I recall you claiming Biden smoked Trump during the first debate YET Biden's cognitive impairment was so fully exposed that power-brokers in his own party dumped him in unprecedented fashion.

You are very wrong. I didn't watch the first debate on purpose, so I made no defense of Biden's performance from firsthand observation.

I did argue that Democrats should simply stop dividing each other over it, and that we were stuck with Biden as the only possible way of defeating Trump.

And if you follow my writing, the afternoon that Biden withdrew, I was ready to check out. And then I watched everyone independently coalesce around Harris in ways that were impossible for Biden. And by the end of the afternoon, the shift in energy was palpable and hope sprung up from despair. We all know that this shift has been unprecedented in our history and certainly one for the record books.

BTW, in almost every single article I post, there are copious arguments made with facts or directed opinion to back them up. It's very lazy to dismiss direct criticisms without offering anything other than the weak-tea of partisan labels. When you post threads, we bring facts and evidence to counter your usual wackiness. At least try to find a fact-based counter without falling to the eternal trope that such criticisms are only based on partisanship when they're actually full of distinct points which deserve addressing.

And in response to something you said earlier, you obviously haven't seen the 10-15 second cuts from tonight where Harris absolutely eviscerates Trump in the manner I described. Never in the history of US Presidential debates has a sitting Vice President told a former President that world leaders laugh at him and think that he's a joke. And her tone when she did it was as sharp as her words. That's dominance.

And the abortion split screen and her passionate soliloquy on women's bodily autonomy was master class. I don't care who're you're for, when you see these clips removed from the rest of the slogging debate, their impact is devastating. That is why your handwringing about the moderators is so meaningless. The fact checking clips won't be the story, his own scowl when confronted by a women emasculating him to his face will be.

You won't have to take my word for it because they'll be coming to political ads near you likely by tomorrow.

I clearly separated watching the entire debate from beginning to end from the video cuts of 10 to 30 seconds of Trump in splitscreen; never looking Harris in the eye ONE TIME all evening as she called him a liar to his face; called him an international laughing stock to his face; and schooled him on how millions of women intimately feel in the aftermath of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, something he brags about with selfish, ignorant glee, while intentionally misstating how unpopular that court decision was universally with it overturning a personal right of autonomy held by women for 50 years.

Trump was dominated and triggered in a way no other politician since 2015 has ever manipulated Trump into being the absolute worst version of himself.

And to top it all off, Truth Social dropped 15% in overnight trading after spiking before the debate. Money don't lie even when Trump and his allies always do.

Marshall finished with this:

What Harris had to do in this debate was show she could handle Donald Trump, even dominate him if possible and do so in a way that was steady and forceful. She did that. And that puts her on a path toward sealing the deal with that small fraction of voters who will determine the outcome of the election. Not a done deal but she took the critical first step. She also managed a bonus, which wasn't absolutely necessary, which was to set Trump off, rambling, incoherent and angry. He was practically yelling by the end of the debate. She baited him into acting out the role of her foil. As I've often said in other contexts, more important than any of the details is likely the imagery of dominance.

She came, she saw, she conquered. But tomorrow is another day. And there's still two hard fought months to go.

Haris did so well against Trump last night I'm going out to eat a dog.

Save a leg for me, okay Zed. Sounds delish.... and we can wash it down with cup after cup of Strawbringer's tears, vintage 9/10/24.

That was a good evening .... (burp)

#10

While it is newsworthy because it's true, the comment's intentional morbidness is actually pretty funny considering how insane the topic is.

Another viewpoint:

If you refuse to answer the first question in the debate,

Can you inform me of a single question directed to Trump that he answered with depth and detail regarding anything but himself and his precious feelings spread across every single topic?

Best lines about last night's debate:

Just because I'd already made up my mind, doesn't mean I'm happy with non-answers and dodging responsibility for everything bad that happened instead of taking ownership.

Instead of answering a yes/no question directly and then spend the rest of her time explaining, Harris instead used that time to let voters know a little more about her - as the media and rightwingers have been demanding.

I don't know why intelligent people are so hopped up about stupid questions that answer themselves if one takes 30 seconds to analyze. Politicians change their positions on issues due to multiple reasons, but one chief reason for changing is to place themselves where their constituents are on the issues. Politicians (outside of Trump) shouldn't be running to only project their own pre-formed determinations on issues, they should always transition to where their constituency and voters are on an issue if that position doesn't conflict with the candidate's established values.

To me, it would take even Kamala Harris more time than she's allotted in this debate to explain the nuances involved in changing positions and how she justifies that change with detailed reasoning for said change. A time limited debate isn't the place for this to happen, and quite frankly, it's almost 100% certain that she will give answers to those questions multiple times during upcoming interviews and town halls where time is not at such a premium.

The ultra-short answer to 'why the change(?)' is simply this: I changed my positions because where I am now is where the voters in my coalition need me to be in order to best serve the nation's immediate needs. She changed on fracking because clean energy production - at present - is not enough in and of itself to completely abandon the domestic extraction of fossil fuels, and our reality is this: The OPEC oil cartel is an ongoing threat to the prosperity of the United States. And with America producing record amounts of oil - mainly due to fracking - trying to shut the industry down right now would not only give more power and leverage to Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela among other oil exporting nations, it would be antithetical to shutter thousands of good paying jobs in America and weaken our defensive postures with allied countries as well as driving inflation higher during a time we're focused on lowering it.

As with most rational Democrats understanding the threat of climate change, the future has to be one where fossil fuel use is obsoleted. But today is not the time to fight that battle because doing so would do immediate harm to American families, something no president wanna-be should support.

I hope Harris prosecutes him tonight like nobody's ever seen.

Posted by tonyroma at 2024-09-10 04:58 PM

If there is a second coup, Trump needs to be hanged or shot---whatever is most appropriate for a former president.

Well average hourly earnings is a useless metric.

Not necessarily, if you use a large enough sample size, unlike your example based on only 10. If these numbers do represent the average of over 157 million American workers, then it's statistically certain that the average will be close to the mean because the vast majority of the sample's lower earning quintiles drag the earnings gap with the less numerous upper quintiles closer to an actually representative average.

On all the other stats, I fully agree.

I understand why she never takes responsibility for anything bad. Politicians have to politic and it is a strategy. Outside of politics, that behavior is a massive leadership failure.

But you're not taking in the situation this criticism is based on. Harris' job in the debate was first to let the 67 million learn about who she is and what she stands for - as polling showed almost a 1/3rd of the electorate wanted. Tuesday was not a "usual" debate in any sense of the word. Harris has been in elected government for 21 years. Anyone wanting to know how she deals with leadership responsibilities will learn that she's very hard on herself and equally so to those she leans on to support her. But shirking responsibility for mistakes has not been her trademark.

And the larger point really is that this is not a policy election, it's a personality election as Tuesday clearly showed. Trump openly refuses to take responsibility for any and everything that happens if it's negative. He blames those under him for coming up with flawed plans, he doesn't blame himself for putting those plans into action. So your lack of demand towards Trump - who already has a list of failures while he was POTUS - doesn't ring as important to the masses as it is to you.

Tuesday night, Americans saw one candidate in full command of her thought processes and another candidate unable to finish a cogent thought, much less give a single detail of any policies other than utterances of superlatives if he was musing about his own imaginary accomplishments and complete derision or intentional misrepresentation of his opponents.

This election is about the two candidates and their fitness and ability to at least look and perform presidential duties as Americans have always expected. Harris is passing her first tests, and if Trump manages to gather some coherence, then Harris can and should shift to explaining her evolution on particular issues. Hint, a lot of it has to do with matching where the voters are that she needs to win. And another factor is how much the world and global dynamics have changed in the aftermath of the global pandemic. How much today is totally different from 2019? Why should anyone be eternally married to positions that no longer represent what the nation wants or needs in our immediate present?

#77

It's the opposite. Reread what you posted. I don't remember the sequence from the debate, but what you wrote is Trump confirming that he thinks people say they were better off 4 years ago than they are today.

Maybe you meant to juxtapose the prefacing quote.

#76

You too need to reread my question. Trump answering 'yes' to that question is not 'answer(ing) with depth and detail'.

#81

That isn't what Fish wrote in #76 nor what you copied. It wasn't a question, it's a statement that he answered with an affirmative.

"People say they are better off 4 years ago then they are today." Trump: "That's correct."

That's why I questioned you. If you printed the accurate "question" in 81, then 76 and 77 are juxtaposed.

They are not the same as 81, they're opposite.

82

Sorry, I didn't see 80.

Next time I'll consider the source. But actually, I only saw Redial repost Fish's wrong post. That's why I started by saying that I didn't know if it was accurate, but if it was ... blah, blah, blah.

Or does he not understand basic logic,

That ship sailed long ago. Before when Trump did the same things, it was based on commandments taught to him by Roy Cohn which form the basis of the movie The Apprentice, iow, inside himself and his circles they knew he understood the difference between actual reality and the one Trump created towards his own ends, whatever that was in that moment.

Now, even to his financial backers, Trump shows no visceral understanding between what's real and what's not real. Whatever he puts into his mind informs all his beliefs and he does not waver from them. His current mental state is dangerous to this country without he being in the White House since many of his followers have no problem reacting to his deluded pleas by visiting threats and violence upon those his bigotry targets.

It's simply a matter of time before people are personally targeted for violent attacks due to Trump's delusional lies.

The Harris campaign just announced they've raised $47 million in the 24 hours after the debate started.

Hell yes she wants to do another debate. Frankly, it was more entertaining than most pay-per-views, and the average donation is likely less than a UFC Mega Fight and Trump Chump Dana White isn't getting a cut.

Kamala's a bargain!

Tuesday night was literally Kamala Harris coming out in a ---------- outfit holding the end of Trump's leash as he's crawling on all-fours behind her wearing nothing but his adult incontinence diaper.

She drug him that badly. In front of the entire world. Called him a disgrace. Told him other world leaders LAUGH at him while she stared him down as he never looked over at her.

One commentator said this: Kamala Harris did the best job of telling the audience who he [Trump] is - more effectively than any other political opponent, either Democrat or Republican.

If only Nikki Haley had the stones, charisma, and dynamism of Kamala Harris maybe Trump could have been metaphorically smothered in his political crib back in 2016.

"Mr. Trump was crushed by a woman he previously dismissed as 'dumb as a rock,' Karl Rove mused. "Which raises the question: What does that make him?"

How about it, Gracie....? Bellringer....? Visitor....? Robson....? Effete....? Fishpaw....? Oneiron....? Humtake....? Msgt....?

111

So ridiculously true Redial.

And the abortion split screen and her passionate soliloquy on women's bodily autonomy was master class. I don't care who're you're for, when you see these clips removed from the rest of the slogging debate, the impact is devastating. That is why your handwringing about the moderators is so meaningless. The fact checking clips won't be the story, his own scowl when confronted by a women emasculating him to his face will be.

The Harris campaign released this video ad today.

It's pretty funny that the moderators thought it was their job to jump in and debate for Harris, that made her look weak whether it was meant to or not.

Those same moderators let Trump speak almost 6 minutes longer than Harris did during the 90 minute debate.

And you haven't heard a single peep from the Harris camp about this glaring disparity in Trump's favor. Wanna know why?

Trump lacked the intelligence and fortitude to take that benefit and use it positively. He squandered all that precious time he unjustly stole, trying to be the alpha bully he's always been towards the media and opponents. Instead, he was exposed as a weak beta ****, unable to even look at nor respond to the woman calling him a 'disgrace' and 'a laughing stock' to his face in front of the entire world!

Who's to blame for that?

Again, it's the already privileged - like Bullhead here - to complain that the advantages this man shouldn't receive simply aren't enough of a scales tipper to overcome the brilliance, talent and intelligence of a prepared and confident black woman, so they complain about the moderators instead of realizing the person they're defending simply got his head handed to him because he went for every piece of personalized-bait Harris delivered straight at his fragile id, which his lizard brain simply couldn't resist swallowing whole.