This time next year, President Trump moves back into the Whitehouse...

[Screwdriver]

When did Alastair Campbell stop being an asshole? I must have missed that memo.

Did somebody say 'ad hominem'?

I'm not actually debating him now am I...

[mangocrazy]

When did Alastair Campbell stop being an asshole? I must have missed that memo.

Did somebody say 'ad hominem'?

I'm not actually debating him now am I...

No, you didn't even mention what points you (presumably) disagreed with him on, just dismissed him as an asshole. I've no great liking for the guy, but he did make some good points (as did Rory Stewart).

[Screwdriver]

I didn't watch it. I make no comment on the content.

Too busy on Joe Rogan and those podcasts take time!

Too bloody cold to be outside working on the bike....

[Count Steer]

Did somebody say 'ad hominem'?

I'm not actually debating him now am I...

No, you didn't even mention what points you (presumably) disagreed with him on, just dismissed him as an asshole. I've no great liking for the guy, but he did make some good points (as did Rory Stewart).

Oh. I read it that he didn't think he came across as an asshole any more ie he used to be one but didn't seem to be in the podcast.

Funny business, language.

[Screwdriver]

Oh. I read it that he didn't think he came across as an asshole any more ie he used to be one but didn't seem to be in the podcast.

Funny business, language.

I have no time for the chap. I remember Iraq, Blair, WMD.

Campbell is a professional liar. In act, it's more than that. He was a spin doctor, you might say he was "a liars liar" since his role as a liar is to help politicians (aka liars) sell their most difficult lies.

So I wouldn't want to hear his opinion on something which is so subjective on the grounds that he is such a good liar. How could you tell if what he was saying was true or if he even believed it himself? He will simply tell you what he wants you to believe and he will be incredibly convincing too.

[mangocrazy]

So I wouldn't want to hear his opinion on something which is so subjective on the grounds that he is such a good liar. How could you tell if what he was saying was true or if he even believed it himself? He will simply tell you what he wants you to believe and he will be incredibly convincing too.

He's similar to Trump in that sense, as he does nothing but tell lies, but is different in that Trump's lies are unconvincing and easily disproved.

[wheelnut]

He's similar to Trump in that sense, as he does nothing but tell lies, but is different in that Trump's lies are unconvincing and easily disproved.

It’s amazing how blatant he is with it.

‘We are aborting babies at 9 months and even killing newly born babies’*

‘No, Mr Trump, we don’t execute new born babies in this country.



* from memory so may not be verbatim

[Screwdriver]

It’s amazing how blatant he is with it.

‘We are aborting babies at 9 months and even killing newly born babies’*

‘No, Mr Trump, we don’t execute new born babies in this country.



* from memory so may not be verbatim

Well since Kamala didn't answer, exactly where do they draw the line?

7 months? 8 months? 9 months?

Genuine question btw, I am assuming there is a line somewhere during a viable pregnancy.

[DefTrap]

Campbell was a paid spin doctor obviously, but he's been and is a jobbing journo for ages. I don't see his credentials as a YouTube hack as any less than all the others that are repeatedly linked on here as speaking the truth. He's hardly in the clutches of mainstream media, so there seems to be no other reason to dismiss and ignore him than that you don't want to listen.

[Taipan]

Is anyone really surprised at porky telling politicians and spin doctors! Remember the old trick on how to tell if they're lying, their lips are moving!

[Screwdriver]

Campbell was a paid spin doctor obviously, but he's been and is a jobbing journo for ages. I don't see his credentials as a YouTube hack as any less than all the others that are repeatedly linked on here as speaking the truth. He's hardly in the clutches of mainstream media, so there seems to be no other reason to dismiss and ignore him than that you don't want to listen.

Ordinarily and for factual content yes but whether or not Trump "won" the "debate" is entirely subjective.

I saw the biased anti_Trump attitude from the "moderators" for myself. I heard Kamala trot out the same old lies they always do without those falsehoods being challenged or any opportunity to challenge them in this locked down format. There were even actual truths from Trump being dismissed as falsehoods. I mean, it couldn't have been more obvious.

But this is where my opinion might vary from "the party line". Trump brought this upon himself. Yeah, anywhere, any time, any channel - he was asking for trouble and arrogant enough to think he could walk into a trap and wing it.

The dems had done their homework and the best description for the event which sums it up for me is that he ended up chasing after squirrels.

I don't feel the need to know what Alastair Campbell wants me to think about the event. I saw it for myself.

[Count Steer]

Campbell was a paid spin doctor obviously, but he's been and is a jobbing journo for ages. I don't see his credentials as a YouTube hack as any less than all the others that are repeatedly linked on here as speaking the truth. He's hardly in the clutches of mainstream media, so there seems to be no other reason to dismiss and ignore him than that you don't want to listen.

Rory Stewart is quite an interesting chap too. I wouldn't have thought I'd find myself nodding and agreeing much with him when I read his book 'Politics on the Edge'* recently - but decided in the end that, as he wanted to do a good job and actually cared about stuff, he really didn't belong in politics. (Either that or I've mutated into a 'One Nation' Tory ).

* I know all political memoirs have an unreliable narrator but some of the insights into some of his parliamentary cohort are pretty skewering of them. It's a good read.

[mangocrazy]

Rory Stewart is quite an interesting chap too. I wouldn't have thought I'd find myself nodding and agreeing much with him when I read his book 'Politics on the Edge'* recently - but decided in the end that, as he wanted to do a good job and actually cared about stuff, he really didn't belong in politics. (Either that or I've mutated into a 'One Nation' Tory ).

* I know all political memoirs have an unreliable narrator but some of the insights into some of his parliamentary cohort are pretty skewering of them. It's a good read.

Pretty much my feelings about Rory Stewart - slightly grudging approval. He does talk a fair amount of sense and is not your average politician. There seems to be a very relaxed dynamic between Campbell and Stewart which makes for comfortable viewing/listening where you're not watching two people from differing ends of the political spectrum trying to knock lumps off each other, but actually having a conversation.

[irie]

Is anyone really surprised at porky telling politicians and spin doctors! Remember the old trick on how to tell if they're lying, their lips are moving!

Has been said before but worth repeating:

The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is also a reflection on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy.

[Screwdriver]

This is the sort of thing I like to have running in the background.



Lots of interesting content, lots of interesting people. Right up there with Joe Rogan.

[JamJar]

It’s amazing how blatant he is with it.

‘We are aborting babies at 9 months and even killing newly born babies’*

‘No, Mr Trump, we don’t execute new born babies in this country.



* from memory so may not be verbatim

Well since Kamala didn't answer, exactly where do they draw the line?

7 months? 8 months? 9 months?

Genuine question btw, I am assuming there is a line somewhere during a viable pregnancy.

93% of abortions are performed in the first trimester (80% in the first 9 weeks). Only 1% are performed after 21 weeks and the 2 main reasons appear to be not being to get an abortion earlier or foetal abnormality.

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-polic ... ions-occur
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-polic ... dobbs-era/

[Saga Lout]

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." George Carlin

My guess is that intelligent people have already made up their minds how to vote. So the important question is: who won the debate in the opinion of stupid people?

[Screwdriver]

93% of abortions are performed in the first trimester (80% in the first 9 weeks). Only 1% are performed after 21 weeks and the 2 main reasons appear to be not being to get an abortion earlier or foetal abnormality.

https://www.kff.org/womens-health-polic ... ions-occur
https://www.kff.org/womens-health-polic ... dobbs-era/

That's not my question though is it. I appreciate the reality and practicalities of the situation but what is the law?

The opposite is also true,. Trump isn't saying babies are being murdered after birth as a matter of routine. I think there are two issues: 1. there is no limit so the idea of terminating a 9 month "foetus" is technically allowed 2. some abortions are unsuccessful in that a live foetus is recovered and then terminated

America is also a gigantic country, about the same size as the whole of Europe. Therefore one can suggest there are as many differences in social preferences within the states of the USA as there are between Spain, Ukraine, Scotland...

Therefore having the individual states decide on things like abortion rather than by blanket universal federal diktat is I think the preferred option. That in a nutshell is what Trump is suggesting.

[Count Steer]

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." George Carlin

My guess is that intelligent people have already made up their minds how to vote. So the important question is: who won the debate in the opinion of stupid people?

Or, to put it another way - My guess is that unthinking people have already made up their minds how to vote. So the important question is: who won the debate in the opinion of thoughtful people?

Why would people who want to consider the options (particularly in the USA where one candidate hasn't been in the running very long) be regarded as 'stupid'? Surely, the 'core' voters that won't shift whatever happens aren't as thoughtful as those that actually consider the options.

I guess, from the TV 'debate' Trump was playing to his base most of the time and Harris might feel the need to try and pivot some as well as appeal to the undecided.

The other angle is actually getting people out to vote, whether they're lazy, don't think it'll make any difference or dim is another question entirely I imagine.

[DefTrap]

I watched a post-debate inteview with a group of fairly sentient on-the-fence voters and it was interesting to see that they'd actually already made their minds up on policy and therefore were really only looking to their preferred candidate's debate performance to justify that decision. Although none of them banged on about what a swizz it was and blethered on about the awful biased fact-checking, nor were they enraged by Harris's insistence on baby-killing, nor Trump's insistence that immigrants are eating patriotic pets - funny that.

As far as performances go, Trump was looking forward to some nice easy spars with Biden - he made hard work of it with Harris.