Meanwhile, back on the campaign trail, Trump was asked “what specific piece of legislation” he would advance to make child care more affordable. His response (I don't think it can fairly be characterized as an "answer"):
It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that – because, look, child care is child care. It’s – couldn’t – you know, it’s something – you have to have it. In this country, you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to, but they’ll get used to it very quickly – and it’s not going to stop them from doing business with us but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care. That – it’s going to take care – we’re going to have – I – I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country.
I have no idea why he thinks that raising the prices Americans will have to pay for imported goods is going to make child care more affordable. I do know that it does not qualify as a specific piece of legislation.
Or even a sentence.
It remains galling that anyone would vote for this moron, but there you go.
What's frustrating is the way the media covers Trump's statements like this.
In a jumbled answer, [Trump] said he would prioritize legislation on the issue but offered no specifics and insisted that his other economic policies, including tariffs, would 'take care' of child care.
That's from the New York Times, finding sage counsel in pig entrails Trump's meanderings. Luckily for Trump the mental acuity of elderly presidential candidates ceased to be an important political issue around July 21 for some reason. The term that has become attached to the way the press covers for Trump's weird statements is "sanewashing".
I found it! The machine! The wonderful machine that they have at all news production headquarters. Its input is Donald Trump’s remarks; its output is headlines. Everything makes sense now.
It functions somewhat like a juicer. You insert Trump’s remarks at one end, turn a crank (you have to turn it pretty hard; the machine does a lot of heavy lifting and twisting) and then — Presto! — out comes the headline or chyron produced by those remarks. I had long been wondering where we were getting these headlines and chyrons. You glance up idly at a muted television and see “DONALD TRUMP DELIVERS REMARKS ON ECONOMY,” and you think, “Ah, presidential at last!” And as long as you do not make the mistake of unmuting your television, the machine’s work is complete. If you are silly enough to unmute your television, you find yourself thinking, “I don’t know what those are, but I would not describe them as remarks about the economy.”
It should be noted that the USA Today piece quoted by @Hedgehog actually abbreviated Trump's answer to the central paragraph-like section. The full exchage was:
Question: If you win in November, will you commit to prioritizing legislation to make childcare affordable, and if so, what specific piece of legislation will you advance?
Trump: Well, I will do that and we're sitting down, you know, I was, uh, somebody, we had Sen. Marco Rubio and my daughter Ivanka were so, uh, impactful on that issue, it's a very important issue, but I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about that because childcare is childcare is couldn't, you know, is something you have to have it in this country, you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compare to the kind of numbers that I'm talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they're not used to but they'll get used to it very quickly and it's not going to stop them from doing business with us but they'll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we're talking about, including childcare, that it's going to take care. We're going to have, I, I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly very short period of time coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country because I have to stay with childcare, I want to stay with child care, but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I'm talking about, including growth. But growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just, uh, that I just told you about. We're gonna be taking in trillions of dollars and as much as childcare is talked about as being expensive, it's relatively speaking, not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we will be taking in. We're gonna make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people and then we'll worry about the rest of the world. Let's help other people. But we will take care of our country first, this is about America First. It's about Make America Great Again. We have to do it because right now we're a failing nation. So we'll take care of it. Thank you. Very good question. Thank you.
I underlined the bits USA Today quoted, which you can see is about half of Trump's response (I won't call it an answer) to the question.
Remember how North Carolina was supposed to send out mail-in ballots by the end of last week? Yeah, that didn't happen. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., who had to stage a costly fight to get on the ballot in North Carolina, later sued the state to take him off the ballot. Yesterday the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled 4-3 in Kennedy's favor, with one of the Republican* justices joining the court's two Democrats* in dissent. So what are the practical implications?
The ruling means North Carolina is now expected to blow past the legal deadline to start sending out ballots by at least two weeks, at the cost of potentially $1 million to state taxpayers — arguments that state officials had made against reprinting the ballots, but which the Supreme Court said were worth it to ensure no voter confusion caused by having Kennedy's name on the ballots even though he dropped out of the race last month.
<snip>
State officials have said that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and could delay the start of mail-in voting for weeks, blowing well past the deadline Friday set by state law. They made those points to the Supreme Court, asking for a reversal of the Court of Appeals order so that they can go ahead and send out the ballots they've already printed with Kennedy's name.
There are 100 counties in North Carolina, various state legislature and U.S. House districts that don't always follow county lines, and a whole bunch of municipal elections going on in 2024. That means North Carolina has 2,348 different ballot styles (a literal count, not hyperbole) which now all have to be reformatted, reproofed, and reprinted, the mailings re-prepared by staff, and voting machines in 100 counties will have to be re-coded. This is going to involve considerable cost to the taxpayers of North Carolina and considerable delay to the legally-mandated start of absentee voting, even though RFK, Jr. can't identify a specific harm he would suffer if his name remained on the ballot and the fact that his campaign is only suspended and could theoretically be revived at any point. RFK, Jr. has filed similar lawsuits in Wisconsin and Michigan. (The Michigan suit was unsuccessful.)
Now, if you were a political party whose entire strategy revolved around delaying voting, sowing confusion, and basically doing everything to discourage voters from casting a ballot, this may seem like a winning strategy. Donald Trump has never been able to keep his noxious pie-hole shut when it comes to bragging about skullduggery.
“And that sounds like a bad thing for him. It’s not, it’s actually a great thing,” Trump said Friday in remarks to leaders of the Fraternal Order of Police in Charlotte. “He’s an incredible team player.”
“Some people wouldn’t realize it, so rather than voting for us they vote for him, and that wouldn’t’ help us very much, would it?” Trump continued. “It means that all of those who love Bobby — and there’s a lot of them — and all that he stands for, especially regarding the health and well being of us, can vote for me now. So all of the Bobby people are going to vote for me.”
After all, you can't spell "RatFucKing" without RFK!
*North Carolina elects its Supreme Court, so it's perfectly valid to refer to the justices of that court as "Republicans" or "Democrats", as opposed to Republican- (or Democratic-) appointed.
The NY Post* subheading reads, "Trump supporters rage at ABC moderators after multiple fact checks of ex-prez, zero for Kamala — ‘Three on one’". If you're complaining about the fact checking, you lost the debate.
*Conservative tabloid, for those not familiar with it.
Why does North Carolina set its date for mailing ballots to voters so early? California counties will start mailing ballots on October 7.
Answering from memory, the federal Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) requires that states send absentee ballots to overseas voters who’ve requested them at least 45 days prior to a federal election. That’s to allow time for them to get there and get back.
NC has a very high military population, both stationed here and deployed from here, so the legislature decided to make that deadline 60 days instead of the minimum 45 days. The legislature also decided to make the same deadline apply to absentee ballots sent within the US, rather than having two deadlines.
FWIW, NC has no-excuse absentee voting, so anyone can request an absentee ballot for any reason. And early voting here starts on October 17.
And she's already challenged him to a second debate. He'll look weak if he says no, and if he says yes he'll just repeat all the same shit and look dumb and weak. And possibly go further off the rails.
That's about as long as it took @The_Riv to declare tonight's debate a tie. Given that the Harris campaign has already called for a second debate, per @Ruth, I don't think the Harris campaign shares that assessment.
And she's already challenged him to a second debate. He'll look weak if he says no, and if he says yes he'll just repeat all the same shit and look dumb and weak. And possibly go further off the rails.
If they debate again, I hope that she actually answers the questions and not just give prepared speeches. She was far too smug. Trump was just Trump.
And she's already challenged him to a second debate. He'll look weak if he says no, and if he says yes he'll just repeat all the same shit and look dumb and weak. And possibly go further off the rails.
If they debate again, I hope that she actually answers the questions and not just give prepared speeches. She was far too smug. Trump was just Trump.
The NY Post* subheading reads, "Trump supporters rage at ABC moderators after multiple fact checks of ex-prez, zero for Kamala — ‘Three on one’". If you're complaining about the fact checking, you lost the debate.
*Conservative tabloid, for those not familiar with it.
There was only one person on that stage that kept giving false information.
And she's already challenged him to a second debate. He'll look weak if he says no, and if he says yes he'll just repeat all the same shit and look dumb and weak. And possibly go further off the rails.
If they debate again, I hope that she actually answers the questions and not just give prepared speeches. She was far too smug. Trump was just Trump.
What questions did she not answer?
Most of them. I appreciate that this is not helpful. She made vague references to policies but did not explain how they would work or how they would be paid for. Trump failed to come back her on this
She mainly concentrated on not being Trump.
Trump made valid points about the government failing on illegal immigration but went OTT when he went on about immigrants eating pets.
Given the Trump campaign’s previous focus on Biden’s age, I noted that a CNN commentator - after listing all the ways in which Harris clearly won the debate - said:
“Donald Trump look old tonight.”
His overall assessment was that last night’s debate had been just as bad for Trump as the earlier one had been for Biden.
———
In passing, is ‘smug’ one of those gendered verbs?
Something like: “he is confident”, “she is smug”…?
In passing, is ‘smug’ one of those gendered verbs?
Something like: “he is confident”, “she is smug”…?
I don't think so. There are certainly plenty of smug men about. Maybe we get them more in the UK - Wes Streeting, David Cameron, George Osborne, Jacob Rees Mogg, Tony Blair. It's a sort of cosy arrogance with a hint of patronising and condescending - sort of "I know I'm right and I'm in charge so just run along now and play nicely while the grownups work".
In passing, is ‘smug’ one of those gendered verbs?
Something like: “he is confident”, “she is smug”…?
I don't think so. There are certainly plenty of smug men about. Maybe we get them more in the UK - Wes Streeting, David Cameron, George Osborne, Jacob Rees Mogg, Tony Blair. It's a sort of cosy arrogance with a hint of patronising and condescending - sort of "I know I'm right and I'm in charge so just run along now and play nicely while the grownups work".
IME it's Conservatives' besetting sin. Has an air of "If you're stupid enough not to be a Conservative then there's little point talking to you because you won't understand".
In passing, is ‘smug’ one of those gendered verbs?
Something like: “he is confident”, “she is smug”…?
I don't think so. There are certainly plenty of smug men about. Maybe we get them more in the UK - Wes Streeting, David Cameron, George Osborne, Jacob Rees Mogg, Tony Blair. It's a sort of cosy arrogance with a hint of patronising and condescending - sort of "I know I'm right and I'm in charge so just run along now and play nicely while the grownups work".
IME it's Conservatives' besetting sin. Has an air of "If you're stupid enough not to be a Conservative then there's little point talking to you because you won't understand".
And she's already challenged him to a second debate. He'll look weak if he says no, and if he says yes he'll just repeat all the same shit and look dumb and weak. And possibly go further off the rails.
If they debate again, I hope that she actually answers the questions and not just give prepared speeches. She was far too smug.
The comparison I heard others make, and that I had made myself to the people I was watching with, was that she looked like a schoolteacher looking at the student who clearly hadn’t done the reading but was trying to answer the question anyway.
She answered the questions, @Telford. Mostly, at least. She just didn’t answer them in detail, which is all but impossible to do in a tv debate format.
And yes, she made the “not Trump” argument, because that’s an important thing. Part of her goal in the debate was to help voters remember just what the Trump presidency was like.
That's about as long as it took @The_Riv to declare tonight's debate a tie. Given that the Harris campaign has already called for a second debate, per @Ruth, I don't think the Harris campaign shares that assessment.
This is neither what I said nor meant. Sorry if I was ambiguous. I find contemporary, "moderated," television debates to be unhelpful, oversaturated with style and 'gotchas' and woefully lacking on substance insofar as policy and actual governance goes. When you add-in the petulant, eminently falsifiable blather of Tr*mp, it gets even worse. I did not watch, but I couldn't help but overhear bits and pieces because Mrs. The Riv was watching. I suppose I was fortunate enough to hear VP Harris shift the conversation to talking about a few policies/ideas her campaign has, specifically mentioning assistance for small businesses, first time home buyers and new parents. I also overheard a couple/few versions of this from VP Harris:
"[We] Want better than this. Want someone who understands as I do, I travel our country, we see in each other a friend. We see in each other a neighbor. We don't want a leader who is constantly trying to have Americans point their fingers at each other. I meet with people all the time who tell me "Can we please just have discourse about how we're going to invest in the aspirations and the ambitions and the dreams of the American people?" Knowing that regardless of people's color or the language their grandmother speaks we all have the same dreams and aspirations and want a president who invests in those, not in hate and division."
Every time I heard Tr*mp, he was saying something beyond the pale like, "She absolutely hates Israel," or "Biden hates her (VP Harris) for it (her becoming the nominee), or direct insults like, "She's so terrible..."
Or he heard on TV that immigrants in Ohio are eating other people's pets. Jon Stewart likened Trump to Abe Simpson (Homer's father) on his show after the debate.
This guy wants to be POTUS again, and too much fo the country isperfectly fine with that:
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: ...And look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States. And a lot of towns don't want to talk -- not going to be Aurora or Springfield. A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country. And it's a shame. As far as rallies are concerned, as far -- the reason they go is they like what I say. They want to bring our country back. They want to make America great again. It's a very simple phrase. Make America great again. She's destroying this country. And if she becomes president, this country doesn't have a chance of success. Not only success. We'll end up being Venezuela on steroids.
DAVID MUIR: I just want to clarify here, you bring up Springfield, Ohio. And ABC News did reach out to the city manager there. He told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community --
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I've seen people on television
DAVID MUIR: Let me just say here this ...
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The people on television say my dog was taken and used for food. So maybe he said that and maybe that's a good thing to say for a city manager.
DAVID MUIR: I'm not taking this from television. I'm taking it from the city manager.
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But the people on television say their dog was eaten by the people that went there.
DAVID MUIR: Again, the Springfield city manager says there's no evidence of that.
And she's already challenged him to a second debate. He'll look weak if he says no, and if he says yes he'll just repeat all the same shit and look dumb and weak. And possibly go further off the rails.
If they debate again, I hope that she actually answers the questions and not just give prepared speeches. She was far too smug. Trump was just Trump.
What questions did she not answer?
Most of them. I appreciate that this is not helpful. She made vague references to policies but did not explain how they would work or how they would be paid for. Trump failed to come back her on this
She mainly concentrated on not being Trump.
Trump made valid points about the government failing on illegal immigration but went OTT when he went on about immigrants eating pets.
When one only has two minutes or less to respond, one cannot get into details about how she is going to accomplish her goals. They will depend on a cooperative congress, though.
To the point about illegal immigration, Harris did point out she had worked out a compromise with conservative leaders in the Senate which would have addressed the issue, but Trump got on the phone and killed it because he needed a campaign issue.
Or he heard on TV that immigrants in Ohio are eating other people's pets. Jon Stewart likened Trump to Abe Simpson (Homer's father) on his show after the debate.
He may have also heard it from his running mate, but for Trump "it's on TV" is the ultimate stamp of authority.
If they debate again, I hope that she actually answers the questions and not just give prepared speeches. She was far too smug. Trump was just Trump.
What questions did she not answer?
Most of them. I appreciate that this is not helpful. She made vague references to policies but did not explain how they would work or how they would be paid for. Trump failed to come back her on this
She mainly concentrated on not being Trump.
Trump made valid points about the government failing on illegal immigration but went OTT when he went on about immigrants eating pets.
Which Trump points on immigration did you consider valid? If it's about immigrant gangs having violently taken over Aurora, CO that's a lie. That crime has increased in the U.S. because of immigrants? Also a lie, crime is down in the U.S. Can you be specific about which actually truthful points Trump made about current U.S. immigration policy that you consider valid?
There’s also the fantasy that Haitian immigrants are eating people’s pets.
And Trump took the bait to rant about how big his crowds are, and how Harris has to pay people to come to her rallies, instead of explaining why he and he alone is responsible for torpedoing the bipartisan border bill—the one that Republicans demanded and that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said was a better deal than Republicans could get under a Trump presidency—because he didn’t want the problem fixed and taken away as a campaign issue.
What utter nonsense to say that Trump made valid points about the Biden administration’s failings on immigration. There may be valid points that could be made, but Trump certainly didn’t make them.
There’s also the fantasy that Haitian immigrants are eating people’s pets.
For those who aren't that familiar with U.S. immigration law, it should be noted that almost all Haitians in the U.S. are there legally. Most are covered under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Essentially the situation in Haiti is so dangerous that the U.S. has granted them temporary permission to remain in America legally.
When JD Vance Xeeted about this he made the claim that Haitian immigrants "shouldn't be in this country". Someone should ask him about the policy of a future Trump administration about extending TPS for Haitian refugees. Americans of Haitian descent are a small but crucial voting bloc in Florida.
And she's already challenged him to a second debate. He'll look weak if he says no, and if he says yes he'll just repeat all the same shit and look dumb and weak. And possibly go further off the rails.
If they debate again, I hope that she actually answers the questions and not just give prepared speeches. She was far too smug. Trump was just Trump.
What questions did she not answer?
Most of them. I appreciate that this is not helpful. She made vague references to policies but did not explain how they would work or how they would be paid for. Trump failed to come back her on this
She mainly concentrated on not being Trump.
Trump made valid points about the government failing on illegal immigration but went OTT when he went on about immigrants eating pets.
When one only has two minutes or less to respond, one cannot get into details about how she is going to accomplish her goals. They will depend on a cooperative congress, though.
To the point about illegal immigration, Harris did point out she had worked out a compromise with conservative leaders in the Senate which would have addressed the issue, but Trump got on the phone and killed it because he needed a campaign issue.
When you only have this 2 minutes, why waste the first minute reminiscing about your family upbringing ? She did this more than once
I expected nonsense from Trump. I was hoping she would be a lot better. She wasn't
I expected nonsense from Trump. I was hoping she would be a lot better. She wasn't
But you are smart enough to accept that that attitude basically lets Trump off the hook: he doesn't have to state his policies clearly or accurately; he doesn't have to make any sort of logical sense; he doesn't have to be forced to be honest or even cognitively coherent. It is just "Trump Being Trump"--but let's burn Harris for not anticipating and satisfying our every query 100% fully because she is not Trump and is not allowed the leeway we give to Trump Being Trump.
That's garbage. Criticize Harris if you will, but balance it by leveling the same criticism towards Trump who also did not actually answer anything at all.
(I don't consider juvenile scare tactics like "There are 100 Million immigrant prisoners raping America cats!" as a responsible answer. Again, you also are too smart to fall for that crap.)
I doubt the goal for this debate was to inform listeners; I think the goal was simply not to lose, and hopefully, to make the other person lose. From what I understand, she did that.
Of course, you could argue that the goal ought to be to inform listeners; but any debate including Trump has already lost any possibility of that happening.
And she's already challenged him to a second debate. He'll look weak if he says no, and if he says yes he'll just repeat all the same shit and look dumb and weak. And possibly go further off the rails.
If they debate again, I hope that she actually answers the questions and not just give prepared speeches. She was far too smug. Trump was just Trump.
What questions did she not answer?
Most of them. I appreciate that this is not helpful. She made vague references to policies but did not explain how they would work or how they would be paid for. Trump failed to come back her on this
She mainly concentrated on not being Trump.
Trump made valid points about the government failing on illegal immigration but went OTT when he went on about immigrants eating pets.
When one only has two minutes or less to respond, one cannot get into details about how she is going to accomplish her goals. They will depend on a cooperative congress, though.
To the point about illegal immigration, Harris did point out she had worked out a compromise with conservative leaders in the Senate which would have addressed the issue, but Trump got on the phone and killed it because he needed a campaign issue.
When you only have this 2 minutes, why waste the first minute reminiscing about your family upbringing ? She did this more than once
Because part of what many undecided voters have said, at least according to polls, is that they don’t feel like they know her yet, and they want to know more about who she is.
Because it’s a way of telling voters how and why she can identify with the challenges facing typical households. That’s in contrast to Trump, whose background puts him totally out of touch with the challenges facing typical households. It’s a standard way of drawing the “I get you, care about you and will fight for you, he doesn’t and won’t” contrast.
Practically speaking, there were 4 things for Harris to accomplish last night:
1. Help undecided voters get to know her better and feel comfortable with her;
2. Talk about what she will do;
3. Attack Trump and get under his skin; and
4. Not make any damaging mistakes.
Given the constraints of the format, I think Harris, for the most part, juggled those various must-dos pretty well.
I expected nonsense from Trump. I was hoping she would be a lot better. She wasn't
But you are smart enough to accept that that attitude basically lets Trump off the hook: he doesn't have to state his policies clearly or accurately; he doesn't have to make any sort of logical sense; he doesn't have to be forced to be honest or even cognitively coherent. It is just "Trump Being Trump"--but let's burn Harris for not anticipating and satisfying our every query 100% fully because she is not Trump and is not allowed the leeway we give to Trump Being Trump.
That's garbage. Criticize Harris if you will, but balance it by leveling the same criticism towards Trump who also did not actually answer anything at all.
(I don't consider juvenile scare tactics like "There are 100 Million immigrant prisoners raping America cats!" as a responsible answer. Again, you also are too smart to fall for that crap.)
I am not a citizen of the USA but I do live in the free world. I have been unhappy with Trump for at least 8 years. I want the leader of the free world to be competent and Harris is not convincing me
I expected nonsense from Trump. I was hoping she would be a lot better. She wasn't
But you are smart enough to accept that that attitude basically lets Trump off the hook: he doesn't have to state his policies clearly or accurately; he doesn't have to make any sort of logical sense; he doesn't have to be forced to be honest or even cognitively coherent. It is just "Trump Being Trump"--but let's burn Harris for not anticipating and satisfying our every query 100% fully because she is not Trump and is not allowed the leeway we give to Trump Being Trump.
That's garbage. Criticize Harris if you will, but balance it by leveling the same criticism towards Trump who also did not actually answer anything at all.
(I don't consider juvenile scare tactics like "There are 100 Million immigrant prisoners raping America cats!" as a responsible answer. Again, you also are too smart to fall for that crap.)
I am not a citizen of the USA but I do live in the free world. I have been unhappy with Trump for at least 8 years. I want the leader of the free world to be competent and Harris is not convincing me
Quite frankly, I think a can of creamed corn would be more competent than Trump, but from all I have seen, Harris seems competent. And regardless, right at the moment, I think just having someone who won’t try to burn down the country, and even the world (Ukraine, NATO, climate stuff, etc.), will be preferable to that orange monster. As Randy Rainbow said during the 2020 Democratic primaries:
I expected nonsense from Trump. I was hoping she would be a lot better. She wasn't
But you are smart enough to accept that that attitude basically lets Trump off the hook: he doesn't have to state his policies clearly or accurately; he doesn't have to make any sort of logical sense; he doesn't have to be forced to be honest or even cognitively coherent. It is just "Trump Being Trump"--but let's burn Harris for not anticipating and satisfying our every query 100% fully because she is not Trump and is not allowed the leeway we give to Trump Being Trump.
That's garbage. Criticize Harris if you will, but balance it by leveling the same criticism towards Trump who also did not actually answer anything at all.
(I don't consider juvenile scare tactics like "There are 100 Million immigrant prisoners raping America cats!" as a responsible answer. Again, you also are too smart to fall for that crap.)
I am not a citizen of the USA but I do live in the free world. I have been unhappy with Trump for at least 8 years. I want the leader of the free world to be competent and Harris is not convincing me
Given the choice is Harris or Trump - you can't write in a candidate - which do you prefer and why?
I expected nonsense from Trump. I was hoping she would be a lot better. She wasn't
But you are smart enough to accept that that attitude basically lets Trump off the hook: he doesn't have to state his policies clearly or accurately; he doesn't have to make any sort of logical sense; he doesn't have to be forced to be honest or even cognitively coherent. It is just "Trump Being Trump"--but let's burn Harris for not anticipating and satisfying our every query 100% fully because she is not Trump and is not allowed the leeway we give to Trump Being Trump.
That's garbage. Criticize Harris if you will, but balance it by leveling the same criticism towards Trump who also did not actually answer anything at all.
(I don't consider juvenile scare tactics like "There are 100 Million immigrant prisoners raping America cats!" as a responsible answer. Again, you also are too smart to fall for that crap.)
I am not a citizen of the USA but I do live in the free world. I have been unhappy with Trump for at least 8 years. I want the leader of the free world to be competent and Harris is not convincing me
Given the choice is Harris or Trump - you can't write in a candidate - which do you prefer and why?
Elections are always a choice between the candidates that are standing, not the ones we wish were.
This is like having Herod criticise your nursery provision policy.
Given the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if citizens' calls to the White House are soon being routed through a foreign call-centre. Not because of foreigners in government, as Loomer would have it, but just because that's the way that powerful entities prefer to do business these days.
I expected nonsense from Trump. I was hoping she would be a lot better. She wasn't
But you are smart enough to accept that that attitude basically lets Trump off the hook: he doesn't have to state his policies clearly or accurately; he doesn't have to make any sort of logical sense; he doesn't have to be forced to be honest or even cognitively coherent. It is just "Trump Being Trump"--but let's burn Harris for not anticipating and satisfying our every query 100% fully because she is not Trump and is not allowed the leeway we give to Trump Being Trump.
That's garbage. Criticize Harris if you will, but balance it by leveling the same criticism towards Trump who also did not actually answer anything at all.
(I don't consider juvenile scare tactics like "There are 100 Million immigrant prisoners raping America cats!" as a responsible answer. Again, you also are too smart to fall for that crap.)
I am not a citizen of the USA but I do live in the free world. I have been unhappy with Trump for at least 8 years. I want the leader of the free world to be competent and Harris is not convincing me
- you can't write in a candidate -
That depends on the state; in some states you can/might be able to. Of course, it’s purely a protest vote. A write-in has no chance of winning.
I expected nonsense from Trump. I was hoping she would be a lot better. She wasn't
But you are smart enough to accept that that attitude basically lets Trump off the hook: he doesn't have to state his policies clearly or accurately; he doesn't have to make any sort of logical sense; he doesn't have to be forced to be honest or even cognitively coherent. It is just "Trump Being Trump"--but let's burn Harris for not anticipating and satisfying our every query 100% fully because she is not Trump and is not allowed the leeway we give to Trump Being Trump.
That's garbage. Criticize Harris if you will, but balance it by leveling the same criticism towards Trump who also did not actually answer anything at all.
(I don't consider juvenile scare tactics like "There are 100 Million immigrant prisoners raping America cats!" as a responsible answer. Again, you also are too smart to fall for that crap.)
I am not a citizen of the USA but I do live in the free world. I have been unhappy with Trump for at least 8 years. I want the leader of the free world to be competent and Harris is not convincing me
- you can't write in a candidate -
That depends on the state; in some states you can/might be able to. Of course, it’s purely a protest vote. A write-in has no chance of winning.
Telford is British, so he definitely can’t. I was just interested to hear his preference and reasons.
I expected nonsense from Trump. I was hoping she would be a lot better. She wasn't
But you are smart enough to accept that that attitude basically lets Trump off the hook: he doesn't have to state his policies clearly or accurately; he doesn't have to make any sort of logical sense; he doesn't have to be forced to be honest or even cognitively coherent. It is just "Trump Being Trump"--but let's burn Harris for not anticipating and satisfying our every query 100% fully because she is not Trump and is not allowed the leeway we give to Trump Being Trump.
That's garbage. Criticize Harris if you will, but balance it by leveling the same criticism towards Trump who also did not actually answer anything at all.
(I don't consider juvenile scare tactics like "There are 100 Million immigrant prisoners raping America cats!" as a responsible answer. Again, you also are too smart to fall for that crap.)
I am not a citizen of the USA but I do live in the free world. I have been unhappy with Trump for at least 8 years. I want the leader of the free world to be competent and Harris is not convincing me
- you can't write in a candidate -
That depends on the state; in some states you can/might be able to. Of course, it’s purely a protest vote. A write-in has no chance of winning.
Telford is British, so he definitely can’t. I was just interested to hear his preference and reasons.
Fair enough.
Personally, I think Harris has more than proven her competence over the last 15+ years as district attorney, attorney general, senator and vice-president.
Comments
What's frustrating is the way the media covers Trump's statements like this.
That's from the New York Times, finding sage counsel in pig entrails Trump's meanderings. Luckily for Trump the mental acuity of elderly presidential candidates ceased to be an important political issue around July 21 for some reason. The term that has become attached to the way the press covers for Trump's weird statements is "sanewashing".
Over at the Washington Post satirist Alexandra Petri has a column about how she found the Trump-to-headline translation machine [ gift link ].
It goes on from there.
I underlined the bits USA Today quoted, which you can see is about half of Trump's response (I won't call it an answer) to the question.
There are 100 counties in North Carolina, various state legislature and U.S. House districts that don't always follow county lines, and a whole bunch of municipal elections going on in 2024. That means North Carolina has 2,348 different ballot styles (a literal count, not hyperbole) which now all have to be reformatted, reproofed, and reprinted, the mailings re-prepared by staff, and voting machines in 100 counties will have to be re-coded. This is going to involve considerable cost to the taxpayers of North Carolina and considerable delay to the legally-mandated start of absentee voting, even though RFK, Jr. can't identify a specific harm he would suffer if his name remained on the ballot and the fact that his campaign is only suspended and could theoretically be revived at any point. RFK, Jr. has filed similar lawsuits in Wisconsin and Michigan. (The Michigan suit was unsuccessful.)
Now, if you were a political party whose entire strategy revolved around delaying voting, sowing confusion, and basically doing everything to discourage voters from casting a ballot, this may seem like a winning strategy. Donald Trump has never been able to keep his noxious pie-hole shut when it comes to bragging about skullduggery.
After all, you can't spell "RatFucKing" without RFK!
*North Carolina elects its Supreme Court, so it's perfectly valid to refer to the justices of that court as "Republicans" or "Democrats", as opposed to Republican- (or Democratic-) appointed.
I thought Harris had a few missteps, but nothing catastrophic.
Getting back to the debate, I was struck by how Harris served up so many lobs to Trump who took all the bait.
She got him on the abortion question.
She got him on the IVF question
She got him on his crowd size
She got him on how he is a convicted felon
She got him on how the world leaders really felt him.
I liked her statement about strength of real leadership is not who you beat down, but who you lift up.
*Conservative tabloid, for those not familiar with it.
NC has a very high military population, both stationed here and deployed from here, so the legislature decided to make that deadline 60 days instead of the minimum 45 days. The legislature also decided to make the same deadline apply to absentee ballots sent within the US, rather than having two deadlines.
FWIW, NC has no-excuse absentee voting, so anyone can request an absentee ballot for any reason. And early voting here starts on October 17.
That's about as long as it took @The_Riv to declare tonight's debate a tie. Given that the Harris campaign has already called for a second debate, per @Ruth, I don't think the Harris campaign shares that assessment.
If they debate again, I hope that she actually answers the questions and not just give prepared speeches. She was far too smug. Trump was just Trump.
What questions did she not answer?
There was only one person on that stage that kept giving false information.
Most of them. I appreciate that this is not helpful. She made vague references to policies but did not explain how they would work or how they would be paid for. Trump failed to come back her on this
She mainly concentrated on not being Trump.
Trump made valid points about the government failing on illegal immigration but went OTT when he went on about immigrants eating pets.
Edit: I read further back and saw your answer about NC ballots - thanks, @Nick Tamen.
“Donald Trump look old tonight.”
His overall assessment was that last night’s debate had been just as bad for Trump as the earlier one had been for Biden.
———
In passing, is ‘smug’ one of those gendered verbs?
Something like: “he is confident”, “she is smug”…?
I don't think so. There are certainly plenty of smug men about. Maybe we get them more in the UK - Wes Streeting, David Cameron, George Osborne, Jacob Rees Mogg, Tony Blair. It's a sort of cosy arrogance with a hint of patronising and condescending - sort of "I know I'm right and I'm in charge so just run along now and play nicely while the grownups work".
Harris will pick up some undecided voters and will have solidified Democratic support. The polls will remain close.
She humorously signed her endorsement "childless cat lady". Elon Musk posted a pretty vile tweet in response. (You'll have to find it on your own.)
IME it's Conservatives' besetting sin. Has an air of "If you're stupid enough not to be a Conservative then there's little point talking to you because you won't understand".
Well there's a surprise. I've had food poisoning with more charm than Elon Musk.
It's enormously common on the Labour right too.
She answered the questions, @Telford. Mostly, at least. She just didn’t answer them in detail, which is all but impossible to do in a tv debate format.
And yes, she made the “not Trump” argument, because that’s an important thing. Part of her goal in the debate was to help voters remember just what the Trump presidency was like.
This is neither what I said nor meant. Sorry if I was ambiguous. I find contemporary, "moderated," television debates to be unhelpful, oversaturated with style and 'gotchas' and woefully lacking on substance insofar as policy and actual governance goes. When you add-in the petulant, eminently falsifiable blather of Tr*mp, it gets even worse. I did not watch, but I couldn't help but overhear bits and pieces because Mrs. The Riv was watching. I suppose I was fortunate enough to hear VP Harris shift the conversation to talking about a few policies/ideas her campaign has, specifically mentioning assistance for small businesses, first time home buyers and new parents. I also overheard a couple/few versions of this from VP Harris:
"[We] Want better than this. Want someone who understands as I do, I travel our country, we see in each other a friend. We see in each other a neighbor. We don't want a leader who is constantly trying to have Americans point their fingers at each other. I meet with people all the time who tell me "Can we please just have discourse about how we're going to invest in the aspirations and the ambitions and the dreams of the American people?" Knowing that regardless of people's color or the language their grandmother speaks we all have the same dreams and aspirations and want a president who invests in those, not in hate and division."
Every time I heard Tr*mp, he was saying something beyond the pale like, "She absolutely hates Israel," or "Biden hates her (VP Harris) for it (her becoming the nominee), or direct insults like, "She's so terrible..."
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: ...And look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States. And a lot of towns don't want to talk -- not going to be Aurora or Springfield. A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country. And it's a shame. As far as rallies are concerned, as far -- the reason they go is they like what I say. They want to bring our country back. They want to make America great again. It's a very simple phrase. Make America great again. She's destroying this country. And if she becomes president, this country doesn't have a chance of success. Not only success. We'll end up being Venezuela on steroids.
DAVID MUIR: I just want to clarify here, you bring up Springfield, Ohio. And ABC News did reach out to the city manager there. He told us there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community --
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I've seen people on television
DAVID MUIR: Let me just say here this ...
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: The people on television say my dog was taken and used for food. So maybe he said that and maybe that's a good thing to say for a city manager.
DAVID MUIR: I'm not taking this from television. I'm taking it from the city manager.
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: But the people on television say their dog was eaten by the people that went there.
DAVID MUIR: Again, the Springfield city manager says there's no evidence of that.
FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We'll find out
Full transcript HERE:
When one only has two minutes or less to respond, one cannot get into details about how she is going to accomplish her goals. They will depend on a cooperative congress, though.
To the point about illegal immigration, Harris did point out she had worked out a compromise with conservative leaders in the Senate which would have addressed the issue, but Trump got on the phone and killed it because he needed a campaign issue.
He may have also heard it from his running mate, but for Trump "it's on TV" is the ultimate stamp of authority.
Which Trump points on immigration did you consider valid? If it's about immigrant gangs having violently taken over Aurora, CO that's a lie. That crime has increased in the U.S. because of immigrants? Also a lie, crime is down in the U.S. Can you be specific about which actually truthful points Trump made about current U.S. immigration policy that you consider valid?
And Trump took the bait to rant about how big his crowds are, and how Harris has to pay people to come to her rallies, instead of explaining why he and he alone is responsible for torpedoing the bipartisan border bill—the one that Republicans demanded and that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said was a better deal than Republicans could get under a Trump presidency—because he didn’t want the problem fixed and taken away as a campaign issue.
What utter nonsense to say that Trump made valid points about the Biden administration’s failings on immigration. There may be valid points that could be made, but Trump certainly didn’t make them.
For those who aren't that familiar with U.S. immigration law, it should be noted that almost all Haitians in the U.S. are there legally. Most are covered under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Essentially the situation in Haiti is so dangerous that the U.S. has granted them temporary permission to remain in America legally.
When JD Vance Xeeted about this he made the claim that Haitian immigrants "shouldn't be in this country". Someone should ask him about the policy of a future Trump administration about extending TPS for Haitian refugees. Americans of Haitian descent are a small but crucial voting bloc in Florida.
When you only have this 2 minutes, why waste the first minute reminiscing about your family upbringing ? She did this more than once
I expected nonsense from Trump. I was hoping she would be a lot better. She wasn't
But you are smart enough to accept that that attitude basically lets Trump off the hook: he doesn't have to state his policies clearly or accurately; he doesn't have to make any sort of logical sense; he doesn't have to be forced to be honest or even cognitively coherent. It is just "Trump Being Trump"--but let's burn Harris for not anticipating and satisfying our every query 100% fully because she is not Trump and is not allowed the leeway we give to Trump Being Trump.
That's garbage. Criticize Harris if you will, but balance it by leveling the same criticism towards Trump who also did not actually answer anything at all.
(I don't consider juvenile scare tactics like "There are 100 Million immigrant prisoners raping America cats!" as a responsible answer. Again, you also are too smart to fall for that crap.)
Of course, you could argue that the goal ought to be to inform listeners; but any debate including Trump has already lost any possibility of that happening.
Because it’s a way of telling voters how and why she can identify with the challenges facing typical households. That’s in contrast to Trump, whose background puts him totally out of touch with the challenges facing typical households. It’s a standard way of drawing the “I get you, care about you and will fight for you, he doesn’t and won’t” contrast.
Practically speaking, there were 4 things for Harris to accomplish last night:
1. Help undecided voters get to know her better and feel comfortable with her;
2. Talk about what she will do;
3. Attack Trump and get under his skin; and
4. Not make any damaging mistakes.
Given the constraints of the format, I think Harris, for the most part, juggled those various must-dos pretty well.
I am not a citizen of the USA but I do live in the free world. I have been unhappy with Trump for at least 8 years. I want the leader of the free world to be competent and Harris is not convincing me
Quite frankly, I think a can of creamed corn would be more competent than Trump, but from all I have seen, Harris seems competent. And regardless, right at the moment, I think just having someone who won’t try to burn down the country, and even the world (Ukraine, NATO, climate stuff, etc.), will be preferable to that orange monster. As Randy Rainbow said during the 2020 Democratic primaries:
https://youtu.be/llYbn83iZ48?si=XI8l3XHDaXObZy5R
Given the choice is Harris or Trump - you can't write in a candidate - which do you prefer and why?
Elections are always a choice between the candidates that are standing, not the ones we wish were.
AFZ
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/marjorie-taylor-greene-laura-loomer-harris-india-b2611353.html
This is like having Herod criticise your nursery provision policy.
Given the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if citizens' calls to the White House are soon being routed through a foreign call-centre. Not because of foreigners in government, as Loomer would have it, but just because that's the way that powerful entities prefer to do business these days.
Telford is British, so he definitely can’t. I was just interested to hear his preference and reasons.
Personally, I think Harris has more than proven her competence over the last 15+ years as district attorney, attorney general, senator and vice-president.