- 35,096
- NoDak
- Cy-Fi
2024 US Presidential Election Thread
- Thread starter ryzno
- 3,520 comments
- 183,270 views
- 20,579
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
I stayed far away from the debate but I was thinking that quoting a story that has dubious origins as fact would just serve as a rallying cry for his fan base. Since I only saw that snippet, did he give any coherent plan for his presidency or was "concepts of a plan" the best he had?
- 20,579
- NJ/USA
- Blitzbay
- Blitzbay
I heard him ramble on about how ABC was worse than CNN when it came to moderation (thank you random person who left Fox News on). He also claimed the "bloodbath" was about the economy, not about exacting revenge on his enemies. Lastly, he kept implying that the polls (which I believe he couldn't give specific names for) had him winning 92 to 7% in the debate.
Of course, Fox News wouldn't do any moderation or fact checking of him, so the irony is lost/dead.
- 23,808
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
McLaren
Premium
- 45,187
- Texas
Lol, they were polls from Twitter & conservative accounts. Might as well have polled a Klan rally.
Of course not. Trump ran over to his #1 fan, Hannity, who proceeded to treat him like he was the bestest President debater ever.
Their voter panel on the other hand, wasn't as up his ass.
Fox News voter panel says Harris won debate
A panel of voters participating in Fox News Digital's debate discussion said that Vice President Kamala Harris came out as the winner over former President Donald Trump.
- 3,842
- St.Pete, FL
- NotThePrez
- NotThePrez
Danoff
Premium
- 33,583
- Mile High City
Well, like some of you (and Taylor Swift), I watched the debate.
I don't usually watch presidential debates. I didn't watch the Biden/Trump debate until I saw some parts of it after the news on it broke. But usually it strikes me as a waste of time to watch debates. Last night was definitely an exception, it was fascinating. Partly it was fascinating to see how well Harris executed. There was a lot she was trying to manage, reactions to lies, staying on message, and keeping Trump off balance. She handled all of it very well. The only moment I really didn't like from her came at the very beginning, where she sidestepped the question of whether people are better off today than four years ago. It seemed she was a touch nervous right in the first few seconds (rightly so, the world is on the line here), and she just went to her prep. However, it would have been easy to say something like "four years ago Trump was getting covid and spreading election lies. Four years ago we didn't have a vaccine and the news was worried about economic collapse". Whatever, the details aren't as important as how easy the ramp was to take to answer the question and dovetail into policy - that could have been the prep. Instead she went straight into policy without acknowledging the question. Trump dodged the question as well (as John Stewart pointed out). Other than that one picky bit of criticism for her, I thought she was quite excellent. She was particularly excellent, and brutal, on abortion. She also effectively derailed discussions of Afghanistan with discussion of Trump inviting the Taliban to camp david.
Trump, on the otherhand, came off defensive, angry, and sometimes incoherent. His train of thought is hard to follow, because it swerves mid-sentence so many times. There were several times when I was wondering what the hell he was even talking about. As @Famine pointed out, Trump tried some insane claims about abortion after birth and Haitians eating pets. Harris handled that with reaction expressions perfectly, she barely even needed to comment on it substantively other than to just explain that she already told us he was going to lie. His lies, having been predicted at the start, end up reinforcing her instead of putting her on the defensive. This was obviously part of the strategy and she was executing. I don't think Trump came off presidential at all, he came off as an angry, somewhat deranged old man who makes stuff up. For some, that's probably comforting and exactly what they want to vote for. But I don't think it resonated with most people. His core message of "America has gone to hell" I think is a hard sell.
One thing I absolutely despised about the debate was the moderation. They let Trump run over them constantly, he got so many rebuttals he wasn't supposed to get, and I was wondering where the hell the mic mute buttons were. They asked him direct follow-up questions, calling him the president like, "Mr. President, the question was..." and then he would just go off on another rant because they gave him another opening. They'd remind him of the question and then two seconds later he'd be talking about whatever the hell he felt like talking about. I also felt they were too combative with him, though not as bad as he characterizes ("3 on 1"), but they took his bait far more readily than Harris, and showed poor restraint that ended up playing into his hands a bit. I thought they should have left some of it (not all) to Harris. I say not all because I have no problem with them addressing things like people eating cats or killing infants with direct fact checks instead of leaving it to Harris to try to fact check him.
Harris gets an A. ABC gets an F. Trump gets a D.
I don't usually watch presidential debates. I didn't watch the Biden/Trump debate until I saw some parts of it after the news on it broke. But usually it strikes me as a waste of time to watch debates. Last night was definitely an exception, it was fascinating. Partly it was fascinating to see how well Harris executed. There was a lot she was trying to manage, reactions to lies, staying on message, and keeping Trump off balance. She handled all of it very well. The only moment I really didn't like from her came at the very beginning, where she sidestepped the question of whether people are better off today than four years ago. It seemed she was a touch nervous right in the first few seconds (rightly so, the world is on the line here), and she just went to her prep. However, it would have been easy to say something like "four years ago Trump was getting covid and spreading election lies. Four years ago we didn't have a vaccine and the news was worried about economic collapse". Whatever, the details aren't as important as how easy the ramp was to take to answer the question and dovetail into policy - that could have been the prep. Instead she went straight into policy without acknowledging the question. Trump dodged the question as well (as John Stewart pointed out). Other than that one picky bit of criticism for her, I thought she was quite excellent. She was particularly excellent, and brutal, on abortion. She also effectively derailed discussions of Afghanistan with discussion of Trump inviting the Taliban to camp david.
Trump, on the otherhand, came off defensive, angry, and sometimes incoherent. His train of thought is hard to follow, because it swerves mid-sentence so many times. There were several times when I was wondering what the hell he was even talking about. As @Famine pointed out, Trump tried some insane claims about abortion after birth and Haitians eating pets. Harris handled that with reaction expressions perfectly, she barely even needed to comment on it substantively other than to just explain that she already told us he was going to lie. His lies, having been predicted at the start, end up reinforcing her instead of putting her on the defensive. This was obviously part of the strategy and she was executing. I don't think Trump came off presidential at all, he came off as an angry, somewhat deranged old man who makes stuff up. For some, that's probably comforting and exactly what they want to vote for. But I don't think it resonated with most people. His core message of "America has gone to hell" I think is a hard sell.
One thing I absolutely despised about the debate was the moderation. They let Trump run over them constantly, he got so many rebuttals he wasn't supposed to get, and I was wondering where the hell the mic mute buttons were. They asked him direct follow-up questions, calling him the president like, "Mr. President, the question was..." and then he would just go off on another rant because they gave him another opening. They'd remind him of the question and then two seconds later he'd be talking about whatever the hell he felt like talking about. I also felt they were too combative with him, though not as bad as he characterizes ("3 on 1"), but they took his bait far more readily than Harris, and showed poor restraint that ended up playing into his hands a bit. I thought they should have left some of it (not all) to Harris. I say not all because I have no problem with them addressing things like people eating cats or killing infants with direct fact checks instead of leaving it to Harris to try to fact check him.
Harris gets an A. ABC gets an F. Trump gets a D.
Last edited:
- 187
- France
"Responding to Taylor Swift announcing she would vote for the Harris campaign, he (Trump) said: “She’s a very liberal person, she always seems to endorse a Democrat and she will probably pay the price for that in the market.”
Such a visionary...
From the Guardian's live coverage here:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...085827d9ecd31b#block-66e1776f8f085827d9ecd31b
Last edited:
- 5,214
- Alabamistan
I didn't watch the debate as I haven't watched a Presidential debate since 1976. But watching the Jon Stewart recap it seemed Trump after getting advice from his handlers to not say anything just said. "ah **** it" and went all in, "she's a marxist", "illegal immigrants eating your pets", "my rallies are the biggest and bestest rallies". He just can't control himself.
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,467
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Which of her statements should they have fact checked?
abcnews.go.com
In related news:
www.independent.co.uk
Fact-checking Kamala Harris and Donald Trump's 1st presidential debate
ABC News live fact-checked Harris and Trump's statements for answers that were exaggerated, needed more context or were false.
In related news:
Debate moderator Linsey Davis endures racist abuse for fact-checking Trump
ABC News moderators fact-checked Trump live during the debate in Philadelphia
www.independent.co.uk
Joey D
Premium
- 47,156
- Boyne Falls, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
The ones that the Russian government tells them need to be.Which of her statements should they have fact checked?
Fact-checking Kamala Harris and Donald Trump's 1st presidential debate
ABC News live fact-checked Harris and Trump's statements for answers that were exaggerated, needed more context or were false.
By any measure, Harris seems like she stretched the truth the way every politician does, whereas Trump just flat out said unhinged nonsense.
- 2,523
- United Kingdom
LANGUAGE WARNING
Seeing echos of what led to the UK riots here
Seeing echos of what led to the UK riots here
Keef
Premium
- 24,907
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
Springfield isn't too far away from Dayton. I'm familiar with it in that I've been there a few times but moreso because it's widely seen as relatively poor and undereducated. It's been that way my entire life. It's kind of funny because Springfield's highs and lows aren't as extreme as Dayton, or especially any bigger city, but that's to be expected since it's smaller and more homogenous. But it's still fairly undesirable.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,583
- Mile High City
He mentions that Harris got some negative press early on, and I don't recall hearing a lot of actual reasons for that. I think we all remember this though. After that she stopped getting bad press and just kinda did her job quietly for years. At a certain point, when people were talking about Biden being replaced, she wasn't a popular choice because she wasn't a popular choice.
I don't think the press just randomly pick someone to vilify. So I have to think there was something, someone who was salty about something, that they were basing it on. That doesn't mean it was legit, of course. Someone is always salty about something.
It's an interesting narrative that Lawrence is telling - that Kamala was under-the-radar for no good reason. Biden has said (when he stepped down) that picking her to be VP was his best decision as president. Biden also has gone on very long-winded explanations about how important he thinks the relationship between president and vice president is - something that is based on his experience in the Obama administration. So I know how much he cared about picking the right VP. He has been very vocal about how talent she is the entire time. That can come off as self-serving of course, but I don't recall him backing away from her. Trump meanwhile is already throwing Vance under the bus.
VPs were a joke for a very long time. But Obama picked carefully, and it turned out he picked a future president. And that same president picked carefully again, and she definitely deserves to win the presidency. She also took her time picking a runningmate. And so far that has also paid off in a big way.
I could ramble on and on about how this is what leadership really is, picking a good team, working with them. About how people are stronger as a team, and the nation is stronger with a president who serves as a leader instead of someone who tries to isolate from and abuse those he works with.
The simpsons joke about the democrats is that they don't know how to govern. But in Obama, Biden, and so far, from what I can tell from Harris, I don't see that.
Edit: I could add to that by saying Pelosi.
Last edited:
Danoff
Premium
- 33,583
- Mile High City
I know. I friggin hated her for a very long time.
But she was rock solid in standing up to Trump while he was trying to derail the government. There was a moment in time, at the end of the Trump admin, where Pelosi was the most courageous voice I can remember standing up to the destruction Trump was bringing. She held the line, impeached him twice, and became a permanent enemy. She paid a dear price for that too. Our country owes her for her service.
Trump was at one point calling for her execution (in a veiled way). He called her treasonous, the implication being that she should be killed. It didn't stop her. Someone did try to carry out Trump's threat.
He's still pissed about it, she came up on his list of grievances during the debate.
Edit:
I say "someone" obviously referring to the attack that landed on her husband. But I should say lots of people, because Jan. 6th was largely targeted specifically at her. I know they were there for Pence, but Pence was supposed to be someone they would coerce into overturning the country. Pelosi was just the prime focus of rage, someone to bring revenge against. That lady is as tough as it comes.
Last edited:
Joey D
Premium
- 47,156
- Boyne Falls, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
"They'll never know the simple joys of a monkey knife fight."
dailyboulder.com
MAGA Unravels: Marjorie Taylor Greene Calls Laura Loomer a Racist, Loomer Fires Back With a Torrent of Explosive Revelations
Tensions are rising between far-right figures Laura Loomer and Marjorie Taylor Greene following a recent controversy. The disagreement began when Greene criticized Loomer for a racist post about Vice President Kamala Harris.
dailyboulder.com
Similar threads
- Poll
