They fact-checked constantly during the first half, which was a huge improvement over former debates. Honestly I thought this was better moderated than any previous debate involving Trump.

Harris campaign requested unmuted mics - it was Trump’s team that was worried about him making an ass of himself with interruptions. With that in mind they might be letting him talk because it’s what Harris wanted in the first place.

When my wife told me what he said I assumed it was an onion article. When she said it was real I assumed it was taken out of context - surely there was some policy proposal behind these comments, like a new federal stipend for caretakers. Nope - he genuinely seems to believe that the government’s role in childcare is reminding parents that they can ask friends/family for help, as if there’s a struggling parent out there who needs to hear this. I really don’t understand who he’s trying to reach with these comments - it’s like reminding homeless people that they can panhandle if they’re struggling, which is an obtuse way of saying “fuck you, you’re on your own.”

I’m torn on this issue. I want the sort of gun control that you’re describing, but I really don’t know if it would be constitutional, and defying the constitution is a slippery slope that could cause more harm than even gun violence. The problem in my view is the second amendment itself - it’s vague, outdated, and in desperate need of clarification. The fact that it deals with possession of technology but hasn’t been updated in 250 years is insane.

I’m with anyone calling for gun control, but we really ought to be demanding constitutional revision to address this issue.

Cheney is a fascinating example of how you can support every conservative policy and still be considered a RINO for suggesting that Trump shouldn’t be in charge. She’s proof that you can’t be a Republican today without kissing the ring.

A lot of people are doing work that can be automated in part by AI, and there’s a good chance that they’ll lose their jobs in the next few years if they can’t figure out how to incorporate it into their workflow. Some people are indeed out of the workforce or in industries that are safe from AI, but that doesn’t invalidate the hype for the rest of us.

This is like saying that automobiles are overhyped because they can’t drive themselves. When I code up a new algorithm at work, I’m spending an hour or two whiteboarding my ideas, then the rest of the day coding it up. AI can’t design the algorithm for me, but if I can describe it in English, it can do the tedious work of writing the code. If you’re just using AI as a Google replacement, you’re missing the bigger picture.

This sounded outrageous so I checked their website: https://www.haciendacdc.org/news-updates/statement-from-hacienda-community-development-corp-ceo-1

Supposedly you need 2/5 criteria to be eligible, and only one of those includes citizenship, so American citizens do qualify if they meet 2/4.

My understanding is that there was no hard evidence and the witness did not wish to testify, so this was a plea deal to make him confess and give the victim closure. Still feels wrong given that he did confess, but if the alternative was no probation I guess this is better than nothing.

I feel like we’re saying the same thing. Your argument (and mine) is that it’s hard for people to understand ADHD unless they have it. For this reason, people like me should keep their mouth shut about it, and if this weren’t an “unpopular opinion” thread I normally would. But for the same reason, I feel that people who haven’t had a proper diagnosis should be cautious about assuming that they do have ADHD, because maybe they don’t understand it either. If I didn’t follow my own advice, I might join the self-diagnosed crowd and start sharing personal coping strategies, and if it turns out I don’t have ADHD, those comments could be ignorant, offensive, or even harmful.

I suppose I’m arguing that ADHD is an extreme of something that most people experience to a lesser degree all the time. Many will relate to these memes and assume that they have ADHD, not recognizing that these can also be normal behaviors. Kind of like how you can be sad without being clinically depressed. I think I’m an asshole for suggesting that there are people who will blame ADHD for behaviors that they are more in control of than they realize - for suggesting that ADHD is a medical condition and not merely a club that one can invite themselves into because they relate to a meme. Any sort of gatekeeping is assholish I suppose, but respectfully, that’s how it looks to me.

I feel like an asshole for saying this but I tend to agree. I relate to every meme/post about ADHD I’ve ever seen, and most people I know do as well, so either we all have ADHD or, more likely, it’s being misrepresented.

The way I see it a day might come when I have to explain to my kids what I did to try to make a better future for them. I could tell them I worked hard to put a roof over their head. I could tell them I changed my lifestyle to try to reduce my carbon footprint. If Trump wins I expect they’ll want to know what I did about that. I don’t have time to volunteer, but if $100 can help pay for an ad in a swing state and win Harris half a vote, that’s better than nothing. Then I can tell my kids I tried to protect their access to abortion, tried to slow down climate change, tried to depoliticize the Supreme Court, tried to strengthen our alliance with Europe, and tried to keep hate and bigotry from having a voice in our government.

Didn’t the war in Iraq have overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress? Bush was guilty of acting on bad intelligence, but the country as a whole was guilty of succumbing to bloodlust and misdirected vengeance. The Patriot act also had strong bipartisan support. Gay marriage was so unpopular at the time that even Obama had to feign opposition to it when he first ran in 2008. Bush was a bad president IMO, but it’s hard not to be a little sympathetic when you consider the context of these decisions. The one good thing I’ll say about Bush is that he never seemed self-serving, so for that reason alone I don’t doubt his sincerity over the regret he seems to show for some of these things.

Yes.

Withholding support to Israel would embolden the opposition here at home and have huge geopolitical implications abroad. I won’t argue over whether or not it’s the right thing to do, but I definitely wouldn’t characterize it as a “win” for any US administration.

From a political perspective it’s amazing how much of a lose-lose this situation has been for Biden and now Harris. Half the country is calling him “Genocide Joe” for supporting Israel while the other is calling him antisemitic for supposedly abandoning Israel. To be fair I think one side is arguing in bad faith and these aren’t equally valid positions, but regardless not a soul in this country seems to be content with our current approach - even if it’s intended as some sort of compromise.

I disagree with you but respect your honesty - you don’t deserve the downvotes. I’m sure you’re not the only one jaded enough by this situation to cast a protest vote.

I feel like this was written by someone who didn’t watch the debate. No one’s expecting a change in ticket to go well - the argument is over whether or not it’s necessary. This isn’t a “skeletons in the closet” sort of situation - there’s no amount of damage control that can fix this if it’s real. The media always frenzies when they smell blood in the water, and campaigns respond by stopping the bleeding or giving them something bigger to go after. Trump is wisely keeping quiet, and Biden so far seems unable to make this go away.

Trump’s cognitive deficiencies are old news, whereas the Biden we’re seeing now is unrecognizable from the last campaign. Given the narrow margin Biden won by last time, that should be concerning to his supporters. You really think this is a media conspiracy?