I just came over to this forum for the first time a few days ago and signed up for a membership
today.
I watched the "great debate" last night between vitterd and donk and decided to do a review.
This review unlike most of the other ones is fairly lengthy, but if you are interested here goes:
I just got finished watching the replay of the debate and here are a few quick takeaways:
1) Obviously vitterd and donk go way back, meaning that I don't know all of
the history and details of their past encounters as a new member, which in turn means
that what I am going to say is based on the exchange tonight only.
2) Aside from the histrionics, especially by Donk, which reminded me of
what one might see when two pro wrestlers are going at each other on tv trying to
hype a match to bring in revenues, what struck me about Donk is that he strikes me
as a very crude individual whose modus operandi is to attack and shoot from the hip.
In a sense, he reminds me of the kind of a person sitting as a bat who has a bit too much to
drink, who foams at the mouth and just sounds off to anyone within listening distance on any given
topic.
For me, besides the name-calling, two statements he made gave him away for me as
as a very shallow individual, who just says anything which comes to mind at a given moment
His statement about what happened on Election Night with his inference that vitterd
along with me and lots of other people who conceded the Election very late at night
(because it looked like Trump was going to win), but in the morning
when the absentee votes came in and as expected, changed everything dramatically,
in donk's his opinion it somehow "proved" that Trump "won" because Vitterd
and many others assumed that Trump had won, for me shows a very shallow
and illogical way of thinking.
Vitterd's response was appropriate with his comparison about teams coming back
from big deficits when it looks like they have no chance.
In addition, donk's comments about stereotyping vitterd as a "typical democrat," is
just one more example of his one-way shallowness in the manner in which he thinks and
speaks. which imo is typical of many Trump cult members.
3) While vitterd did respond in kind to his attacks, he did it in a much
more measured way, and he had every right to do so, and I would have done
the same thing even though I much prefer civil debates where name-calling and insults are
not permitted.
4) Let's put it this way:
Even if vitterd and I disagreed about Trump, I have a gut feeling that we could sit down and express
our views without going into attack mode.
I didn't get that feeling at all when it comes to donk.:
What disappointed me is the fact that there was virtually no discussion/debate about
Trump and Biden such as in the other forum debates of this nature.
Perhaps that was not the intent, but rather to just let these two fire away about anything
including of course name calling and insults which for me as a reader is not very productive,
and after a while just plain boring!!
Imo if there was a discussion/debate about Trump and most other topics between vitterd
and donk, vitterd would prevail most of the time simply because imo he
is much brighter than donk and has the ability to express his
thoughts, documentation, and logic and draw conclusions much better overall.
Obviously a number of people will disagree with my assessment of the dbate and that's fine.
I will read and respect any responses to my post but will not debate it for the simple
reason that neither of us is going to change the other's opinion nor the criterion used.
That's it.
Thanks for those who took the time to read this whetheyr they agree or not!!
