CDZ False Premises in Debate Questions

[Andylusion]

Try and keep it simple. If we do everything we can to keep our water air and soil clean, we get to live longer & better. While protecting future generations.

That's not true. In fact, that is the absolute opposite of the truth.

If you want to do "everything we can".... to keep water, air, and soil clean....

Then you would need to never use energy. Never engage in industry. Never build buildings, because building stuff cause pollution. You can't build a house without tearing up the ground, and cutting down trees, or making bricks with fire....

So in order to truly do everything you can to avoid any pollution, would mean going back to living like apes, or cavemen.

You won't live better, or longer. Aside from the exposure to the elements, and parasites, and dirty water from naturally contaminated wells and rivers, and attacked by wild animals.... aside from all of that....

Without modern 'dirty' farming and ranching, literally billions of people would die. So no food. No food = mass starvation.

There won't be future generations if we did "everything we can" to avoid any possible pollution.

 

[candycorn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

 

[Andylusion]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

 

[candycorn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

 

[Andylusion]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

 

[candycorn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

 

[Andylusion]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

 

[candycorn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

 

[Andylusion]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

 

[candycorn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

 

[Andylusion]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

 

[flacaltenn]

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

Proportional representation or coalition govts are NOT required for 3rd and 4th parties. You just need to win the electoral college. So if any state the vote splits 40 35 25 -- the electors go to the party that won 40%.. Still works. Even with FOUR parties in the race. Not all four are gonna be competitive, and you can't tell me that having 4 way debates would be worse than what we just witnessed. Just need to LIMIT the topics and have MORE debates. That's NOT a bad thing.,.

 

[flacaltenn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

Since you've admitted that you did not watch -- I think YOU missed it.. As to Wallace's question about denouncing them -- he said "Sure" and then "Sure, I'd be willing to do that"...



Not required to GROVEL and go full "virtue signaling"... He's already done this on at least 4 other occasions..

 

[candycorn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

Since you've admitted that you did not watch -- I think YOU missed it.. As to Wallace's question about denouncing them -- he said "Sure" and then "Sure, I'd be willing to do that"...



Not required to GROVEL and go full "virtue signaling"... He's already done this on at least 4 other occasions..

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He didn't do it.
It isn't groveling to do the decent thing. He's just not used to doing the decent thing.

 

[flacaltenn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

Since you've admitted that you did not watch -- I think YOU missed it.. As to Wallace's question about denouncing them -- he said "Sure" and then "Sure, I'd be willing to do that"...



Not required to GROVEL and go full "virtue signaling"... He's already done this on at least 4 other occasions..

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He didn't do it.
It isn't groveling to do the decent thing. He's just not used to doing the decent thing.

"ARE YOU WILLING TO DENOUNCE-----"
"Sure"
"Sure"
"I'd be willing to do that"..

Go look up the meaning of "sure"...

Aint got TIME to dwell on that stupid loaded question.. More REAL stuff more important than made-up red herrings gone rancid..

 

[Nosmo King]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Excellent points and observations. The biased format was a mixed bag indeed, but what caught my attention was stated right before the debate on stage, by Joe Biden to Trump. Biden's greeting, "How ya doing man?" is never the way to speak to a country's president and this was an intentional comment meant to fire up Trump at the get-go. It's significant when US citizens feel they can address the president so informally, but I suspect it was intentional. Our country has come to yet another crossroad in 2020, and the next election in 2024 will be equally as important. I look for a valid 3rd party presidential nominee to win in 2024, regardless of which current candidate wins in 2020. It will be a candidate that the average American can be proud to have as a world leader. The current two major parties have too much of their rhetoric in the gutter. Only the middle of the road is the usable surface of course This will be the way forward and the way to "save" our fine country.

Trump is so sensitive that being addressed with "How's it going man?" can trigger him into a petulant rage?

Should United States Senators be called Pocahontas?

 

[candycorn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

Since you've admitted that you did not watch -- I think YOU missed it.. As to Wallace's question about denouncing them -- he said "Sure" and then "Sure, I'd be willing to do that"...



Not required to GROVEL and go full "virtue signaling"... He's already done this on at least 4 other occasions..

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He didn't do it.
It isn't groveling to do the decent thing. He's just not used to doing the decent thing.

"ARE YOU WILLING TO DENOUNCE-----"
"Sure"
"Sure"
"I'd be willing to do that"..

Go look up the meaning of "sure"...

Aint got TIME to dwell on that stupid loaded question.. More REAL stuff more important than made-up red herrings gone rancid..

Strange, you had time to butt into a conversation.


Willing to...sure. Did he do it on stage Tuesday night? No.

Trump supporters crave violence. So I'm sure you're happy with it.

Other voters...we'll see.

 

[candycorn]

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

 

[candycorn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

Do you think it's false that white supremacists support him?

 

[ClaireH]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Excellent points and observations. The biased format was a mixed bag indeed, but what caught my attention was stated right before the debate on stage, by Joe Biden to Trump. Biden's greeting, "How ya doing man?" is never the way to speak to a country's president and this was an intentional comment meant to fire up Trump at the get-go. It's significant when US citizens feel they can address the president so informally, but I suspect it was intentional. Our country has come to yet another crossroad in 2020, and the next election in 2024 will be equally as important. I look for a valid 3rd party presidential nominee to win in 2024, regardless of which current candidate wins in 2020. It will be a candidate that the average American can be proud to have as a world leader. The current two major parties have too much of their rhetoric in the gutter. Only the middle of the road is the usable surface of course This will be the way forward and the way to "save" our fine country.

Trump is so sensitive that being addressed with "How's it going man?" can trigger him into a petulant rage?
Fair enough, what's good for the goose is good for the gander regarding calling names while on a political/world stage. You're other statement, however, needs a little work. Let's look at

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Excellent points and observations. The biased format was a mixed bag indeed, but what caught my attention was stated right before the debate on stage, by Joe Biden to Trump. Biden's greeting, "How ya doing man?" is never the way to speak to a country's president and this was an intentional comment meant to fire up Trump at the get-go. It's significant when US citizens feel they can address the president so informally, but I suspect it was intentional. Our country has come to yet another crossroad in 2020, and the next election in 2024 will be equally as important. I look for a valid 3rd party presidential nominee to win in 2024, regardless of which current candidate wins in 2020. It will be a candidate that the average American can be proud to have as a world leader. The current two major parties have too much of their rhetoric in the gutter. Only the middle of the road is the usable surface of course This will be the way forward and the way to "save" our fine country.

Trump is so sensitive that being addressed with "How's it going man?" can trigger him into a petulant rage?

Should United States Senators be called Pocahontas?

Fair enough that what's good for the goose is good for the gander about name calling. For the record, I do not think that one comment did anything to Trump. What I was suggesting is that it seemed to be an intentional act by Biden, unless of course you're assuming Biden was not aware he was addressing the president of the United States? Now that could be very possible! lol