• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Vice presidential debate moderated by CBS, Oct. 1, 2024

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Priebus? I fast forwarded through his remarks after the first ~7 seconds. I don't need that bullshit.
Nah the idiot R pundits on CNN that denounced the orange monkey immediately on Jan 6 but are too much a butt kisser and choose party over country Scott Jennings and David Urban. At least all the other R pundits all are single issue voters to just make sure the orange monkey loses.
 
Nah the idiot R pundits on CNN that denounced the orange monkey immediately on Jan 6 but are too much a butt kisser and choose party over country Scott Jennings and David Urban. At least all the other R pundits all are single issue voters to just make sure the orange monkey loses.

I think the Republican party is dead and has been for some time. 5 stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

You can put Liz Cheney at acceptance.. some in congress/ senate at bargaining. Some here still in denial.

But it's abundantly clear the old GOP is not coming back.
 
I think the Republican party is dead and has been for some time. 5 stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.

You can put Liz Cheney at acceptance.. some in congress/ senate at bargaining. Some here still in denial.

But it's abundantly clear the old GOP is not coming back.
Unless you're going all the way back to the 1800s the "old" GOP was garbage anyway.
 
Because you are a fucking clown who is only capable of regurgitating right wing talking points because you can’t form your own opinions because things like facts and CONTEXT are too fucking hard for you to follow.

Go ahead, ask another dumb fucking question.
It's all he does.
 
Because you are a fucking clown who is only capable of regurgitating right wing talking points because you can’t form your own opinions because things like facts and CONTEXT are too fucking hard for you to follow.

Go ahead, ask another dumb fucking question.
Well...in all fairness, Walz DID say that...I suspect he mis-spoke again...and meant he had become friends with a school shooting victim...but who knows? I haven't seen it clarified by the Harris-Walz campaign yet.
 
Well...in all fairness, Walz DID say that...I suspect he mis-spoke again...and meant he had become friends with a school shooting victim...but who knows? I haven't seen it clarified by the Harris-Walz campaign yet.

He did say that and he clearly misspoke but any idiot who was watching could easily understand what he was trying to say in the heat of the moment and if you need “clarifying” from the Harris campaign then you are also a fucking moron.
 
Last edited:
He did say that and he clearly misspoke but any idiot who was watching could easily understand what he was trying to say in the heat of the moment and if you need “clarifying” from the Harris campaign then you are are a fucking moron as well.

No no no. I've been told, and have it on good authority, that you can't just use common sense and context to know what someone means when they are saying/writing it. They have to be 100% precise and perfect at all times in order to prevent the apocalypse from occurring.
 
Public speaking is hard. I think occasionally garbling what you are trying to say is forgivable in a politician (though at the same time, it's probably fair enough to take the mickey out of them over it). Walz's misspeak isn't as bad as Starmer's "return the sausages" snafu.

It's a question of whether it's a consistent pattern. American conservative politicos seem to rarely _not_ garble their words. it seems to be a sort of badge-of-membership for them. Their intended audience doesn't trust people who are more articulate than they are.
 
Because you are a fucking clown who is only capable of regurgitating right wing talking points because you can’t form your own opinions because things like facts and CONTEXT are too fucking hard for you to follow.

Go ahead, ask another dumb fucking question.
I do worry about information silos. Is there even a silo in the middle anymore? How far out of the algorithm do you have to step to even begin to form your own opinion based on objective reporting.
I dont think it's an easy task today.
 
I do worry about information silos. Is there even a silo in the middle anymore? How far out of the algorithm do you have to step to even begin to form your own opinion based on objective reporting.
I dont think it's an easy task today.

Think the only objective reporting these days comes from 3 sources:

PBS
NPR
AP
And some local news journalists.


Every other news TV company has basically been bought out by some corporation or the other and they all want their billions in tax cuts.

CNN is owned by WB
ABC is owned by Disney
CBS is owned by Paramount
NBC is owned by Universal
Most tv channels in the rural areas are sinclair.
 
I do worry about information silos. Is there even a silo in the middle anymore? How far out of the algorithm do you have to step to even begin to form your own opinion based on objective reporting.
I dont think it's an easy task today.

It’s more about being a critical thinker than anything and having an open mind that your feelings may not be backed up by facts and understanding that if you are wrong it’s ok to change your mind or reevaluate your position. It’s human nature to double down on your wrongness so it takes a lot of work to be open to being wrong. If new information is presented to me and it sounds good or aligns with my feels, I immediately fact check it. If something sounds wrong and doesn’t align with my feels, I immediately fact check it. The critical thinking part comes in when evaluating sources, context, and understanding what is being said and not being said (or omitted) and it’s realizing the my own biases might be clouding how I’m interpreting something.

Simply getting your information from multiple sources isn’t enough. Especially when you have journalism that seems hell bent on not coming off as biased as opposed to just reporting the facts, even if it appears to look like biased reporting.
 
Because you are a fucking clown who is only capable of regurgitating right wing talking points because you can’t form your own opinions because things like facts and CONTEXT are too fucking hard for you to follow.

Go ahead, ask another dumb fucking question.


Seems as though a nerve was touched.
 
Moderator asks Vance about the ensuing climate catastrophe.

Vance's answer: IF indeed carbon is a contributing factor, the answer for American governance is to ramp of oil production. 🙄
 
Back
Top