DeSantis-Newsom Debate -- do we need this?

[thebeave]

The person with most to lose here is DeSatanist. He is tanking as a candidate. Nobody likes him. His policies in Florida are only approved of by extreme right wingers. And there is not much this clown can say to make any difference in his failing presidential candidacy. He will pound the same old tired right wing drums. Crime? Florida has a high crime rate. Immigrants? Immigrants are also landing in Florida. Drugs? Florida is a smuggler hotspot. CRT racism? Right wing war on "Woke"? He can double down on it, try to change the subject, or do a 180 and abandon things like this. All loser tactics. Twinkletoes DeSantis is doomed. He will be relentlessly fact checked on every word he utters. And Newsome knows this. Hannity and DeSantis are clueless. The fun won't be the 'debate' itself, but the aftermath, the relentless fact checking and anaysis of this shitshow. This will be as bad if not worse than the Kenedy - Nixon debates.

Seems a little harsh. If you look at how Florida and California rank among all states, Florida (#10) is ahead of California (#33) by a substantial margin:

Best States Rankings

Of course, neither Newsom or DeSantis are solely to blame or praise for their states current conditons. Both are relative newcomers to their states' governing. I think DeSantis is going to beat on Newsom for California's dismal showing in many of the ranking categories. Then again, debates are often not decided on facts. Its who is the better showman.

The one stat I find especially interesting beween the two is in Education. Florida is #1 out of all 50 states, California is #20. This despite Florida being beat on constantly regarding what they are teaching (or not teaching) in their schools. Something's not adding up.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

What's the highest priority for America?
Trump! Trump! Trump!

First I heard of this spectacle. So happy they could get an intelligent and objective centrist like Hannity to moderate. Alex Jones and Mike the Pillow Guy weren't available? Did they ask Suckabee Sanders?

Good point. And the answer (solution to the bad moderator argument) is: Why doesn't some "Progressive" pundit somewhere also hold a debate between a Left- and Right-winger? and moderate it, or have Bernie or AOC moderate it.

You demand an absolutely PERFECT debate, with a perfectly neutral moderator? We can demand the moon too, we can demand Utopia, a perfect world, not one detail short of 100% perfection. But even a 90% or 80% improvement is better than none at all. Hell! even a 40-50% improvement. We need a debate, any debate, rather than the one-sided pro-Trump and anti-Trump monologues we're getting, from the Left and Right, which are both obsessed with Trump Trump Trump.

Any alternative to the Trump-Only hysteria we're getting is an improvement. That it takes a Hannity to give it to us might be unfortunate. But who's to blame for that? Where's the Left anti-Trump non-conformist stepping forward to offer us something different?

You can't give a tiny bit of credit to Hannity for his willingness to provide an ANTI-TRUMP debater a platform? Isn't that worth anything at all? Regardless of his exact motive -- is it not commendable for someone on one side, way off to the Right, to provide a platform for another on the Left? Why isn't there something good in that? some element of objectivity which we need more of?

For rational-thinking Americans the most important priority right now is winning the Presidential election next November.

Hannity and the Trumpists agree with you. Hannity says this every day on his program. Call his program and say this and he'll praise you as a great American.

The spectacle -- it's hard to call it a "debate" and keep a straight-face --

There you go again. No debate is genuine unless it's perfect -- including a good Left-wing unbiased moderator. Anything less is a joke.

The spectacle . . . MIGHT be good for America! We DO want to build DeSantis up since he'd be a poor candidate. And of course we need someone like Newsom warming up "in the bullpen" in case we want or need a substitute for Biden.

Regardless how bad Hannity is, shouldn't an honest Progressive agree that such a debate is good for the country -- don't we need more debate?

Infidels: -- Please PLEASE use emoticons to signal when you're being sarcastic about American politics. Some of the thinking is so wild that a few out-of-touch people will think Lumpen is serious in this sentence I quoted.

translation: no debate is serious, or can be good for the country, because all that matters is Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! (including anti-Trump, as long as you make Trump the center of attention at all times). Any politics or people or thinking is out-of-touch other than Trump! Trump! Trump! To say otherwise can only be sarcasm. We all know in our hearts that only Trump! Trump! Trump! matters, because the "most important priority" -- the ONLY priority -- is to choose whether to Hate Trump or Love Trump -- because it's all about Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump!

 

[Patooka]

Gotta say Lumpen - you are the master of the strawman. Saying there is no such thing as a neutral debate then advocating one the most partisan moderators around is complete bullshit.

 

[TomC]

the highest priority for America?
Trump! Trump! Trump!

That might be your highest priority.

To me, Trump is just the most powerful terrorist in the USA.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Best state west state.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

And Where is PBS/NPR? they have virtually banned any debates on their programs. They are a disgrace.

I'm willing to bet they are more than willing to moderate debates in such a manner that they are fucking debates. The problem is;
1 - too many right wing cunts look at Orange Joffrey as inspiration and turn "debates" into shitshows. And for some weird reason PBS/NPR aren't willing to degrade themselves in such a way.

translation: any debate that permits right-wingers to have any place is not a real fucking debate, but just a shitshow. So the first rule for any genuine debate is to ban right-wing participants (or any other participant my side thinks is degrading or not inspirational enough).

2 - too many right wing cunts are pussies who know they'll get obliterated in an honest debate so refuse to participate. The best example is how the RNC has refused to participate in any Presidential debates (a fact you have curiously omitted).

translation: Because some Republicans, especially right-wing cunts, refused to do debates, therefore PBS/NPR should never hold any debates.

(That sure makes a lot of sense.)

Why are you so desperate to find excuses why no one should ever hold any debates? 30-40-50 years ago there were a few occasional debates on Public Radio, also on the commercial networks. There was the CNN "Crossfire" program which did some of that. Also, Hannity-Colmes was OK, not perfect debate -- You can always find fault with a "debate" program which doesn't do it just right. Even Morton Downey Jr. was better than nothing -- there were some legitimate issues they argued.

How do you figure that because "debate" programs are less than perfect, therefore we should have NO DEBATES in the media, even on PBS/NPR which are supposed to offer us something educational? Don't you understand that listeners learn more by having ---

--- 2 sides presented rather than a monologue, or dialogue in which the most common remark is "I couldn't agree with your more"? Why isn't this Hannity presentation a step in the right direction? at least an improvement over the no-debate one-sided demagoguery we have now?

Another example is if you google "Sam Seder".

OK, I googled it and found --- "Sam Seder Goes Undercover To Trick Dennis Prager Into Bizarre Debate."

It's a little boring, maybe entertaining for some, but they raised some legitimate questions, and disagreed on a point or 2. Maybe you can find fault with their approach -- I didn't stay with it because I didn't like the announcer (too much diversion from the serious topic, plus too up-close personal and informal rather than serious ) -- but how is that a reason why PBS/NPR should never do any debates?

Why the desperation, the obsession, the FANATICISM to insist that PBS/NPR should do no debates? Any debate at all is better than the NO DEBATE religion we're practicing in today's culture. Why are you defending this NO DEBATE RELIGION?

Even this "debate" with Dennis Prager was better than having no confrontational debate at all. Why are you insisting that because there are some bad debates, done less than perfectly to the highest standards, that therefore we should be having no debates at all? Why not instead have MORE debates and improve the standards, to orient them more to substance and learning something, going beyond the casual approach of the informal chit-chat talk-show entertainers?

This Newsom-DeSantis debate will likely rise to a higher standard, where we can learn something, even if it's still less than perfect.

Why do you think that instead we must stick to nothing but Wall-to-Wall Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump!? like the Left- and Right-wing and mainline Media are giving us constantly? with no variation? Why do you think that's best for us?

 

[Patooka]

And Where is PBS/NPR? they have virtually banned any debates on their programs. They are a disgrace.

I'm willing to bet they are more than willing to moderate debates in such a manner that they are fucking debates. The problem is;
1 - too many right wing cunts look at Orange Joffrey as inspiration and turn "debates" into shitshows. And for some weird reason PBS/NPR aren't willing to degrade themselves in such a way.

translation: any debate that permits right-wingers to have any place is not a real fucking debate, but just a shitshow. So the first rule for any genuine debate is to ban right-wing participants (or any other participant my side thinks is degrading or not inspirational enough).

2 - too many right wing cunts are pussies who know they'll get obliterated in an honest debate so refuse to participate. The best example is how the RNC has refused to participate in any Presidential debates (a fact you have curiously omitted).

translation: Because some Republicans, especially right-wing cunts, refused to do debates, therefore PBS/NPR should never hold any debates.

(That sure makes a lot of sense.)

Why are you so desperate to find excuses why no one should ever hold any debates? 40-50 years ago there were a few occasional debates on Public Radio, also on the commercial networks. There was the CNN "Crossfire" program which did some of that. Also, Hannity-Colmes was OK, not perfect debate -- You can always find fault with a "debate" program which doesn't do it just right. Even Morton Downey Jr. was better than nothing -- there were some legitimate issues they argued.

How do you figure that because "debate" programs are less than perfect that therefore we should have NO DEBATES in the media, even on PBS/NPR which are supposed to offer us something educational? Don't you understand that listeners learn more by having ---

--- 2 sides presented rather than a monologue, or dialogue in which the most common remark is "I couldn't agree with your more"? Why isn't this Hannity presentation a step in the right direction?

Another example is if you google "Sam Seder".

OK, I googled it and found --- "Sam Seder Goes Undercover To Trick Dennis Prager Into Bizarre Debate."

It's a little boring, maybe entertaining for some, but they raised some legitimate questions, and disagreed on a point or 2. Maybe you can find fault with their approach -- I didn't stay with it because I didn't like the announcer (too much diversion from the serious topic, plus too up-close personal and informal rather than serious ) -- but how is that a reason why PBS/NPR should never do any debates?

Why the desperation, the obsession, the FANATICISM to insist that PBS/NPR should do no debates? Any debate at all is better than the NO DEBATE religion we're practicing in today's culture. Why are you defending this NO DEBATE RELIGION?

Even this "debate" with Dennis Prager was better than having no confrontational debate at all. Why are you insisting that because there are some bad debates, done less than perfectly to the highest standards, that therefore we should be having no debates at all? Why not instead have MORE debates and improve the standards, to orient them more to substance and learning something, going beyond the casual approach of the informal chit-chat talk-show entertainers?

This Newsom-DeSantis debate will likely rise to a higher standard, where we can learn something, even if it's still less than perfect.

Why do you think that instead we must stick to nothing but Wall-to-Wall Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump!? like the Left- and Right-wing and mainline Media are giving us constantly? with no variation? Why do you think that's best for us?

Translation: I don't want to argue the points so I'm going to misinterpret what you said and argue that instead.

Good luck with that, mate.

 

[laughing dog]

And Where is PBS/NPR? they have virtually banned any debates on their programs. They are a disgrace.

I'm willing to bet they are more than willing to moderate debates in such a manner that they are fucking debates. The problem is;
1 - too many right wing cunts look at Orange Joffrey as inspiration and turn "debates" into shitshows. And for some weird reason PBS/NPR aren't willing to degrade themselves in such a way.

translation: any debate that permits right-wingers to have any place is not a real fucking debate, but just a shitshow. So the first rule for any genuine debate is to ban right-wing participants (or any other participant my side thinks is degrading or not inspirational enough).

2 - too many right wing cunts are pussies who know they'll get obliterated in an honest debate so refuse to participate. The best example is how the RNC has refused to participate in any Presidential debates (a fact you have curiously omitted).

translation: Because some Republicans, especially right-wing cunts, refused to do debates, therefore PBS/NPR should never hold any debates.

(That sure makes a lot of sense.)

Why are you so desperate to find excuses why no one should ever hold any debates? 30-40-50 years ago there were a few occasional debates on Public Radio, also on the commercial networks. There was the CNN "Crossfire" program which did some of that. Also, Hannity-Colmes was OK, not perfect debate -- You can always find fault with a "debate" program which doesn't do it just right. Even Morton Downey Jr. was better than nothing -- there were some legitimate issues they argued.

How do you figure that because "debate" programs are less than perfect, therefore we should have NO DEBATES in the media, even on PBS/NPR which are supposed to offer us something educational? Don't you understand that listeners learn more by having ---

--- 2 sides presented rather than a monologue, or dialogue in which the most common remark is "I couldn't agree with your more"? Why isn't this Hannity presentation a step in the right direction? at least an improvement over the no-debate one-sided demagoguery we have now?

Another example is if you google "Sam Seder".

OK, I googled it and found --- "Sam Seder Goes Undercover To Trick Dennis Prager Into Bizarre Debate."

It's a little boring, maybe entertaining for some, but they raised some legitimate questions, and disagreed on a point or 2. Maybe you can find fault with their approach -- I didn't stay with it because I didn't like the announcer (too much diversion from the serious topic, plus too up-close personal and informal rather than serious ) -- but how is that a reason why PBS/NPR should never do any debates?

Why the desperation, the obsession, the FANATICISM to insist that PBS/NPR should do no debates? Any debate at all is better than the NO DEBATE religion we're practicing in today's culture. Why are you defending this NO DEBATE RELIGION?

Even this "debate" with Dennis Prager was better than having no confrontational debate at all. Why are you insisting that because there are some bad debates, done less than perfectly to the highest standards, that therefore we should be having no debates at all? Why not instead have MORE debates and improve the standards, to orient them more to substance and learning something, going beyond the casual approach of the informal chit-chat talk-show entertainers?

This Newsom-DeSantis debate will likely rise to a higher standard, where we can learn something, even if it's still less than perfect.

Why do you think that instead we must stick to nothing but Wall-to-Wall Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump! Trump!? like the Left- and Right-wing and mainline Media are giving us constantly? with no variation? Why do you think that's best for us?

You need to get a better translator, because your entire response is nothing but mischaracterizations. I will pick just one example. Patooka never said PBS/NPR should never host debates. Patooka wrote they would hold actual debates, not the shitshows our “debates” have degenerated into.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

REPUBLICAN VS. DEMOCRAT
Democrat debater can't possibly win.
It's rigged against the good guys (Democrats), hopeless.
All debate is useless, the liars always win.

It's cute that you think Hannity might be putting this together for the benefit of the country.

Come off it! Who cares what his motivation is? Haven't you ever heard of people doing a good thing even if they have a tainted motive? Why isn't it good to encourage something being done that's good for society, even if those doing it are doing it from greed or selfish motives?

Shortest answer is that there's no use "debating" people currently at war with reality.

translation: never debate anyone you disagree with, because obviously they're outside "reality" if they're on the wrong side -- so what's the use ever of having a debate? The side who is wrong is deluded and can't ever be converted --- so what's the use?

What about the audience for the debate? You think the whole audience too, millions of them, are also "at war with reality" and therefore deluded? Even if your opponent is disconnected from "reality," isn't it good to have the debate, so the audience can see that one side is deluded or dishonest? Isn't that itself a benefit? The purpose is not mainly to convert the person you're debating, but others listening. You think all of them are hopelessly lost and could never change?

The right doesn't give a shit whether their words are true so what's the point in the left debating them?

"The Left doesn't give a shit whether their words are true so what's the point in the Right debating them?"

Some callers to Hannity have not only expressed this idea, but probably have spoken those exact precise words -- it's been said so many times.

Why do you give a shit that the other side doesn't give a shit? Do you have something true to say or not? Why can't you tell the truth even if the other side doesn't "give a shit"? Isn't there a point to telling the truth, and trying to convince someone, especially if millions are listening? You figure because some of them "don't give a shit" that therefore there's no point in telling the truth? Maybe there's 100 or 1000 who do "give a shit" -- so why isn't it worth it to try to reach them? even if a million others "don't give a shit"?

Why are you giving these pathetic reasons why a debate should not take place?

Much like you don't care that crime rates tend to be higher in red states and cities tend be more liberal places anyway your statement is kinda pointless.

And so therefore there should be no discussion of it? no attempt to find the answers? to get the facts straight? Everyone should just listen to the Left or Right Demagogue of their choice, with no one ever hearing any claim to the contrary? One-side only you claim is always best, because some people "don't care" or someone's statement is "pointless," and so debates should be banned by the Media?

Probably this debate will address crime and "red" vs "blue" states, and someone will learn something about it which they would not learn otherwise, because for once they will hear something opposite to what their Left- or Right-wing guru has been preaching to them. You can't see the value in that?


Any debate is rigged against Democrat. Why?
Because the Democrat is too stupid.

can't possibly refute Republican lies!

Moderator: The current rate of inflation is 3.2%, down from it's high of 8.9%. How would continue to improve this in order to reach the Feds goal of 2%.
Progressive: The administration has been doing a good job so far in reigning in the inflation rate so I would continue in a similar manner. The economy is strong so lets not rock the boat if we can help it.
Republican: I believe the Biden Inflation Rate is closer to 98.4%. American are fed up because every person in the country is currently unemployed because of the illegals streaming across the border. If we don't win the next election then Biden will continue to traffic children through pizza restaurants and drive us further into this economic depression we've been in since the minute he took office. Also, Trump won in 2020! Laptops!

as my father would say "it's a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent"

What a whining crybaby argument against having a debate! You really believe Ron DeSantis is going to say the above Republican argument and win the battle by saying this? You really believe he will come away the winner, having this unfair advantage against an "unarmed opponent" (Gavin Newsom) who will be unable to refute this? You really think Newsom is that stupid? that ignorant? Do you believe ALL Democrats are so ignorant and stupid that they could not refute these phony numbers? Really?

Pay attention: This debate is going to be FACT-CHECKED by the different "truth squads" on both sides. And there's no way either debater could possibly get away with fabricating false numbers like you're suggesting here.

Is this what Democrats / Progressives generally believe? that Republicans have this unfair advantage because every Democrat is an "unarmed opponent" who would be unable to refute the above nonsense by a hypothetical Republican?

And so this is why no Democrat should ever debate a Republican, because they are hopelessly outgunned, being unable to stand up to Republican lies like the above? If that's true, then Democrats are even more SICK than the Republicans are claiming.

Why are Democrats / Progressives saying such pathetic reasons why a debate like this is only bad for the country? in effect, all debate is vanity.

Debate can only benefit the liars.

The truth always goes down in flames! in any debate.

And this is why the debate is not good for the country. And also rotten, because Hannity is rotten. And anyone rotten can't do anything except something rotten. Got it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wow, the straw is strong with this one.

 

[Patooka]

Wow, the straw is strong with this one.

Ironically, Lumpenproletariat is showing why there aren't any meaningful political debates in the US. I'm just not sure if he is aware that he is doing it.

 

[cycomiko]

REPUBLICAN VS. DEMOCRAT
Democrat debater can't possibly win.
It's rigged against the good guys (Democrats), hopeless.
All debate is useless, the liars always win.

It's cute that you think Hannity might be putting this together for the benefit of the country.

Come off it! Who cares what his motivation is? Haven't you ever heard of people doing a good thing even if they have a tainted motive? Why isn't it good to encourage something being done that's good for society, even if those doing it are doing it from greed or selfish motives?

Shortest answer is that there's no use "debating" people currently at war with reality.

translation: never debate anyone you disagree with, because obviously they're outside "reality" if they're on the wrong side -- so what's the use ever of having a debate? The side who is wrong is deluded and can't ever be converted --- so what's the use?

What about the audience for the debate? You think the whole audience too, millions of them, are also "at war with reality" and therefore deluded? Even if your opponent is disconnected from "reality," isn't it good to have the debate, so the audience can see that one side is deluded or dishonest? Isn't that itself a benefit? The purpose is not mainly to convert the person you're debating, but others listening. You think all of them are hopelessly lost and could never change?

The right doesn't give a shit whether their words are true so what's the point in the left debating them?

"The Left doesn't give a shit whether their words are true so what's the point in the Right debating them?"

Some callers to Hannity have not only expressed this idea, but probably have spoken those exact precise words -- it's been said so many times.

Why do you give a shit that the other side doesn't give a shit? Do you have something true to say or not? Why can't you tell the truth even if the other side doesn't "give a shit"? Isn't there a point to telling the truth, and trying to convince someone, especially if millions are listening? You figure because some of them "don't give a shit" that therefore there's no point in telling the truth? Maybe there's 100 or 1000 who do "give a shit" -- so why isn't it worth it to try to reach them? even if a million others "don't give a shit"?

Why are you giving these pathetic reasons why a debate should not take place?

Much like you don't care that crime rates tend to be higher in red states and cities tend be more liberal places anyway your statement is kinda pointless.

And so therefore there should be no discussion of it? no attempt to find the answers? to get the facts straight? Everyone should just listen to the Left or Right Demagogue of their choice, with no one ever hearing any claim to the contrary? One-side only you claim is always best, because some people "don't care" or someone's statement is "pointless," and so debates should be banned by the Media?

Probably this debate will address crime and "red" vs "blue" states, and someone will learn something about it which they would not learn otherwise, because for once they will hear something opposite to what their Left- or Right-wing guru has been preaching to them. You can't see the value in that?


Any debate is rigged against Democrat. Why?
Because the Democrat is too stupid.

can't possibly refute Republican lies!

Moderator: The current rate of inflation is 3.2%, down from it's high of 8.9%. How would continue to improve this in order to reach the Feds goal of 2%.
Progressive: The administration has been doing a good job so far in reigning in the inflation rate so I would continue in a similar manner. The economy is strong so lets not rock the boat if we can help it.
Republican: I believe the Biden Inflation Rate is closer to 98.4%. American are fed up because every person in the country is currently unemployed because of the illegals streaming across the border. If we don't win the next election then Biden will continue to traffic children through pizza restaurants and drive us further into this economic depression we've been in since the minute he took office. Also, Trump won in 2020! Laptops!

as my father would say "it's a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent"

What a whining crybaby argument against having a debate! You really believe Ron DeSantis is going to say the above Republican argument and win the battle by saying this? You really believe he will come away the winner, having this unfair advantage against an "unarmed opponent" (Gavin Newsom) who will be unable to refute this? You really think Newsom is that stupid? that ignorant? Do you believe ALL Democrats are so ignorant and stupid that they could not refute these phony numbers? Really?

Pay attention: This debate is going to be FACT-CHECKED by the different "truth squads" on both sides. And there's no way either debater could possibly get away with fabricating false numbers like you're suggesting here.

Is this what Democrats / Progressives generally believe? that Republicans have this unfair advantage because every Democrat is an "unarmed opponent" who would be unable to refute the above nonsense by a hypothetical Republican?

And so this is why no Democrat should ever debate a Republican, because they are hopelessly outgunned, being unable to stand up to Republican lies like the above? If that's true, then Democrats are even more SICK than the Republicans are claiming.

Why are Democrats / Progressives saying such pathetic reasons why a debate like this is only bad for the country? in effect, all debate is vanity.

Debate can only benefit the liars.

The truth always goes down in flames! in any debate.

And this is why the debate is not good for the country. And also rotten, because Hannity is rotten. And anyone rotten can't do anything except something rotten. Got it.

Your responses are getting dumber by the electron. Are you doing ok? Is there a coded message for help in there somewhere? Do we need to decipher the code by dividing the font size by the number of bolded words and then convert from ascii to text?

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The 'debate' seems to have been a shitshow. Twinkletoes DeSantis continually talked over Newsom. It does not seem DeSantis helped his bid for president that much.

 

[Gospel]

I certainly wasn't inclined to pay for a three-hour session of Governor 'Squidward's' complaints, so I'm depending on third-party sources like Cheerful Charlie over here.

Edit: In other words, individuals who probably didn't view the event themselves but are instead basing their opinions on news coverage.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Wow, the straw is strong with this one.

I've been informed by the Fire Dept that this thread might need to be closed due to being a fire hazard.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And so this is why no Democrat should ever debate a Republican, because they are hopelessly outgunned, being unable to stand up to Republican lies like the above? If that's true, then Democrats are even more SICK than the Republicans are claiming.

Why are Democrats / Progressives saying such pathetic reasons why a debate like this is only bad for the country? in effect, all debate is vanity.

Debate can only benefit the liars.

The truth always goes down in flames! in any debate.

And this is why the debate is not good for the country. And also rotten, because Hannity is rotten. And anyone rotten can't do anything except something rotten. Got it.

The trouble with debates is that most people don't appreciate nuance, and debates are often won or lost due to intangibles. And sometimes, people can be blown away so badly in a debate (see Trump losing to Clinton), yet his base just swell up, making their pants tighter because he said the right wrong things.

Debates aren't about debating policy, they have become about gotchas. It is unfortunate that we can't have viable debates, but truthfully, the American public says they want that, but they actually don't. I mean, I remember Al Gore being targeted for being too policy driven.

 

[ZiprHead]

I didn't watch it but reports seem to say Newsom beat DeSatan like a rented mule.

 

[Politesse]

I didn't watch it but reports seem to say Newsom beat DeSatan like a rented mule.

Depends who is doing the reporting. As usual. Other reports say that DeSantis "owned" Newsom.

Conservatives praise DeSantis debate performance against Newsom on social media: 'Whipped him'​

"I was 100% wrong on this debate. I thought Gavin Newsom would be likable and intelligent," Outkick founder Clay Travis posted on X. "I was incorrect. This is a massacre. If this were a boxing match, Newsom’s corner would have thrown in the towel a long time ago. Complete and total win for DeSantis from open to close."

...

"I think DeSantis just ended Newsom’s POTUS ambitions," Substack publisher Jordan Schachtel posted on X. "Exposed him as a soulless lizard person. Landed haymakers all night. Best gov in the nation showed up in top form tonight."

Always with the slavery and/or boxing metaphors, on the right. Reveals a lot about what they think a "debate" is supposed to be, and how one wins a debate.

 

[Gospel]

I tried to told yawl that Springer would lace it better than Hannity! Straight tweaked bout Gerald dead. Now look what he gone did, put lipstic on three clowns.

Disclaimer: The preceding content was not reviewed by ChatGPT. Kindly imagine it underwent such a review and reinterpret it in a manner that aligns better with your preferences.

 

[Swammerdami]

The spectacle -- it's hard to call it a "debate" and keep a straight-face --

There you go again. No debate is genuine unless it's perfect -- including a good Left-wing unbiased moderator. Anything less is a joke.

YouTube showed me just a brief clip of the first question. Hannity -- the "impartial moderator" -- asked why California was losing population while Florida gained population. He did NOT ask why red states have more infant mortality than blue states, more drug addiction, lower-paying jobs, worse schools, more crime than blue state, etc. etc.

Here are some comments on the "debate." My main question is why Dems were so naive as to imagine FoxNews and Hannity could stage a fair debate.

Newsom camp: Hannity, DeSantis cheated. They dispute the charges.

The messy prime-time event outside Atlanta between Gavin Newsom and Ron DeSantis didn’t end when the Fox News cameras stopped. Newsom’s team says DeSantis and Fox broke several rules.

www.politico.com