Game Thread 2020 Debate Part 3 - Sept 12

[jonnyboy]

People vote, that's what chooses the nominee

Over simplify much? Tell this to your Russian Collusion peddling buddies.

 

[barfo]

Wait, where was the conspiracy theory? I was making a prediction for the future, not a theory about something that already happened.

I didn't know the term 'conspiracy theory' could only be applied to the past. Very well. Your prediction for the future seems to involve a conspiracy. Better?

People actually do conspire at times, despite how naughty you try to make the phrase ‘conspiracy theory’ sound. Not all conspiracies are theories.

That's absolutely true. But your prediction, since it's about the future, pretty much has to be a theory at this point. And it's a theory about a conspiracy. But I won't call it a conspiracy theory.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

 

[MARIS61]

I think we'll see several more Republican candidates before it's over

Saw 16 last time around.

Good times.

 

[ABM]

Bernie polls pretty well, and still seems to be in all the debates, despite the vast center-left-wing conspiracy against him.

barfo

Sure beats a vast center-right-wing conspiracy.

 

[Lanny]

I think Warren will surprise some people down the line....I'd love to see her debate Trump one on one......I like Yang as well...bright guy without an ego driven agenda

Yeah, if only Yang hadn't espoused the $1,000 a month thing. Not that its a bad idea in itself, just that it won't go over well with the general electorate. Based on that, I'd be real nervous about him running against Trump.

 

[Lanny]

Saw 16 last time around.

Good times.

Too many. Would have been better had the field been winnowed down sooner.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

At least this part is interesting and has some ideas. Im bracing myself to be utterly ashamed when it comes down to the rhetoric espoused the last 3-5 months before the general election.

Its gotten so bad the last couple elections they aren't just attacking each other, they’re attacking the voters, who vote for their opposition.

I believe we are hurtling down a path towards another civil war and I really wish we’d find politicians that wanted to bring the country together instead of divide it even further.

 

[Chris Craig]

I didn't know the term 'conspiracy theory' could only be applied to the past. Very well. Your prediction for the future seems to involve a conspiracy. Better?



That's absolutely true. But your prediction, since it's about the future, pretty much has to be a theory at this point. And it's a theory about a conspiracy. But I won't call it a conspiracy theory.

barfo

 

[Hoopguru]

Sure, that's why the media right now is focused mostly on Biden's 'gaffes'. They hate him because he's an outsider. Right?

Or maybe he's just getting the negative press a frontrunner always seems to get.

Gabbard and Yang are mostly getting ignored now because they are polling in low single digits. If either ever becomes the frontrunner, they will indeed get a ton of negative press, because they'll then be the focus. And yes, maybe we will then find out what skeletons they have hidden, if any. And how they handle that will determine whether they go on.

I just don't buy your conspiracy theory, at least not as the primary driver of outcomes. People vote, that's what chooses the nominee.

barfo

Barfo, you don think there was a conspiracy by Hillary's party to get her the nomination over the burn?
I think the public seen it for what it was and helped Trump win. Its almost laughable that the democrats thought the people would just let her off the hook. Bernie should have been the nominee in 16 but I still don't think he would have won.

 

[CupWizier]

I only watch to see Joe fuck up.

But it is sort of nice, knowing these other guys know they need to kick his ass one of these days.
That will be a fine day too.

Heck if you are into politicians fucking up, you have plenty to watch with trumpy. He's probably the most fucked up presidential candidate running in 2020.

 

[Chris Craig]

Heck if you are into politicians fucking up, you have plenty to watch with trumpy. He's probably the most fucked up presidential candidate running in 2020.

No shit, Trump fucks up everytime he opens his mouth

 

[barfo]

Barfo, you don think there was a conspiracy by Hillary's party to get her the nomination over the burn?
I think the public seen it for what it was and helped Trump win. Its almost laughable that the democrats thought the people would just let her off the hook. Bernie should have been the nominee in 16 but I still don't think he would have won.

Yes and no. There was definitely some thumb-on-the-scales behavior - the leaked debate question, the scheduling of the debates, the funding of the DNC itself, etc...

However, I don't think if you removed all that Bernie would have won the nomination. I can't prove that of course, but she did get a lot more votes than he did. It wasn't close - 55% to 43%.

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

No shit, Trump fucks up everytime he opens his mouth

Planning to raise the rent?

 

[Hoopguru]

Yes and no. There was definitely some thumb-on-the-scales behavior - the leaked debate question, the scheduling of the debates, the funding of the DNC itself, etc...

However, I don't think if you removed all that Bernie would have won the nomination. I can't prove that of course, but she did get a lot more votes than he did. It wasn't close - 55% to 43%.

barfo

agreed. She had it in the bag.

 

[MARIS61]

Snopes Issues Pre-Approval Of All Statements Made During Tonight's Democratic Debate
September 12, 2019

U.S.—With the Democratic primary debates in full swing, many fact-checking websites are preparing to review candidates’ statements for accuracy. Thankfully, Snopes, the most unbiased fact-checking website ever, has found a way to expedite their evaluation process.

Since their original founding in 1957 by the KGB, Snopes has gained a reputation for objectively reporting what someone’s secret motivations probably were, and what they probably really meant when they said something. More recently, they have perfected the art of determining whether a satirical article is hilarious, left-leaning comedy or divisive, conservative-leaning fake news.

As part of their ongoing goal of being able to rush to judgment as quickly as possible, Snopes published a pre-approval of all future statements made by candidates during the Democratic debates.

“While we understand there may be some disagreements among progressive candidates on certain issues, we know that nobody who shares our worldview would ever say anything factually untrue,” Snopes explains in their article.

Snopes also clarified that in the event a candidate does say anything that sounds untrue/conservative, they will automatically conclude that the individual had pure intentions and meant something completely different. As a very last resort, they may change a particular rating to “mixed,” assuming some context was missing.

At publishing, Snopes had also released a fact-check for all future statements by President Trump, rating them all as “False.”

https://babylonbee.com/news/snopes-...ements-made-during-tonights-democratic-debate

 

[Lanny]

Snopes Issues Pre-Approval Of All Statements Made During Tonight's Democratic Debate
September 12, 2019

U.S.—With the Democratic primary debates in full swing, many fact-checking websites are preparing to review candidates’ statements for accuracy. Thankfully, Snopes, the most unbiased fact-checking website ever, has found a way to expedite their evaluation process.

Since their original founding in 1957 by the KGB, Snopes has gained a reputation for objectively reporting what someone’s secret motivations probably were, and what they probably really meant when they said something. More recently, they have perfected the art of determining whether a satirical article is hilarious, left-leaning comedy or divisive, conservative-leaning fake news.

As part of their ongoing goal of being able to rush to judgment as quickly as possible, Snopes published a pre-approval of all future statements made by candidates during the Democratic debates.

“While we understand there may be some disagreements among progressive candidates on certain issues, we know that nobody who shares our worldview would ever say anything factually untrue,” Snopes explains in their article.

Snopes also clarified that in the event a candidate does say anything that sounds untrue/conservative, they will automatically conclude that the individual had pure intentions and meant something completely different. As a very last resort, they may change a particular rating to “mixed,” assuming some context was missing.

At publishing, Snopes had also released a fact-check for all future statements by President Trump, rating them all as “False.”

https://babylonbee.com/news/snopes-...ements-made-during-tonights-democratic-debate

Yet another among the many bullshit sites I've seen blabbing about blather.

 

[crandc]

Snopes was founded by KGB? Then they must be pro Trump.

BTW if you want to know what Snopes said I would suggest their website www.snopes.com.

 

[Chris Craig]

Snopes Issues Pre-Approval Of All Statements Made During Tonight's Democratic Debate
September 12, 2019

U.S.—With the Democratic primary debates in full swing, many fact-checking websites are preparing to review candidates’ statements for accuracy. Thankfully, Snopes, the most unbiased fact-checking website ever, has found a way to expedite their evaluation process.

Since their original founding in 1957 by the KGB, Snopes has gained a reputation for objectively reporting what someone’s secret motivations probably were, and what they probably really meant when they said something. More recently, they have perfected the art of determining whether a satirical article is hilarious, left-leaning comedy or divisive, conservative-leaning fake news.

As part of their ongoing goal of being able to rush to judgment as quickly as possible, Snopes published a pre-approval of all future statements made by candidates during the Democratic debates.

“While we understand there may be some disagreements among progressive candidates on certain issues, we know that nobody who shares our worldview would ever say anything factually untrue,” Snopes explains in their article.

Snopes also clarified that in the event a candidate does say anything that sounds untrue/conservative, they will automatically conclude that the individual had pure intentions and meant something completely different. As a very last resort, they may change a particular rating to “mixed,” assuming some context was missing.

At publishing, Snopes had also released a fact-check for all future statements by President Trump, rating them all as “False.”

https://babylonbee.com/news/snopes-...ements-made-during-tonights-democratic-debate

Well of course all the fact checks on Trump will show he lied...because that is all he does.

 

[Lanny]

Snopes Issues Pre-Approval Of All Statements Made During Tonight's Democratic Debate
September 12, 2019

U.S.—With the Democratic primary debates in full swing, many fact-checking websites are preparing to review candidates’ statements for accuracy. Thankfully, Snopes, the most unbiased fact-checking website ever, has found a way to expedite their evaluation process.

Since their original founding in 1957 by the KGB, Snopes has gained a reputation for objectively reporting what someone’s secret motivations probably were, and what they probably really meant when they said something. More recently, they have perfected the art of determining whether a satirical article is hilarious, left-leaning comedy or divisive, conservative-leaning fake news.
How come no one agrees with your post? Maybe you should be giving that some thought.
As part of their ongoing goal of being able to rush to judgment as quickly as possible, Snopes published a pre-approval of all future statements made by candidates during the Democratic debates.

“While we understand there may be some disagreements among progressive candidates on certain issues, we know that nobody who shares our worldview would ever say anything factually untrue,” Snopes explains in their article.

Snopes also clarified that in the event a candidate does say anything that sounds untrue/conservative, they will automatically conclude that the individual had pure intentions and meant something completely different. As a very last resort, they may change a particular rating to “mixed,” assuming some context was missing.

At publishing, Snopes had also released a fact-check for all future statements by President Trump, rating them all as “False.”

https://babylonbee.com/news/snopes-...ements-made-during-tonights-democratic-debate

How come nobody agrees with your post?
Maybe you should be giving that some thought.

 

[crandc]

Pretending to cite Snopes. Oi vey.

Finally got to sit down after cooking maniacally all day.

 

[jonnyboy]

How come nobody agrees with your post?
Maybe you should be giving that some thought.

The article was clearly satire.

 

[jonnyboy]

Y’all ready for the sound bite competition tomorrow? Get ready to cheer uncontrollably at short applause-break statements, petty attacks and over simplified platitudes. With any luck, the moderators will be up to par and we’ll come away with zero insight as to what the candidates motivations might actually be. Who knows, we might even get some cheap pandering to the Hispanic community, I’m sure they love when politicians speak in broken Spanish, it’s not patronizing at all.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Y’all ready for the sound bite competition tomorrow? Get ready to cheer uncontrollably at short applause-break statements, petty attacks and over simplified platitudes. With any luck, the moderators will be up to par and we’ll come away with zero insight as to what the candidates motivations might actually be. Who knows, we might even get some cheap pandering to the Hispanic community, I’m sure they love when politicians speak in broken Spanish, it’s not patronizing at all.

Im looking to hear more from Yang, unfortunately all I tend to hear is UBI, I know he has other stances but it seems like he needs to stop coming back to that every time he talks.

I have mostly negative feelings towards Warren and I hope to clean the slate and hear her with with a different bias attached. I think my feelings on her may be unfair so Im going to listen knowing that a lot of it stupid stuff, but theres things to glean.

 

[jonnyboy]

Im looking to hear more from Yang, unfortunately all I tend to hear is UBI, I know he has other stances but it seems like he needs to stop coming back to that every time he talks.

I have mostly negative feelings towards Warren and I hope to clean the slate and hear her with with a different bias attached. I think my feelings on her may be unfair so Im going to listen knowing that a lot of it stupid stuff, but theres things to glean.

My post was pretty snarky, I just hate the whole debate layout. Nobody really gets ample time to convey a coherent message, so the whole thing just devolves into a jab-fest where everybody is looking to make a sound bite go viral.

 

[Lanny]

The article was clearly satire.

I don't think Maris is much in for satire.

 

[Lanny]

Y’all ready for the sound bite competition tomorrow? Get ready to cheer uncontrollably at short applause-break statements, petty attacks and over simplified platitudes. With any luck, the moderators will be up to par and we’ll come away with zero insight as to what the candidates motivations might actually be. Who knows, we might even get some cheap pandering to the Hispanic community, I’m sure they love when politicians speak in broken Spanish, it’s not patronizing at all.

I've heard some candidates speak in apparent perfect Spanish.

 

[jonnyboy]

I've heard some candidates speak in apparent perfect Spanish.

Beside the point. It’s still a cringeworthy attempt at pandering to a large demographic. Just blatant and stupid. Democrats thinking Hispanics are dumb enough to be captivated by this is just insulting. Dumb ass white people loved it though, and I guess that’s a pretty large demographic.

 

[Chris Craig]

Apparently, Yang is going to do something no presidential candidate has ever done in tonights debate.

Edit: Looks like he is going to be wearing some bling....a gold chain

Going full Bullworth

 

[Chris Craig]

Beside the point. It’s still a cringeworthy attempt at pandering to a large demographic. Just blatant and stupid. Democrats thinking Hispanics are dumb enough to be captivated by this is just insulting. Dumb ass white people loved it though, and I guess that’s a pretty large demographic.

Cringe worthy maybe...Pandering no. It is hard to listen to candidates like O'Rourke speak in Spanish because they don't seem comfortable articulating the language. Yet, the message remains the same, candidates are reaching out and giving representation to a populous that is not used to having that representation. Will talking in Spanish alone win a candidate that portion of the vote, no, but it is a good start.

I bet if Trump started talking in Spanish you would be all for it.