Truth is an evasive need but none the less a requirement for survival. We at least deserve reasonable attempts to get to the truth. What is completely unacceptable and morally bankrupt is the bold face lies the teller knows is untrue or should.
The debate was offensive. Harris was an empty suit and Trump was a petulant child. She lied. He was completely unprepared and displayed his immaturity so hated. The American people were the losers and neither Trump nor Kamala deserved to be up there.
But really they only fact checked twice? Right ? The “stolen election” which is obviously a lie and is what Trump will charge again if he loses. And the eating of dogs and cats by immigrants, which was pretty important given the chaos and death threats that shut half the town down.
Not bs. This was probably the only debate between our November candidates. It’s interference for one to suddenly be informed that they are wrong, without judge or jury. Michael’s essay reminds us that the candidates are both lying often so it should at least be applied evenly.
I didn’t see that. I did see Trump cut off the moderators when they tried asking him the next question, and then he’d go off ranting about what Harris had said. He got about 5 minutes more talking in than Harris.
American cats and dogs have more fat and sugar than regular pets. In fact, they taste just like McDonalds. Trump couldn't resist planting a Made in America flag on your pet. No one is allowed to steal them and screw with local manufacturing. But they can buy them. Then they come with a litre of Coca Cola and a green card.
Feral, you normally see the absurdity in American politics, but it's okay if you take me literally and stand with your fellow feline avatars. I'm simply against the whole damn system, and America giving importance to things they disagree with. Biden sucks, Trump sucks, Harris sucks...
“The US refused to allow Ukraine to sign a peace treaty and made them stay in the war and be used as a sacrificial lamb.” This is such a serious assertion it needs to be backed up with its source.
Here, three journalists from the Times provide a lengthy and detailed time line and discussion of how the proposed draft peace treaty, as it evolved, then devolved. Either they uncovered a valid alternative explanation for the peace treaty failure, or they have prostituted themselves for a job with the Times. Does anyone know?
Re Article 5. “The biggest problem, however, came in Article 5. It stated that, in the event of another armed attack on Ukraine, the “guarantor states” that would sign the treaty — Great Britain, China, Russia, the United States and France — would come to Ukraine’s defense.
To the Ukrainians’ dismay, there was a crucial departure from what Ukrainian negotiators said was discussed in Istanbul. Russia inserted a clause saying that all guarantor states, including Russia, had to approve the response if Ukraine were attacked. In effect, Moscow could invade Ukraine again and then veto any military intervention on Ukraine’s behalf — a seemingly absurd condition that Kyiv quickly identified as a dealbreaker.
Russia tried to secure a veto on Ukraine’s security guarantees by inserting a clause requiring unanimous consent.
“The Guarantor States and Ukraine agree that in the event of an armed attack on Ukraine, each of the Guarantor States … on the basis of a decision agreed upon by all Guarantor States, will provide … assistance to Ukraine, as a permanently neutral state under attack…”
With that change, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team said, “we had no interest in continuing the talks.””
First off, thank you for all the feedback you provided. I am glad that you found the article mostly objective. I don't think us humans can ever be 100% objective.
Regarding the peace plan, the NY Times is an establishment-focused outfit. They, of course, would come up with a narrative where everything has to be Russia's fault.
But if you ask some of our best international policy experts like John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, and Christopher Hedges, they have a much different story. According to all three, Boris Johnson came and broke up an agreement that both would have signed. Putin was willing to return to the pre-invasion borders and only wanted Ukraine to promise NATO neutrality. The Turkish moderator attested to that version as well.
Enjoyed this article very much. I don’t agree with everything but it is one of the few Substacks I’ve read that actually tries objectivity for a change. A refreshing change. For the first time in a long time I was able to read criticisms of my personal choice without being frustrated by seeing no references to similar or as egregious faults of the other side. Thank you! Thank you! I will check out more of your writing.
Harris’ favorite 10/7 lie not mentioned. “Women were horribly raped”. Not a shred of evidence. No victims. No witnesses. No audio or video recording to even suggest rape despite hours of video footage. Harris repeats this lie as is she were paid to.
The media and the Democrats are able to say things negative about Trump and no fact checking to their hatred and lies! Trump 2 assassination attempts now,,,always blame on Trump. I am tired of media’s and journalists biased reporting. God help us! Who is running the country?
Imagine (and I know we can only imagine) if candidates were asked questions by Whitney Webb or James Corbett, or forced to debate a nominated citizen, whether it be Mehdi Hasan or your local activist. Imagine presidential debates... Putin versus Trump and Kamala Harris... I can only fantasise about debates having meaning. Reality is that democracy is mathematically and psychologically impossible.
And what about gun violence? Nothing. And Trump was shot at!!!
Absolutely true. I felt the article was getting too long, so I had to cut a bit. I will be covering that in a future article.
I think Kamala said she and Walz were gun owners, and ?supported common sense gun laws”?. It wasonly a sentence or two but she did bring it up.
Truth is an evasive need but none the less a requirement for survival. We at least deserve reasonable attempts to get to the truth. What is completely unacceptable and morally bankrupt is the bold face lies the teller knows is untrue or should.
The debate was offensive. Harris was an empty suit and Trump was a petulant child. She lied. He was completely unprepared and displayed his immaturity so hated. The American people were the losers and neither Trump nor Kamala deserved to be up there.
It's a problem when we respond to events such as these as if better events are possible under a corrupt political system.
Of course moderator was biased. Of course the fact check went only one way. Of course, Harris likely had "help".
So what does Trump propose to do about it?
Moreover, nobody forced Trump to riff on eating domestic pets.
The debate was a fairly hostile environment towards Trump from start to end. It was completely out in the open to see the contempt towards him.
That is bs. Trump is used to saying anything he wants, without fear of checking or objection. ABC was ready. Doing what your whole piece is about.
I’m not a Trumper but I object that they fact checked him and not Harris. She said some untrue things as well.
But really they only fact checked twice? Right ? The “stolen election” which is obviously a lie and is what Trump will charge again if he loses. And the eating of dogs and cats by immigrants, which was pretty important given the chaos and death threats that shut half the town down.
Not bs. This was probably the only debate between our November candidates. It’s interference for one to suddenly be informed that they are wrong, without judge or jury. Michael’s essay reminds us that the candidates are both lying often so it should at least be applied evenly.
I didn’t see that. I did see Trump cut off the moderators when they tried asking him the next question, and then he’d go off ranting about what Harris had said. He got about 5 minutes more talking in than Harris.
And that’s only fair since Trump is completely contemptible!
Yup. What is he going to do about it?
American cats and dogs have more fat and sugar than regular pets. In fact, they taste just like McDonalds. Trump couldn't resist planting a Made in America flag on your pet. No one is allowed to steal them and screw with local manufacturing. But they can buy them. Then they come with a litre of Coca Cola and a green card.
WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH YOU?!?!
Feral, you normally see the absurdity in American politics, but it's okay if you take me literally and stand with your fellow feline avatars. I'm simply against the whole damn system, and America giving importance to things they disagree with. Biden sucks, Trump sucks, Harris sucks...
Mike…Anybody you think doesn’t suck???
I think you’re awesome, but I don’t have the facts to prove it yet.
😂🤣😂🤣😂
Great article an easy read filled with great information.
Yes, there is a dismissive attitude, if one tries to discuss something read on Substack.
“The US refused to allow Ukraine to sign a peace treaty and made them stay in the war and be used as a sacrificial lamb.” This is such a serious assertion it needs to be backed up with its source.
https://youtu.be/nOTuNOsMco8?si=8PDiD4Zp_gzvLiyK
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2023/12/03/west-sabotaged-ukraine-peace-russia/
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/nuland-ukraine-peace-deal/
And Germany and France making a fake peace deal so NATO could build Ukraine into a fight with Russia - https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/12/22/ffci-d22.html
Here, three journalists from the Times provide a lengthy and detailed time line and discussion of how the proposed draft peace treaty, as it evolved, then devolved. Either they uncovered a valid alternative explanation for the peace treaty failure, or they have prostituted themselves for a job with the Times. Does anyone know?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/06/15/world/europe/ukraine-russia-ceasefire-deal.html
Re Article 5. “The biggest problem, however, came in Article 5. It stated that, in the event of another armed attack on Ukraine, the “guarantor states” that would sign the treaty — Great Britain, China, Russia, the United States and France — would come to Ukraine’s defense.
To the Ukrainians’ dismay, there was a crucial departure from what Ukrainian negotiators said was discussed in Istanbul. Russia inserted a clause saying that all guarantor states, including Russia, had to approve the response if Ukraine were attacked. In effect, Moscow could invade Ukraine again and then veto any military intervention on Ukraine’s behalf — a seemingly absurd condition that Kyiv quickly identified as a dealbreaker.
Russia tried to secure a veto on Ukraine’s security guarantees by inserting a clause requiring unanimous consent.
“The Guarantor States and Ukraine agree that in the event of an armed attack on Ukraine, each of the Guarantor States … on the basis of a decision agreed upon by all Guarantor States, will provide … assistance to Ukraine, as a permanently neutral state under attack…”
With that change, a member of the Ukrainian negotiating team said, “we had no interest in continuing the talks.””
First off, thank you for all the feedback you provided. I am glad that you found the article mostly objective. I don't think us humans can ever be 100% objective.
Regarding the peace plan, the NY Times is an establishment-focused outfit. They, of course, would come up with a narrative where everything has to be Russia's fault.
But if you ask some of our best international policy experts like John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, and Christopher Hedges, they have a much different story. According to all three, Boris Johnson came and broke up an agreement that both would have signed. Putin was willing to return to the pre-invasion borders and only wanted Ukraine to promise NATO neutrality. The Turkish moderator attested to that version as well.
Enjoyed this article very much. I don’t agree with everything but it is one of the few Substacks I’ve read that actually tries objectivity for a change. A refreshing change. For the first time in a long time I was able to read criticisms of my personal choice without being frustrated by seeing no references to similar or as egregious faults of the other side. Thank you! Thank you! I will check out more of your writing.
Harris’ favorite 10/7 lie not mentioned. “Women were horribly raped”. Not a shred of evidence. No victims. No witnesses. No audio or video recording to even suggest rape despite hours of video footage. Harris repeats this lie as is she were paid to.
What???
The media and the Democrats are able to say things negative about Trump and no fact checking to their hatred and lies! Trump 2 assassination attempts now,,,always blame on Trump. I am tired of media’s and journalists biased reporting. God help us! Who is running the country?
Trump 2024! My pocket was better off during Trump administration and no wars!
Imagine (and I know we can only imagine) if candidates were asked questions by Whitney Webb or James Corbett, or forced to debate a nominated citizen, whether it be Mehdi Hasan or your local activist. Imagine presidential debates... Putin versus Trump and Kamala Harris... I can only fantasise about debates having meaning. Reality is that democracy is mathematically and psychologically impossible.