questionreality

Many of you may have forgotten, but In the 1st debate against Biden, Trump did not answer many questions as he was using the time to go back to the previous topics. Maybe that's why ABC gave him the extra time, to avoid the issue that happened during the 1st debate? If they wouldn't, he would clearly do the same here and it's very likely that they wanted to avoid that. Trump is quite impulsive and there is no way he would move on from a topic if he didn't finish saying what he wanted to say.

Read what I wrote above - not going to say the same thing over and over again to every person. I have clearly explained why ABC was biased against Trump, it's not hard to understand. I am going to quote LEO here: The problem is that you expect everyone to be a leftist. Because you are so caught up in your ideological bubble, you are not able to see your own bias, not to mention the bias of the ideology that you adhere to. If having a balanced take, and seeing through the bias of both sides is playing a "centrist game", then so be it. It sure is much better than playing whatever game that you are playing - projecting, virtue signaling and continuing to be blinded by your ideological blindfolds. Ironically you believe that you are different from the MAGA supporters, but you are not. You are just on the other side of the coin. How about that for a meta-take? I have never said that they are equal. But a lie is a lie. You either call the lies out or you don't. In a debate, it's the opponent's job to fact check, and if Kamala was better prepared - she could have actually called him out herself on it and would have scored a lot more with that. I certainly would expect for a presidential candidate to be prepared and to be able to fact check without the help of the moderators. Otherwise, these things should be discussed and agreed upon prior to debate "what constitutes an egregious ridiculous lies, etc" It doesn't take playing 4-d chess to see that Trump was hanging himself with that extra time. It was damn obvious to anyone with a brain. Trump's camp wanted the mics muted before the debate for that reason and Kamala's camp wanted them on - as they knew that extra time on the mic would work against him. They were not "bad" moderators, but they were a bit biased against Trump was my only claim. Kamala would have won the debate either way, but from the perspective of some people who are undecided or right leaning, the moderators looked like they were against him. I disagree that there were multiple forms of bias, how do you not understand this? Harris requested only ONCE for extra time, that's it. Trump requested it very frequently and ALSO got denied at least once. This does not mean that they were biased against Harris, just because of the one time that they denied her. The extra time given to Trump did not favor him - he looked very unhinged and that is also the reason why his camp wanted their mics to be muted.

She only asked ONCE and was denied. Trump asked many times, and was ALSO denied at least one time. Just because she was denied the only time that she asked does not mean that they were biased against her, LOL.

We clearly are in disagreement - like are we reading the same thing here? You are saying that ABC was not biased against Trump and that it was even - due to the fact that Trump got extra time. And I just explained why this point is moot.

You don't think the moderators saw that it wasn't an advantage for him? Did you forget that his camp wanted for the mics to be muted and that Kamala's camp wanted the mics to be on, so Trump would cause self harm? This makes your point moot about moderators being unfair to Kamala and that the moderators were not biased. I really expected you to see through these things out of all the people.

I agree, the debate was fair enough and like i said, Trump would have lost it either way. But this doesn't mean that ABC was not biased. It's just was not a good look from them - they are supposed to stay neutral and it's Kamala's job to do fact checking of her opponent. CNN debate was a good example of how it should be - and everyone was happy with it, even conservatives praised CNN for doing a good job. I would hope so, and probably think that they would. The problem here is where you draw the line and who decides which lies are the most blatant ones? That's why you either need to fact check everything from both candidates, or let the candidates do the fact checking of each other. Assisting Kamala in fact checking is direct interference in the debate - so it should be done evenly for both candidates.

This was my original post and even if the moderators were fact checking both equally, Kamala would have still won. I did not say that Trump lost because moderators were a bit biased - both things can be true, no? I really didn't think that this forum was THIS infected with people who are stuck in their ideological bubbles (majority of them leftists).

I am surprised that you don't know what "gaslighting" is, look it up if you need to - I see it over and over again misused on this forum, but didn't expect it from you. And? She only asked one time. Trump was also denied a response at least once, it's just he asked many times. Just because the moderators allowed Trump the extra time, doesn't mean that they were not biased. In Trump's case, the extra time that he got actually made him look bad - he went on rants, looked angry and unhinged. As I told you before, you are good with abstract things, but not when it comes to dealing with raw reality a lot of the time.

You are way too deep in your leftist ideological bubble if you can't see the problems with the leftists. Just because Trump was given the last word does not mean that they not biased. Bias can be shown in different ways - like do you seriously need me to explain you this? My argument is this: Either you fact check everything on both candidates, or you don't. It's simple. What is so hard to understand?

Both should be fact checked, if fact checked at all. It's a debate between 2 people, not 4. If you want to change the format - that's a different thing. Left-wingers are just as bad, but you don't see it due to bias. Over the last 10 years especially they have shown their true colors. And? If Kamala wanted to continue, they would of let her also. But it was part of her strategy to let him ramble on and make himself look bad. Kamala also did not answer all the questions directly, starting from the 1st one that she was asked. Did you totally forget this? Very bad analogy. This is a debate that we are talking about - you either fact check both candidates on everything or you don't at all.

The debate is between two people - not four. Please tell me the last time it happened, that the moderators of presidential debates were fact checking? If you can't see the problem of fact checking only one candidate and not fact checking the other a single time, then I pity you. Your bias speaks for itself and it's amusing to see this on an "actualized" forum

Except It's a debate, in which only two people are involved. If it wasn't a debate, it would be a different story. To not fact check Kamala a single time shows a clear bias from the moderators, which is just a very bad look. If you want to allow fact checking from the moderators, then you need to create a new format.

What I do want to do add - is I don't think it was the moderator's job to fact check Trump, but of Kamala's. I can see why the conservatives are outraged - it's a debate between two candidates, and that was clearly not the moderators' jobs. To fact check one candidate and not the other (even though Trump said a lot more inaccurate things than Kamala did) is clearly not right.

Kamala clearly won the debate, she defeated him psychologically. From the very beginning she went up to him, shook his head when he didn't expect him and threw him off guard. The turning point was when she commented on his crowd sizes and said that people were leaving them early because the rallies are boring. He never really recovered after that - it triggered him very badly. She won the psychological fight - she used his weaknesses against him (his fragile ego). You can see how comfortable she looks from her body language, and how she controlled the debate throughout most of the time.

Yea you are right, I am getting ahead of myself here. But it's nice to see for a change of him calling out the leftwing bias like in this thread, in the past he would never do this.

@Leo Gura I am glad to see that you shifted towards more of a balanced approach when it comes to politics and started calling out the leftist bias when you see it.

And that's why many people love Lex. He has the ability to listen with an open-mind, without asserting his own agenda/narrative. And he let's the viewers decide what they think of the guest for themselves. Eckhart Tolle actually loved Larry King - he said that the guy displayed immense ability to be present with the person who he interviewed and considered him a very great interviewer for that reason.

Except that's not what we are talking about here. These are 2 separate issues, but you clearly want to strawman this one to justify not allowing someone to go on a podcast.

Who are you? What is a human? What is reality? Why do you hold onto your idea of reality, human and who you are so rigidly, as if it's fundamentally true?

Great, so people like you should determine who fits into your "democratic norms" category and then censor those who don't ? No thanks. I suggest to study history of Soviet Union or other countries, and see what the leftists did there using your same logic to censor people. With free speech comes a price - some of which include lies. You either have free speech or you don't - something that leftists fail to understand.

https://apnews.com/article/meta-platforms-mark-zuckerberg-biden-facebook-covid19-463ac6e125b0d004b16c7943633673fc A lot of the leftists denied that this was happening, including many on this forum. This is why it's so important to have a balanced perspective, otherwise you will end up in either of the left/right bubbles and in turn be completely blind to what is going on. The fact that this happened should be alarming and disturbing to anyone, regardless of where you are on the political spectrum.

Nobody is stopping Kamala from coming on and doing these interviews, but she doesn't bother to. Instead of censorship, more speech is the solution, which leftists don't understand.

That's quite insane actually. Good luck explaining this though to the woke leftists, who are stuck in their ideological bubble.

@Leo Gura Trump actually said that he is pro legalization of Marijuana and Lex even told him that he recently did ayahuasca and that Lex mentioned to him that psychedelics should be legal. Starts at 25:00 Also, Lex said that Joe Rogan is the greatest conversationalist in the world and encouraged for Trump to go on his podcast. The fact that Lex said that this speaks a lot about his character.

How stupid can the DNC and Kamala be, to refuse to work with him and have him support Trump?