What does it mean to "win" this sort of debate, really?
Normally, "to debate" is to dispute accuracy of basic facts, to provide counter-arguments to a proposal, and so forth. But that takes time, and 2 minutes with a 1 minute rebuttal is not a proper forum for that sort of thing. None of that really happened, but then given the time constraints it could not have happened.
Rather, this type of debate is primarily to generate short clips for insertion into "analysis" videos, by both sides. And there was sufficient fodder for that. Both of them got in good "zingers" in that would play well to their own audiences.
It's also a bit of "image management" for a low-information, low-engagement, audience who probably didn't watch the whole thing. For that, I think Harris came off a bit better: she looked more aggressive and had a more of a rhetorical style that looked like she was making points ("We need X, and we need Y, and we need Z.") If you came in randomly and watched 5 minutes of it, Harris probably came off slightly better than Trump, who was pretty much on the defensive for most of it.
That could be one reason why Trump kept coming back to the migrant crisis over and over--you never know which 5 minutes those people are going to be watching, and it is a pretty important problem and key to many other problems. That is is key to many other problems--crime obviously, but also the economy--is another good reason to keep returning to it.
Currently (Sept 11, 10:30 AM EDT):
- Donald Trump 50.29% (25,854 votes)
- Kamala Harris 44.61% (22,934 votes)
- Neither, it was a tie 2.64% (1,358 votes)
- I don't know 2.46% (1,264 votes)
👉They are risking nuclear war rather than negotiating peace -- truth bomb
Highly important point that doesn't get enough consideration.
The military-industrial complex is a huge beneficiary of all the ongoing conflicts, and there is zero appetite on their part--and hence on the Democrats' part--for it to end. Bad for business, you see.
He didn't answer questions (this isn't an interview where you can go off script, it annoys people in the center, looks evasive)
He didn't complete sentences and that made him sound like biden
Good points.
She was very aggressive, forcing him to be on the defensive most of the time.
Kamala usually spoke first and got in, like, a dozen whoppers to which Trump had to choose what to respond. Most of them would take a long time to explain and give context to--"fine people", "disrespecting veterans", "project 25"--but he only had 1 minute in which to respond. Trying to debunk all of that in 60 seconds is going to be disjointed.
He thinks too fast for his mouth to keep up!
Yes, we know what he is saying because we can fill in the blanks, knowing him well. But for people not that used to him, it can indeed come off as disjointed.
Exactly. Big Corps that want the low-wage labour and the Government wants Democrat voters. Big Corps are JUST AS GUILTY as anyone in Government for this crazy situation.
Just wait. Soon, it will be Arabic,
If Ashkenazi Jews are supposedly not susceptible to Covid, why very high Covid deaths in Israel?
Someone painted a nude of Stephen Harper back when he was Canadian PM. He was reclining on a couch, with a small dog at his feet. Everyone expected him to freak out, but Harper merely commented "You know, I'm really more of a cat person."
Ah! Yes, you're right. Quite so.
Odd indeed. More assassination attempts, methinks.
Plane was a charter, according to article: maintenance thereof NOT done by Trump team, which is a security/sabotage risk.
Pray for even more divine protection for Trump (and Vance); it's not over yet.
"Most of the job creation has gone to migrants" ... "all these migrants will blow-up social security". "She will destroy medicare, she will destroy social security. ... She wants to abolish ICE".
Calling out their Cloward-Piven strategy.
Thanks! I've read The Abolition of Man, but the others are new to me.
Much appreciated!
A few links to get you started:
-
Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum novarum, which was a critque of what the industrial revolution wrought in society: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html Bit of a heavy read because of the ye olde style language, but not incomprehensible.
-
Cardinal Manning and the origins of Rerum Novarum: https://cardijnresearch.org/cardinal-manning-and-the-origins-of-rerum-novarum/ Bit of an explanation of the times and the currents of thought that went into it.
-
G.K. Chesterton's Distributism: https://distributistreview.com/archive/g-k-chestertons-distributism Article that gives basic background. Good to browse around the Distributist Review website for other articles.
-
Hilaire Belloc's Economics for Helen: https://archive.org/details/economicsforhele0000bell Written for his adolescent neice, this is an excellent, clear, and very basic introduction to economics: defines in understandable terms "wealth", "money", "capital", "labour", "economic rent", "subsistence", etc.
-
Hilaire Belloc's 1912 The Servile State: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/64882 An economic history book, but also predicting the rise of socialism and totalitarianism. Written before the Communist Revolution of 1917, but shows things were brewing in that direction for some decades at that point. Also predicted drive for lower and lower wages, which is what gives us the situation today where all our manufacturing is in China: "industrial society as we know it will tend towards the re-establishment of slavery".
-
John Medaille talk from a decade ago plumping his then-new book on distributism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1PtStipIsc Medaille is an entrepreneur, but also a prof at University of Dallas, and one of the "big names" in contemporary distributist analysis.
-
Good to always read arguments against something, and Thomas E. Woods of the Mises Institute has written many critiques of distributism. Here is one: https://fee.org/articles/the-fallacies-of-distributism/
Getting away from economics specifically, looking more at social structures, worthwhile reading Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, a Brazilian from the mid-20th century, who is much lauded by some sectors of the Catholic Traditionalist movement. Still worth a read, and here are two articles:
-
What is Organic Society? https://www.traditioninaction.org/OrganicSociety/A_002_OrganicSociety_PCO.htm
-
How Do We Build an Organic Society? https://www.tfp.org/how-do-we-build-an-organic-society/
... Society begins to wither away when people lack a common interpretation of reality to orient around. The liberal individualism we're used to slowly turns the human experience into subjective mush that completely lacks the power of giving life any meaning or purpose.
Agreed. Which is why studying history and maintaining traditions are important, and why immigrants have a duty to adopt their new country's way of life. Which is why tryants of all sorts first have to destroy what exists in order to replace it with the "new thing". They did that in Cambodia under Pol Pot, and in China with Mao. Soviet Russia had the "new Soviet man", and the Taliban did it in Afghanistan when they blew up the thousand-year-old Buddhist statues.
... For a long time, capitalist consumerism and the notion of "progress" was supposed to serve as the rallying point that held society together. ... The economy gradually became our new religion, but it left a lot to be desired.
I wouldn't say for a long time. Only since the post-war 1950s, really, did capitalist consumerism really get off the ground. Eisenhower identified the "military-industrial complex" in 1961, and they were pushing for it to keep busy all the industries which had developed during the WW2. Before that, self-sufficiency was more the norm in society. The post-war era made "store-boughten clothes" and "store-boughten food" more mainstream. But, nonetheless, your point about the end result is well taken.
... we should instead return to a system of caste, where people are initiated into a particular Tradition that gives their life a clearly defined purpose.
I wouldn't make it hard and fixed, like a caste system. But the idea that every role in life is important to the whole is well taken. Not everyone NEEDS a university degree or is suited to climbing the corporate ladder! A guy who sweeps the streets is still performing a valuable function in the world. Maybe more of a recognition that all parts of society are valuable, and we should cultivate personal excellence and good character, and so bloom wherever we are planted.
... By focusing on God, we focus on the totality of being and see how parts are all interconnected and aligned towards a common purpose.
Absolutely! Well said.
... The individual who lends their body to the Sacred King shrinks into the role just as the artisan and the farmer shrink into theirs.
Agreed. A good King does not impose their own personality on the role, but sees that he is fulfilling a role for the whole of society. Maybe by preference he would want to be an academic or a businessman or something. But he subjects himself to endless stream of ribbon-cutting ceremonies and fundraising dinners because it is important to the people to have the King coming to their local event.
A good politician will do this too. It is not entirely antithetical to democratic forms of government, just rare.
... Instead, we should seek cooperation, community, and interconnectedness within a Tradition that gives our life a common orientation. ... The things that separate us can ironically bring us together if we can understand that we all exist within a hierarchical order.
Yes, harmony in society and not a striving to "crush opponents". Order is indeed needed. Hierarchy, much maligned by the 1960s hippies, is not evil in itself if the head of the country (or head of the household) truly cares about the welbeing of those in his care.
You are thinking along lines that others have also thought. Look into "distributism" as an economic system (Hilaire Belloc and G. K. Chesterton).
He's just kissing Chinese ass because he's getting money through Belt and Road.
Ask for the "Jehovah's Witness" treatment; they've been avoiding blood products forever, and hospitals will accommodate.
I see the same phenomenon, but mostly amongst the over-65 crowd. They have long memories, and hold opinions they formed decades ago, oblivious to new information that circumstances have changed.