. STFU or learn to get your points in quicker.

That would have broke 200 years of precedent. They have ALWAYS talked over their given time.

I'm surprised the moderator did not force Pence to answer but let Harris off the hook at the same time. Letting them BOTH off the hook was a shocker.

But the entire debate was nothing but Dem talking points disguised as

CNN's Time Tracker: https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/v...93b3940835
Pence 36 minutes and 27 seconds
Harris 36 minutes and 24 seconds

Time tracker is interesting. I would've said Pence got most time easy b/c he kept talking after Mod told him to stop. I think this shows the R can't just stop otherwise they're gonna screw over the R time wise

(10-08-2020 11:21 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 08:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote:  Do you find it helpful or damaging to a candidate when then have 2 minutes to answer the initial question and 1 minute for rebuttal and refuse to stop when the time limit is up?

2 minutes is 2 minutes. I would think that would be a huge mark against a person. 2 minutes are up. STFU or learn to get your points in quicker.

That would have broke 200 years of precedent. They have ALWAYS talked over their given time.

I'm surprised the moderator did not force Pence to answer but let Harris off the hook at the same time. Letting them BOTH off the hook was a shocker.

But the entire debate was nothing but Dem talking points disguised as

Since TV debates have really only taken place since 1960, 200 yrs is a stretch.

I can see going over on occasion when one needs to finish a point. But when a candidate spends 70 seconds revisiting a previous question then running out of time, only to keep talking, that needs to stop.

I'm for a 2 minute cap with a 10 second overage warning to then cutting off the mic.

Is 2 minutes really enough time to discuss in depth issues? It's enough time to thrown soundbites and talking points, but nothing of substance.

(10-08-2020 11:44 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Is 2 minutes really enough time to discuss in depth issues? It's enough time to thrown soundbites and talking points, but nothing of substance.

I agree, but a lot of the questions can at least be answered in a direct form that gives folks an idea of what is going on.

Just further proof that all politicians are full of hot air.