1 / Who won the debate? Nobody: there was no debate. Kamala Harris would have won a debate if there was one. She is a trained litigator and masters the art of argumentation.

Why wasn't there any debate? Not between presidential candidates or VPs?

2 / Who knows. I suppose if one of the campaign managers insisted on rules the GOP side wouldn't have agreed and would proceed into yet another bout of conspiratory whining. Since it's all about perception and the perception of the average American is informed by...
3 / ... the intellectual capacity of a housefly, I assume this is what you get.

However, as someone who presided over more round-tables and presentations than I can count, let me tell you how it is done.
4 / The moderator has a fixed time for the whole thing to happen. Suppose I have two hours for the session. I give each presenter from 12-15 minutes to deliver their presentation and I have 3 pieces of paper that I show them: "10", "5" and "2" (to go).
5 / When the timer zeroes, I take the mic from the presenter whether he was done or not (yes, the ability of sticking to the allotted time is learned). I can either have presenters follow each other and open for discussion in the end or open for Q&A after each presenter.
6 / You will ask: "why one hour for presentations and one hour for Q&A?". Because you have to count the time it takes to change presenters, to introduce presenters and for assholes using their Q time to make statements.
7 / The moderator must be an authority to the audience so that when they stop someone from talking it happens.

Maybe one of the reasons I was chosen for this role is that I'm not a nice person. Nobody interrupts me (ever) and I can make anyone stop talking.
8 / That was possible even when I didn't have a microphone and that's why the moderator must be an authority: his voice must be louder and more respected than that of the asshole.
9 / When the audience doesn't participate and instead two debaters question each other, usually the rule is 3m/3m followed by 2m/2m and 2m/2m.

I rarely had problems but once in a while I had to physically grab the microphone from the speaker's hand.
10 / Who the fuck cares if they don't like it. That's how a civilized debate happens. It's also a much better alternative than running the risk of one debater jump from their seat and choke the other to death, which I kind of thought Biden would do...
11 / Does this even happen? Oh, yes. Especially with younger debaters, aka students. Once I arrived at the department to teach my class and all the students were excited. They told me the other professor had to end his class and send everybody out one hour early.
12 / Two students engaged in a verbal brawl (the kind you saw Trump do) and they ended up moving to engage in... "a physical altercation". The professor screamed and sent everybody out (aka: make it SEP, somebody else's problem).
13 / There are ways to avoid it. Once I had two students escalate their animosity. I interrupted the class and assigned each of them a seminar with their argument for Friday. I bought time - they were satisfied.
14 / At other times students, audience or debaters tried to interrupt me. Just once... I have my "auditorium angry professor voice" and when I say "I am not interrupted by anybody, EVER", it magically happens.
15 / And no, you don't have to beat anyone. In fact, if you do, you are not only fired but charged with a legal wrongdoing and prosecuted. Pretty bad for your c.v.
16 / As you can see, it is not rocket science. In fact, it is easy as fuck. All it requires is a little experience. Like me, there are thousands of people who know how to do that. Today, there is this thing called "sound control" which allows the moderator to mute a speaker.
17 / It couldn't be easier.

"But then it's boring and people like a brawl". No, they don't. Most spectators turned stopped watching the first debate before the first 15 minutes because they couldn't understand anything.
18 / THAT is boring. It's horribly boring. And annoying. The sound of Trump's voice is irritating at any pitch and his interruptions makes the spectator want to jump into the screen and strangle him.
19 / Not being able to strangle Trump into silence is frustrating. Frustration + annoyance + being bored to death = not watching the debate. Therefore, there was not debate.

Quod erat demonstratum.
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from Politics

THREAD:
Good afternoon, followers of frivolous election litigation. There's a last-minute entry in the competition for dumbest pre-inauguration lawsuit - a totally loony effort to apparently leave the entire USA without a government.

We'll start with the complaint in a minute.

But first, I want to give you a quick explanation for why I'm going to keep talking about these cases even after the inauguration.

They're part of an ongoing effort - one that's not well-coordinated but is widespread - to discredit our fundamental system of government.

It's a direct descendent, in more ways than one, of birtherism. And here's the thing about birtherism. It might have been a joke to a lot of people, but it was extremely pernicious. It obviously validated the racist "not good enough to be President" crowd. But that wasn't all.

Don't get me wrong, that was bad enough. Validating racism helped put the kind of shitbird who would tweet this from an official government account into power. But it didn't stop


(Also, if you agree with Pompeo about multiculturalism - the legendary melting pot - not being what this country is all about, you need to stop following me now. And maybe go somewhere and think about your life choices and what made you such a tool.)
My piece in the NY Times today: "the Trump administration is denying applications submitted to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services at a rate 37 percent higher than the Obama administration did in 2016."

Based on this analysis: "Denials for immigration benefits—travel documents, work permits, green cards, worker petitions, etc.—increased 37 percent since FY 2016. On an absolute basis, FY 2018 will see more than about 155,000 more denials than FY 2016."
https://t.co/Bl0naOO0sh


"This increase in denials cannot be credited to an overall rise in applications. In fact, the total number of applications so far this year is 2 percent lower than in 2016. It could be that the higher denial rate is also discouraging some people from applying at all.."

Thanks to @gsiskind for his insightful comments. The increase in denials, he said, is “significant enough to make one think that Congress must have passed legislation changing the requirements. But we know they have not.”

My conclusion:

You May Also Like

A THREAD ON @SarangSood

Decoded his way of analysis/logics for everyone to easily understand.

Have covered:
1. Analysis of volatility, how to foresee/signs.
2. Workbook
3. When to sell options
4. Diff category of days
5. How movement of option prices tell us what will happen

1. Keeps following volatility super closely.

Makes 7-8 different strategies to give him a sense of what's going on.

Whichever gives highest profit he trades in.


2. Theta falls when market moves.
Falls where market is headed towards not on our original position.


3. If you're an options seller then sell only when volatility is dropping, there is a high probability of you making the right trade and getting profit as a result

He believes in a market operator, if market mover sells volatility Sarang Sir joins him.


4. Theta decay vs Fall in vega

Sell when Vega is falling rather than for theta decay. You won't be trapped and higher probability of making profit.
Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel was previously CEO of bioMerieux in France from 07-10.

Alain Merieux, who owns bioMerieux, was instrumental in the creation of the Wuhan Institute of Virology P4 Lab.

The same people who helped create the virus, also helped to create the vaccines...


Moderna partnered with French Pasteur Institute in 2015 to develop mRNA vaccine technology.

Pasteur Institute partnered with the Wuhan P4 Laboratory in 2017 along with the Merieux Foundation to study emerging viruses...
https://t.co/yFsHwrNYaK
https://t.co/9M5lydBKhM


Nobel prize winning scientist Luc Montagnier asserts that Sars-Cov-2 is man-made and originated from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Montagnier did extensive work with the Pasteur Institute in France which was partnered with the Wuhan P4.

Merieux Foundation & the Chinese government have worked together since 1965, and partnered to study emerging pathogens in Africa in 2015.

Their research included "PATHOGENS CARRIED BY BATS" that provoke respiratory diseases.

🚨🚨🚨
https://t.co/gVwpT0ssqI