Trump is losing the debate acting like a raving lunatic

[Kathryn]

They weren't "crazy" and Trump was given extra time for rebuttal. On the issue of Project 2025 he said he had nothing to do with and did not elaborate. On the IVF issue he claimed he was a warrior for it, that no body has stood stronger for it than he had -- and both his statements were left to stand.

As they should have been allowed to stand.

 

[Kathryn]

Go to whatisproject2025.net

Click on the link labeled "The Administration" at the top center (or on the dropdown menu on the upper lefthand side if you are on a mobile device)

Click on each of the pictures of the people there

That will let you know who they are and what relation they have to Trump and project 2025

So I have to go through every photo of every person. Gotcha.

Why can't I find a list of the 140 names?

 

[Spice]

As they should have been allowed to stand.

So why the complaint?

 

[Kathryn]

So why the complaint?

Because Trump was fact checked constantly and Harris was not even though she was blatantly lying. Like I have been saying, even I knew when she was lying so certainly the mods did.

 

[Soandso]

So I have to go through every photo of every person. Gotcha.

Why can't I find a list of the 140 names?

Nevermind... You only pretend to want evidence but ignore the evidence when it's presented to you

Btw, where are you getting this "list of 140 names" from?

 

[Kathryn]

Nevermind... You only pretend to want evidence but ignore the evidence when it's presented to you

Btw, where are you getting this "list of 140 names" from?

I am not but news sources are constantly claiming that 140 people who worked for Trump during his Presidential term are now working for the Heritage Foundation so I want a list of those 140 names. I don't think that's too much to ask.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Because Trump was fact checked constantly and Harris was not even though she was blatantly lying.

Understatement and overstatement are par for the course in debate, and not considered lies. You should know this by now.

Trump could say, "I had a big crowd" and nobody would have bothered checking him. When he says, "I had the biggest crowd in history, and people couldn't even be let in," he is now making up events that are not true, not that are overstated. When he says, "They're eating people's pets," that is made up, invented, untrue. MORE THAN THAT -- it is putting the lives and welfare of those Hatians in Springfield, OH at great risk, and that is a very grave wrong, in my opinion.

So yes, Harris overstated or understated a few times -- but absolutely nothing was made up, as they say, "out of whole cloth."

 

[Spice]

Because Trump was fact checked constantly and Harris was not even though she was blatantly lying.

We've addressed the two issues you provided. Trump was allowed "additional time" to stand up for himself and his responses were left unchecked. Trump supplied his own "fact check" on Harris's statements.

Where else do you believe the moderators failed to do a proper job? Let's take it point by point. I think you'll find that in each and every case, Trump immediately interrupted and was allowed unauthorized time to make address directly.

Also, Trump was never "fact-checked" during the debate on anything that was not clearly well known misinformation. Anything that need research and explanation was left for follow-up fact-checkers, and follow-up fact-checkers went through Harris's statements just as thoroughly as Trumps.

 

[Soandso]

I am not but news sources are constantly claiming that 140 people who worked for Trump during his Presidential term are now working for the Heritage Foundation so I want a list of those 140 names. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Gotcha. I'm gonna have to agree with @Jayhawker Soule and skedaddle. Take care

 

[Stevicus]

Honest question: was it in the 80s and 90s that prisons were privatized?

Private prison - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Early history​

[edit]
One of the earliest examples of prison privatization in the US was in Louisiana in 1844, where a company produced clothing in a factory with inmate labor.[65][66] In 1852, on the northwest San Francisco Bay in California, inmates of the prison ship Waban began building a contract facility to house themselves at Point Quentin. The prison became known as San Quentin, which is still in operation today, though it was partially transferred from private to public administration.[67]

During Reconstruction (1865–1876) in the south after the Civil War, plantations and businessmen sought to continue exploiting Blacks after the United States ratified the 13th Amendment, which abolished all forms of slavery "except as punishment for a crime". This exception allowed continued enslavement of Black people through convict leases.[65][68][69] Southern prisoners laid railroad tracks, worked on plantations, mined coal and performed other labor while enduring terrible conditions including torture as a form of punishment. The system was extremely profitable for former slaveowners and the states. For example, ten percent of Alabama’s budget came from convict leases between 1880 and 1904. This system of unpaid labor remained in place until the early 20th century.[65]

1980s–2009​

[edit]
Federal and state governments have a long history of contracting out specific services to private firms, including medical services, food preparation, vocational training, and inmate transportation. However, the 1980s ushered in a new era of prison privatization as the War on Drugs increased prison populations.[66] Overcrowding and rising costs became increasingly problematic for local, state, and federal governments. Private business interests saw an opportunity to expand beyond simple contracting of services into the management and operation of entire prisons.[70]

Modern private prisons first emerged in 1984 when the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), now known as CoreCivic, was awarded a contract to take over operation of a jail in Hamilton County, Tennessee.[71] The following year, CCA gained further public attention when it offered to take over the entire state prison system of Tennessee for $200 million. The bid was ultimately defeated due to strong opposition from public employees and the skepticism of the state legislature.[72] Sixty-six additional private prisons were opened in the US between 1984 and 1990.[66]

CCA's $52 million January 1997 purchase of Washington, D.C.'s $100 million Central Treatment Facility was "the first time a prison has been sold outright (although under a lease-back arrangement, ownership is supposed to revert to D.C. after 20 years)."[73]

​

​

 

[sun rise]

And Harris flip floppy changes in policy weren't even fact checked once?

Of course as a minion of Trump you ignore his flip-flops happening so fast that you'll head will spin such as with abortion. And of course with Haitians as well (and they're fully aware that Dementia Donald listens only to lunatics and knows that his minions will ignore that he flops because his mind is going.

 

[Kathryn]

I mean, surely there's a list of these people somewhere. Surely there is, and it's been checked.

We've addressed the two issues you provided. Trump was allowed "additional time" to stand up for himself and his responses were left unchecked. Trump supplied his own "fact check" on Harris's statements.

Where else do you believe the moderators failed to do a proper job? Let's take it point by point. I think you'll find that in each and every case, Trump immediately interrupted and was allowed unauthorized time to make address directly.

Also, Trump was never "fact-checked" during the debate on anything that was not clearly well known misinformation. Anything that need research and explanation was left for follow-up fact-checkers, and follow-up fact-checkers went through Harris's statements just as thoroughly as Trumps.

I knew she was lying. The mods didn't? That's pretty sad and scary.

 

[sun rise]

1) First of all, she said: our alliances which we have around the world are dependent on the ability to look out for our friends, and not favor our enemies. end quote.
So yes, Russians are the eternal enemies.


2) Secondly, Putin is the most moderate president. After him, there can be more pro-war presidents, so it can be even worse.

You should apply at the Russian embassy to get paid to post this kind of stuff. They'll be glad to have you.

 

[Spice]

I knew she was lying. The mods didn't? That's pretty sad and scary.

NAME these lies. You've given two examples of lies that were actually "bait" which is most definitely a part of debating, and was handled by the moderators correctly. Did the moderators fact-check Trump's statements of Harris's race? No. That was "bait" and was handled as such. The only bait I recall being addressed by the moderators was Trump’s denial of Harris being raised by a single mother. They clarified that yes, as Trump said, she has a father, however he was not active in her upbringing.

 

[Kathryn]

NAME these lies. You've given two examples of lies that were actually "bait" which is most definitely a part of debating, and was handled by the moderators correctly. Did the moderators fact-check Trump's statements of Harris's race? No. That was "bait" and was handled as such. The only bait I recall being addressed by the moderators was Trump’s denial of Harris being raised by a single mother. They clarified that yes, as Trump said, she has a father, however he was not active in her upbringing.

I am not going to go through the entire transcript of the debate again, or google whatever again. Knock yourself out if that's what you like.

 

[Father Heathen]

I think they would both be terrible for the US.

In equal proportions?

 

[Kathryn]

In equal proportions?

Probably. Which is why I am not voting for either. Apparently that really ticks some people off but I don't mind that.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The topic is Trump‘s lunacy. That is a broad, wide open set of options. I understand, you don’t like your guy being exposed for being a lunatic.

Another topic change. Ok.

How many times do I have to answer this question? I’ve done it twice already. Let’s go again and maybe it’ll stick this time.

Tariffs are generally used by governments to add onto products overseas that are cheaper than products made in America. This gives the American products better competition against the cheaper products. That’s why Biden has kept the Trump tariffs on computer chips. The USA is trying to get established as a computer chip maker, but ours are more expensive. So to make it more competitive Trump and then Biden imposed on chips coming from overseas, which are more established and cheaper. Do you understand now?

With Trump‘s proposal of adding Terace to all products imported from China, it’s insanity. Most of the items we import from China are not things that are made in the USA. It’s just gonna be an added fee or tax or cost to whatever product Americans are going to buy. Do you understand? It’s going to cost American consumers more money for no reason. It’s not going to hurt China except in that US buyers will buy less because of the added cost to the products were used to buying.

BIden/Harris have Tariffs on more than just computer chips.

Biden/Harris still have tariffs on Steel , Aluminum, from UK, EU and Japan.
Biden/Harris still have tariffs on China for semiconductors, stee, aluminum, ev's, batteries, graphite, medical goods, magnets, cranes and solar cells. BiIden/Harris has also increased the tariffs on these products.
Biden/Harris still have tariffs on solar panels from southeast asia.

Trump tariffs amounted to $89.B, BIden/Harris tariffs so far have gotten $144.3B.

According to this site Tariffs have added per household per year:

2018 $200
2019: $194
2020: $300
2021: $380
2022: $376
2023 $303

Tariff Tracker: Tracking the Economic Impact of Tariffs

The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products in 2018 and 2019, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades. The Biden administration has kept most of the Trump administration tariffs in place

taxfoundation.org

So the Biden/Harris tariffs have cost US households more than the Trump tariffs.

 

[Watchmen]

Private prison - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

​

Thanks. I see modern, private prisons expanded in 1984. Interesting correlation with the previous chart.

 

[F1fan]

BIden/Harris have Tariffs on more than just computer chips.

I didn’t say it was the only one, did I?

I cited it as an example so you could understand their purpose.

Biden/Harris still have tariffs on Steel , Aluminum, from UK, EU and Japan.
Biden/Harris still have tariffs on China for semiconductors, stee, aluminum, ev's, batteries, graphite, medical goods, magnets, cranes and solar cells. BiIden/Harris has also increased the tariffs on these products.
Biden/Harris still have tariffs on solar panels from southeast asia.

Trump tariffs amounted to $89.B, BIden/Harris tariffs so far have gotten $144.3B.

According to this site Tariffs have added per household per year:

2018 $200
2019: $194
2020: $300
2021: $380
2022: $376
2023 $303

Tariff Tracker: Tracking the Economic Impact of Tariffs

The Trump administration imposed nearly $80 billion worth of new taxes on Americans by levying tariffs on thousands of products in 2018 and 2019, amounting to one of the largest tax increases in decades. The Biden administration has kept most of the Trump administration tariffs in place

taxfoundation.org

So the Biden/Harris tariffs have cost US households more than the Trump tariffs.

Notice your link refers to tariffs as a tax.

And this is sound management for the economy. The USA used to be a massive producer of steel and by adding tariffs to imports it will help bolster our production. Tariffs always add more costs, but the economic advantages offset that cost. Plus the revenue goes to the government which can be invested into the infrastructure or social programs.

Compare these Biden policies to what Trump suggests. Trump’s tariffs are predicted to cost $1500 to $4000 to households. Biden’s in 2023 was $303. It’s just one more strike against the criminal candidate.