I'm usually ambivalent on who should be US President, its always a choice between a Tweedledee and a Tweedledum, two of a kind, the two servants of the master the American Military/Industrial (didn't Eisenhower get that one right), which because of its very nature pushes the world towards total destruction. Usually the two leading protagonists are relatively intelligent human beings, there have been notable exceptions, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, we have one now its called Donald Trump, who's already strutted his stuff once and shown the world what a complete idiot he really is. So lets hope Harris "wins", but don't expect too much.

The good news is that Trump says he will not debate Harris again. Nobody needs it, anyway.

These so-called debates make absolutely no difference to election results; and the usual he won/she won opinions are always based on personal politics - not on what was said by either camp.

Who won?

The fact-checks clearly showed that newborns are not
being executed and immigrants are not eating people's
pets to name just a couple of outrageous claims
that the former US president, Donald Trump made during
his melt-down in the debate with Vice President Kamala
Harris.

It was obvious from the start that any other debater
would have been seen as having a melt-down by the number
of times that Donald Trump went off the rails during the
debate.

What needs to be done is - people need to stop putting
a different bar for Trump's behaviour than for anyone
else. It's obvious from watching news channels that
people are so used to Trump behaving abnormally they
make allowances for him. That is concerning.

Donald Trump's behaviour should not be accepted nor
excused and definitely not normalized!

cont'd ...

Most of us saw the frail, tired, old former President
Joe Biden as he appeared during the previous debate.
We should now admit that the former US president -
Donald Trump's recent behaviour was neither normal,
or presidential. He also appeared as a man having a
melt-down. Old, tired, and downright weird!

ttbn,

Yes, many will simply decide who the winner is based on their political persuasion, but there are ways to control this and objectively analyse the debate, such as:

- fact-checking the claims;
- identifying logical fallacies;
- writing up an exhaustive rubric;
- playing devil's advocate;
- maintaining an awareness of the common cognitive biases.

The list of critical thinking techniques we can use to ensure objectivity is seemingly endless.

JD

As long as the ‘fact checking’ is not giving someone a bell, then that person saying, “Nah: nothing like that going on here”. That's what happened with Trump's claim about pet eating. There might be illegal aliens dining on dogs or picking at pussies, or there might not be. There are more important things to be discussed about America's illegal entrants than their diets. We know that some cultures have eaten cats and dogs in the past, and might still do so.

Unless I dozed off, there was no fact-checking for the Laughing Lady, and she was not made to ask all of the questions put to her.

Your other options are available to us, too. But the unyielding on both sides of politics had made up their minds who the ‘winner’ was going to be well before the ‘debate’ was staged.

Trump is no wordsmith. When he was asked about something he had said in the past - it wasn't meant to be taken literally - he said that he had been ‘sarcastic’, when he had actually been ironic. He said that babies were being “executed”, when they are not. But to jump on that word is to admit that you are hard up for genuine things to criticise the man. Hell, it's bad enough that babies are ripped out before they are born and worse: if they are born alive then spend several hours dying in a dish.

Our relationship with America has been pretty much the same whether their government is Democrat or Republican. Poor old Joe Biden hasn't been running America for the past three and a half years. If Harris gets the job, nobody could seriously think that she will be running America either. If Trump is to be the next President … well, he has already done the job, and can be judged accordingly. But, Harris? She has only the things she didn't do as Vice President on display.