Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
... LastLast
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Calfredd View Post
    Irony and hypocrisy so thick you could cut it with a knife.
    If your first instinct about looking at the age of the commission running the debate, is to sidetrack to the average age of voters in a political party, then you've got some serious internal searching to do. It might start with asking, what is the difference between an American voting and a member of a commission deciding on the rules, topics, personnel, outlets, venues & format of a nationally televised presidential debate?
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  2. #62
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    35,094
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    If your first instinct about looking at the age of the commission running the debate--
    *LOUD ANNOYIHG BUZZER*

    That was your post, not @Calfredd 's.

  3. #63
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    72,003
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Moderator job, moderator job, moderator job, oh now they're fact checker debate participant instead of moderator. Your problem is with moderators moving above their station. They cease to moderate the conversation, but to actively participate in debating what points are valid. Obviously, I'm very much opposed to that, despite all this whining about how it's bad faith to dare question it.
    Holding participants to basic ethical standards of honesty is not being a participant in the debate. It's a moderator's job, as you put it, and failure to do so is bias or dishonesty, itself. Whether by the moderator's own choice or the organizer's systemic bias or dishonesty.

    You're literally pushing for bias and dishonesty in debates, and fighting against measures to protect against such. That's your entire argument, here; that your chosen candidates should be able to act unethically and dishonestly and moderators should not be able to prevent that.

    Moderators can't be a neutral party when they're asked to interject into arguments that it's the debate opponent's job to make.
    That's just obviously false. You're making shit up.

    Correcting objectively false claims is neutral. Unless you're admitting that one side in the debate has no objectively justifiable argument and their bad faith dishonesty needs to be given a false veneer of validity, you have no business making such an argument. But you are, so we can tell what that means.

    Debate quality is how long it goes before trolls start leveling the racist/homophobic accusations. All your political beliefs are authoritarian racist/homophobic, hogum economics shown to never actually work, now help me get moderators the hall monitor debates as they ought. Uhh ... the bias and misrepresentation is so endemic now that I wouldn't trust you to moderate a debate for local dog catcher.
    Empty tone policing.

    If those claims are inaccurate, then it falls under the stance against dishonesty and unethical conduct we've been describing, already, the very moderation you oppose.

    And if they're not inaccurate, then they're not just valid debate arguments, they're necessary, because underscoring the opponent's unethical and abusive conduct is part of the process.

    You're whining because your side's rhetoric has been objectively proven to be bullshit and based mostly on petty bigotries. Rather than expect better of your own chosen representatives, you're whining that they're being correctly and accurately described as exactly who they are.


  4. #64
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    35,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    That's just obviously false. You're making shit up.
    I do have to wonder what it means when someone suggests the refs do nothing when they catch one side cheating. That doesn't sound like someone who wants to see two teams fight based on their skills and talents. That sounds like someone who wants their team to win, regardless of the score.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Yeah, sorry, "all lives matter" isn't going to cut it. The Party of Trump is the one pushing for changes. You can't defend those changes with "the members are too old" without blatantly admitting hypocrisy. None of this "both sides" handwaving, the Democrats aren't pushing for change here. That's you and your friends pushing for change here.
    Two problems can exist at once. Politicians spend too much time in public office, and thus the average age is too detached from the average they represent. Also, a commission setting important rules, now looking like it's finally going the way of the dodo, can be too old to make good decisions on important topics. Indeed, their lack of good decision making I am blaming, partly, on being disconnected from the modern debates as they occur today, not the dividing topics of the 80s and 90s.[/quote]

    This means your options are twofold.
    The definition of a false choice.

    One, you could admit that your concerns about the Commission being too old is also reflected by the party pushing for those changes being too old as well, and therefore, that the party pushing for those changes would have to make changes themselves -- and if they don't make those changes, their requests for change for others that they refuse to follow themselves should not be taken seriously.
    Seriously missing for the second time that voters in a single political party aren't deciding the rules for debate.

    Or!

    Two, you could admit your statement about the Commission being too old should not be taken seriously -- that you misstated, changed your mind, were a hypocrite or outright lied.

    Sorry, there is no third option. The RNC is the one asking for change, and you're backing those change with your statements about age. Hiding behind "all lives matter" isn't fooling anyone.

    And again: your continued statements that moderators should not fact-check is bullshit. If Trump says, in the debates, there's 42% unemployment, and the moderator lets such a blatant lie go, that's biased towards Trump. Easily destroyed objective lies are not debate. That's fiction. That's fantasy. We are not interested in electing the Mayor of Fantasy Land, nor are we interested in electing someone so clueless or legit insane they think the unemployment is 42%. Well, maybe you are, but most people are not.
    They're too old, and they will be replaced. Hiding behind an "all lives matter" narrative is stumbling into "I cannot view two problems as being two problems, they must be the same problem." I can accept voter demographic political party preference, even as it changes slowly over time. They don't write debating rules. They vote on their interests. So we're going to have deep problems not speaking past each other if you sloganize "all lives matter" instead of tailoring arguments to the subject matter.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    *LOUD ANNOYIHG BUZZER*

    That was your post, not @Calfredd 's.
    I criticize their decisions and say it's tied to them being old and out of touch. He chose to connect it to the age of voters in a political party. Please recognize the difference. Maybe you only read as far as you quoted? It's not even the complete sentence, after all.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  6. #66
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    35,094
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Two problems can exist at once.
    That's the problem, it is both, and you're defending solving only one of them. You can't defend saying the Commission is too old, without saying the RNC is too old also. Otherwise you're saying it's not a problem for both -- and that's called "hypocrisy".

    Or, it's neither, and your age-based statement should not be taken seriously either.

    "All lives matter" won't work here. The DNC is fine with things the way they are.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    He chose to--
    He was responding to you. Your first instinct, was age. Don't put this on Calfredd for responding to your post when the topic was yours.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Presidential debates prior to voting is bad faith in your eyes. Okay dokey.
    No, your framing of this continues to be an outright lie. Nobody is forced to vote before the first debates. Literally ever voter can wait until the first debate, or all debates, are complete before casting their vote.

    This. Is. A. Lie.

    Stop lying.

    I won't bother with the rest until we can at least get to the core of this brazen, blatant dishonesty from your part.

  8. #68
    The Insane Kathandira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ziltoidia 9
    Posts
    18,254
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I cited the first few problems I had in other posts, and the choice of moderators and presentation of topics are typical of the age cohort deciding upon them. Some of the debates felt like rehashes of the major topics of the 80s and 90s. I've assigned blame, and you're free to defend boomers styling the debates. You don't have to admit it, but that's your choice.

    Presidential debates prior to voting is bad faith in your eyes. Okay dokey.

    I'm not opposed to you deciding to argue that voters choose to vote without the benefit of being able to choose to view the debate, but if you could stop smothering it with "and it's bad faith to argue otherwise," then maybe I think you actually believe your argument. The more you smother anyone arguing otherwise with accusations of bad faith, the more I think it's because you weakly believe otherwise, or are ashamed to admit doubts in your own arguments.

    This is your attempt two or three to defend the status quo without being seen to defend the status quo. If only organizations of old, white, and predominantly men had people like you to be their champion everywhere.

    Moderator job, moderator job, moderator job, oh now they're fact checker debate participant instead of moderator. Your problem is with moderators moving above their station. They cease to moderate the conversation, but to actively participate in debating what points are valid. Obviously, I'm very much opposed to that, despite all this whining about how it's bad faith to dare question it.

    Moderators can't be a neutral party when they're asked to interject into arguments that it's the debate opponent's job to make. They even have a hard time just letting people finish sentences as time expires without being seen to favor one or another.

    Right back at you. But seeing as how the 'you're bad faith, no you're bad faith--you don't understand the concept of a debate, no you don't understand the concept of a debate' maybe we best leave it here.

    I'm giving you an example of some actual argument regarding age. If you'd like to make it. I don't know. The "but GOP old" isn't an actual argument.

    All the candidates of both parties are too old, and I favor term limits. I wouldn't hold up Biden, Pelosi, and Schumer as examples of the Democrats showing Republican candidates are too old! I'll start at the commission having no clue about the internet era, modern topics of debate, and who to moderate, and I seek their irrelevance. Then we can see if the current class of politicians can be challenged by term limits making them time out of national elected public office before having served 36 years in it.

    Debate quality is how long it goes before trolls start leveling the racist/homophobic accusations. All your political beliefs are authoritarian racist/homophobic, hogum economics shown to never actually work, now help me get moderators the hall monitor debates as they ought. Uhh ... the bias and misrepresentation is so endemic now that I wouldn't trust you to moderate a debate for local dog catcher.

    I like when they get fact checked in real time. That's the job of live social media outlets. They debate the person opposite with only time controls and subject guardrails and that generates any claims that some journalist thinks are misleading, dead wrong, or missing context ... and then those fact checks get fact checked too.

    It's kind of the nature of the divide in America. Left can't allow the right to actually seek the betterment of the nation for the future, and right can't allow left to do the same.

    I agree with you in part, and disagree with you in part. I do think the majorities just tune in to what politicians are saying right before an election, and in times of war or inflation/energy costs/recession. They also seek fact checks and neutral sources the fact check bases itself on to settle contentious issues during the debate. The old saying goes, "How can you tell a politician is lying? If their lips are moving." Americans do not give their politicians abundant presumption of truth-telling, but the kicker is, they also don't give journalists and fact-checkers the presumption that they're neutral and won't selectively quote facts and omit others to serve their own stated and unstated agendas. As journalistic institutions recruited more from graduates of elite colleges instead of working-class people who smoked too much and drank coffee like addicts, their implicit biases grew to mimic the cohort staffing their offices. Later, alternative media overcorrected for the problem by explicitly adopting biased viewpoints counter to the mainstream thought that preceded them. I do view politicians lying as a first-order problem as old as time itself. The class purporting to hold them to account, but many times serving to defend and protect them for political ends, is a second order problem that's now very widely understood. And people that think neutral fact-checkers stand above it all, and would solve the problems if their diagnoses and argument from facts was force-fed to debate viewers, are dangerously naive.
    You give the general masses way too much credit.
    RIP Genn Greymane, Permabanned on 8.22.18

    Your name will carry on through generations, and will never be forgotten.

  9. #69
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    35,094
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    Seriously missing for the second time that voters in a single political party aren't deciding the rules for debate.
    You...you do know what thread you're posting in, right? Did you read the OP? I don't think you read the OP. A single party is making a push for exactly that. How did you miss that? Please post constructively.

    - - - Updated - - -

    It's also worth noting that the Commission is probably sick of Trump's shit. Remember what Trump did in 2020? Trump caught COVID, then refused a virtual format when his own poor actions led to that being a requirement. Honestly, I think most of us suspect he refused to be shown on camera, because his mic and/or camera could be cut off if, for example, he made a list of objective lies.

    The Commission should continue as they have done for decades. Anyone who doesn't want the free publicity can show up on FOX, where their poll numbers won't change because FOX viewers were going to vote for them anyhow. Trump and the RNC have proven to be blowhards before on this issue, in 2024 they will probably cave again.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    You give the general masses way too much credit.
    Well, let's add to that. Maybe NFL fans should decide if it was a legal play or not. Surely the "neutral" refs have more important things to do than see if the players are following the rules or not.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    That's the problem, it is both, and you're defending solving only one of them.
    It sounds like you missed the part where I said the commission should be scrapped and replaced (the members of which are too old and detached from the modern debate, and explaining their bad choices on rules, venues, moderators, formats, topics, etc) and politicians should be term limited to stop these careers of 36 years in the Senate and the ridiculous spectacle of ancient senators trying to quiz Facebook, Google, and Twitter CEOs and failing to understand rudimentary aspects of each platform. You've heard two of my proposals for two problems, but you are very stuck demanding both to have the same solution. This is a very pathetic way to level the charge of hypocrisy.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathandira View Post
    You give the general masses way too much credit.
    It's not an internet-popular viewpoint, but it's mine. Maybe in ten years, watching current events unfold with the benefit of having heard my perspective first, you'll come to agree. Even if individuals themselves cannot grasp all the complexity that lead to their distrust of politicians and their media allies, in order to articulate it, I say the previously stated dynamic works.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  11. #71
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    35,094
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    It sounds like you missed--
    Nope. Your hypocrisy was in full display. Either (a) yours specifically, or as you're now claiming (b) you defending the RNC by saying changes should be made based on their demands, but changes they're not willing to make themselves.

    I, a Democrat, have no such issue. Democrats are not asking for these. You and your friends are.

    It doesn't matter what your proposals are, if they're rooted in hypocrisy they're merely handwaved. Basically, if Bill Belichick is asking for a change in refs' behavior because they're old and out of touch, you either (a) point out that Belichick is 69 and just as bad, or (b) you point out what he's asking for is hypocritical. There is no situation where calling the Commission "decrepit " and "a bunch of 70 and 80 year olds " ends well, unless you also point out the hypocrisy of the RNC making that push being made of decrepit 70 and 80 year olds, and they're the ones asking for change.

    You are either defending the hypocrisy by not calling it out as such, or else embodying it yourself. There is no third option. You ruled out a third option.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    You...you do know what thread you're posting in, right? Did you read the OP? I don't think you read the OP. A single party is making a push for exactly that. How did you miss that? Please post constructively.
    You are once again mistaking criticism leveled at a commission, with some fictional person that believes elderly GOP voters should come together to draft the new rules for debate. If you find that person, great, I'll leave him or her to square the two things.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  13. #73
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    35,094
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You are once again mistaking--
    Nope, your comments on the first page were quite clear indeed. The problem is that you refused to also point out the same about the RNC, who made the demands, and hid instead behind "all lives matter, very fine people on both sides".

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Breccia View Post
    Nope--
    You, a Democrat, are defending an old and decrepit organization by saying GOP voters are old. I'm saying you're going to have to identify criticism of a commission as not enforcing a new commission composed of older, Republican voters.

    I have to state this explicitly, because you're not getting it. The Democrats would also have to sign onto any new format or else their candidate wouldn't show up to the debate. I think you're being purposefully obtuse in pursuit of wanting to call me a hypocrit. I'm happy to respond to other questioners that can distinguish between criticism of the commission, and hypothetical proposals of a new commission, organization, or czar that would replace it. I'm happy to resume if you stop being so obtuse about understanding the basics.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  15. #75
    pretty god damn hilarious to see all this hand wringing and fake concern over moderation when that has at no point ever deterred the fat spay tanned turd from running his mouth nonstop from start to finish.

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I'm happy to resume if you stop being so obtuse about understanding the basics.
    Let's nail down the role of moderators in a debate first, shall we? Baby steps, like understanding how debates work and that it's not intended to be an unchecked shouting match between candidates.

  17. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    No, your framing of this continues to be an outright lie. Nobody is forced to vote before the first debates. Literally ever voter can wait until the first debate, or all debates, are complete before casting their vote.

    This. Is. A. Lie.

    Stop lying.

    I won't bother with the rest until we can at least get to the core of this brazen, blatant dishonesty from your part.
    I think any first debate should precede the opening of voting, to give prospective voters that want to get it done early the benefit of seeing the two(+) candidates head to head. In the case that they choose not to watch it anyways, and are too convinced to change it regardless, then no harm done. Literally, no harm done. They had a choice to watch and chose not to. I am very sorry that you disagree, but disagreement should not be confused with lying. Whether blatant dishonesty, as you would have it, or intellectual cowardice, as I'd say on you, it's fine to let it end.
    "I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."

  18. #78
    The Undying Breccia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    NY, USA
    Posts
    35,094
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    You, a Democrat, are defending an old and decrepit organization by saying GOP voters are old.
    Well first of all, I'm not defending the system. You posted something hypocritical, and I went after that. I have said the debates should continue, even if only one side turns up, but that's mostly with regard to the RNC realizing it can't win a fair fight and either changing the rules so they win -- which you're defending -- or quitting and going home.

    Also I never once mentioned GOP voters age. I asked you about McConnell, Trump, and Pence. Four times. You never answered, by the way.

    And don't think this change to attacking me will make your previous posts on the topic magically disappear. By the posts you've made, you are either defending the RNC's hypocrisy by having people too old to run for office in their lead roles while demanding changes be made; or, you're being a hypocrite yourself by saying you can be too old to host a debate but still young enough to hold the office that debate's for. Neither are good answers, but you personally have ruled out all other options.

    You can't turn this table on me. You put out a circular table. Turning it won't matter.

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I think any first debate should precede the opening of voting, to give prospective voters that want to get it done early the benefit of seeing the two(+) candidates head to head.
    Wanting debates to be earlier is a fine position to take. But you've repeatedly and disingenuously implied that people are somehow "forced" to vote before the first debate, which is patently false.

    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    I am very sorry that you disagree
    Stop lying. I don't disagree on this point and I've said so earlier. I disagree on your dishonest framing of the point, because it continues to be an obvious and pernicious lie.

  20. #80
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    72,003
    Quote Originally Posted by tehdang View Post
    It sounds like you missed the part where I said the commission should be scrapped and replaced (the members of which are too old and detached from the modern debate, and explaining their bad choices on rules, venues, moderators, formats, topics, etc)
    You really haven't made any arguments regarding any of those factors, other than nonsense ideas like "moderators should just be present and not enforce standard debate rules protecting basic honesty and ethical conduct by participants". Which aren't arguments, they're attempts to corrupt the debate proceedings.

    and politicians should be term limited to stop these careers of 36 years in the Senate and the ridiculous spectacle of ancient senators trying to quiz Facebook, Google, and Twitter CEOs and failing to understand rudimentary aspects of each platform. You've heard two of my proposals for two problems, but you are very stuck demanding both to have the same solution. This is a very pathetic way to level the charge of hypocrisy.
    Is the issue age? Or technical illiteracy and ignorance? Because the latter isn't a factor of age. And you're gonna have to defend the likes of Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene, who are both stupid and ignorant, but you're giving them a pass on that because they're younger.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •