After nearly a decade of Trump doing as he pleases with little accountability, a lot of appeasement, and very rare consequence, he was brought up short by an opponent who looked him in the eye, called him out, didn't back down, and in the process threw him off his game and took command of the debate stage.

Yes, it got under his skin, Yes, he was rattled, Yes, it turned him into a fulminating old man. I'm less interested though in the stagecraft she used than in the catharsis it provided to viewers who have craved to see Trump get his comeuppance for so many years, only to be repeatedly and endlessly disappointed.

It was Joe Biden's failure to confront Trump on this level during their debate in June that led to the existential crisis among Democrats. Biden failed in multiple ways in that debate, but the biggest letdown was his failure to stand up to Trump in a convincing fashion and instead let Trump run all over him.

In contrast, Harris confronted Trump repeatedly. She referred to him as a "disgrace" twice, as "dangerous and unfit," as "confused," and as lacking the right "temperament" to be president. She derided him to his face as someone dictators know "they can manipulate ... with flattery and favors." She often referred to him in the second person, a more charged and direct way of punching the bully in the nose. She called him out for warring against the rule of law and the Constitution and for his own criminally-charged conduct.

Having said that, my gosh, Tuesday night was a bolt of joyous lightening that immolated Donald Trump in front of a global audience that now echoes one of the scathing accusations leveled by Harris: The German government actually released a statement openly mocking Trump's idiotic and racist assertion of immigrants eating other people's pet cats and dogs. World leaders are laughing at Trump's idiocy and no amount of denial from him or supporters can negate that truth.

But even after this most heart-affirming, cathartic event of murder-by-verbal daggers, Trump still can and might win the presidency yet again. So this momentary relief will be again subsumed by the biting anxiety that even after his complete evisceration before God and man, the work of getting enough voters in the right states to the polls for the defeat of Trump is by no means a fait accompli. Time to get back to work.

BREAKING, BREAKING!

#7

The complete metaphor in my mind was that Kamala snatched the bully Trump's lunch right from his stubby fingers, stood right there and looked him in the eye while he sheepishly looked away, refusing to even make eye contact. Then she took single bites out of each item in his lunchbox, took a couple chews and then vigorously spit out each bite straight into the ground at his feet, before throwing the rest of his uneaten food into a trash can. Then she confidently turns on her 4 inch heels and triumphantly walked away with her strength, dignity, and dominance - along with his crushed masculinity - firmly in her grasp.

Is that better for you Gunny?

"Say it to my face!"

Complete alpha dominant statement, and she delivered on her challenge in spades on Tuesday night. Trump's weakness and cognitive decline couldn't have been more devastatingly exposed.

She not only took and ate his lunch on Tuesday, she made him hand over his lunch money for the rest of the week.

Do most of the adults here (I'm assuming we're all adults...) have trouble dealing with people like Trump IRL?

You surprise me with such a naive take on Trump. Of course, every single Republican presidential candidate along with both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden - who combined have a century's worth of elected political experience - weren't able to do what Kamala Harris did on Tuesday night.

Gal posted a thread about how Kamala achieved what you deem as a "low bar." If it was so low, how come dozens of seasoned politicians before couldn't get over it?

Harris used psychological tactics learned through her prosecutorial work which her detractors and Trump chose to ignore, instead believing that she was "stupid" and "couldn't speak in public" as though that isn't precisely what a career prosecutor does as matter of her job. Let me repost two very illustrative paragraphs from her post:

accepting a previous norm as remarkable.

What was the norm in your opinion?

I don't ever recall any other presidential candidate being a sociopathic, narcissistic criminal grifter trying to keep himself out of prison should he lose the election.

When did that happen before, and what nominee acted just like Trump does?

Clinically proven facts:

I watched it. Y'all are drinking the kool aid.

This isn't about what you watched, it's about your ignorance and dismissal of the psychological science underpinning what you saw.

Criminal psychology is a long established field of study into the minds of people just like Trump. That's precisely why I asked you to quantify your opinion with something other than dismissal of the question.

I admire your expertise in the field you so obviously are quite educated and experienced in. In this case, there is an equally valid scientifically-based field of study dedicated to defining and overcoming the steamrolling psychological and verbal dominance exhibited in those like Trump.

So emphatically no, there has not been any other president nor presidential candidate capable of using a lifetime's learned technique of successfully dominating any and all who dare come before him in the way Trump has personally humiliated and mocked Fiorina, Rubio, Cruz, McCain, Jeb Bush, Clinton, Biden and all the other opponents he's faced on debate stages.

There simply is no analog to Trump in modern presidential politics no matter what the opinion - you're completely entitled to give - is.

Almost as a defensive measure to convince yourself she isn't the weak, poor candidate she was in 2020 who barely got a candidacy off the ground.

Kamala Harris is the same candidate today that she was in 2020 and the same candidate she was in 2016 when she won her US Senate campaign.

I've never been defensive on this entire thread, I've been informed in ways that you aren't. I watched Kamala from 2010 giving a speech as she ran for California Attorney General. Her presence, speaking manner, cadence and command of her facts is exactly like it is today. She radiates confidence, competence and strength. But if you didn't know this and listened to the Republican framing of her as "less than" then what you saw Tuesday night likely was surprising.

Maybe you missed the thread about Karl Rove seeing her in 2010 and getting the national Republican Committee to commit millions of dollars to defeat her in that race because he saw "the female Obama" and he feared she'd one day beat a Republican presidential candidate. Karl knows his politics and he was right. She won that race by a fraction of a percent. Had she lost, it's unlikely she'd be where she is today.

In regards to 2020, again, she didn't fail, nor was she not ready. She simply had no constituency to build from in order to win the nomination. Compared to the other candidates, Kamala was then viewed as center right mainly because she's a former prosecutor and many on the left felt that she was too hard on minorities. Politically, even in California, a prosecutor has to be a person of law and order, often with no space to work in the greys. She had Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Booker, Castro, Klobuchar and others in that race. She had no lane to win the nomination and knew it. That's why she halted her campaign in 2019, because she understands politics and knew 2020 wasn't her time. It's that simple.

But her early withdrawal ended up smoothing a glidepath to the Vice Presidency, and now she stands on the cusp of winning the ultimate prize.

So no, I'm not defensive about anything. You talk about how you feel about her and mention things unrelated to who she is, was, and has been all of her political life - having never lost an election. What she did Tuesday night was very hard and took a tremendous amount of hard work, study, patience, and most of all stamina. Trump wears people out because he has no off button when he's in steamroller mode. She showed him immediately who the alpha was on the stage when she walked into his space, shook his hand, and enunciated her name phonetically so Trump would have no excuse should he say it during the debate. Trump never uttered her first name one single time during the entire debate.

Yesterday, doing his stump routine, Trump couldn't wait to mispronounce her first name and added "comrade" in front of it. Everything you saw Kamala do on that stage was the result of a lifetime of prosecutorial experience combined with skills honed under earlier debate lights. Harris landed her biggest haymaker when she first hit the stage. Yes, like any person realizing the enormity of the moment, she was nervous at the beginning. But once she hit her groove, her dominance of that stage and debate wasn't arguable.

Lastly, I had no idea of the criminal psychology aspect of her performance until I read the article I quoted from yesterday. I read the information and found it not only credible, but completely in line with what I'd witnessed. Her performance was not one of simple debate politics. She approached Trump like she would a defendant in a courtroom, not only anticipating what he'd say, but telling her audience in advance what he would say. It only happened because of hard work and the innate ability to project both strength, warmth, and fierce determination all at the same time.

Lol yet she's only close because she's back dooring a nomination.

And you're ignorantly oblivious of American history not to realize that the Vice President is ALWAYS first in line for the party's next presidential nomination since like forever - unless they're unpopular, unable to build a constituency, and not worthy of being the Party's best chance to win, ala Mike Pence and Dan Quayle. Other than Dick Cheney and the aforementioned pair, every single Vice President since the Eisenhower Administration has run for or served as President.

God damn, you can't stop being a complete imbecile for not realizing how your opinion isn't based on historical reality.

You just can't help yourself in trying to imply that Harris is "less than" and quite simply it's disgusting.

If any man alive had her resume, NO ONE would question that person had earned the right to be where she currently is. Nothing was given to Harris but for every opportunity she excelled in in order to rise and succeed even further.

Trump never served a day of public service in his life until he won the presidency. JD Vance had never served a day of public service under his rich benefactors bought him his Senate seat in ruby red Ohio. Neither of them earned the right to be where they are in any way, shape or form.

You simply cannot discern the difference between being in position due to accomplishment compared to unearned privilege only provided due to wealth.

And what Harris has accomplished in regards to starting her presidential campaign with less than 100 days before the election is unprecedented. She didn't have the luxury of putting together a presidential campaign staff years before the election as is the norm.

It's simply daft to ignore how Kamala Harris has orchestrated a masterpiece of a transition from Biden to herself, and moved polling from 5-7 points behind to almost that same amount in front.

You don't back door what she's already achieved in her record-breaking run simply by being there.

Other than Dick Cheney and the aforementioned pair, every single Vice President since the Eisenhower Administration has run for or served as President.

Excuse me, that's in error. Mike Pence did run for President but had to drop out because he couldn't build a constituency to compete with Trump. In actuality, every President back to Herbert Hoover had a VP(s) to run for the Presidency*.

*FDR had two, not including Truman since ascended to the Presidency due to FDR's death, not through election, although he did win as President in 1948.

19 serving Vice Presidents in total went on to run for the Presidency, with 6 winning, 7 losing, and none of the others winning their party's nomination.

We're settling for garbage to avoid settling for ----.

Her record is garbage?

#51

No jackleg, it's you who have no connection to reality. I've never implied that she's anything but what she is. If you don't like her policies, that's your prerogative. It you don't like her issue stances or her poise, even dislike her voice, that's your prerogative.

You continually implied that she isn't qualified to be where she is, and again you display a tremendous amount of ignorance of today's political realities. Do you know who the largest and most loyal faction in the Democratic Party is? Black women. The Kamala Harris you're seeing today - with 4 years of invaluable experience in being the VP - is, was and always would be the Democratic frontrunner. Note, I said the Kamala you're seeing today, not the one you saw briefly and superficially in 2019 when she didn't have the unified base of support to run from that she does today - and would have in 2028 should Biden and her been re-elected.

Did you ever stop to think that if all of the other potential Democratic possibles for President thought that they could have beaten her in a convention vote, they could have raised their hands and run against her? Winning elections takes the backing of donors - and no one had donors and influential groups lined up to support them like Kamala did.

Again, this isn't about what you think of her as a politician. This is about her resume and experience - the very things you continue to ignore that she has that no other Democrat does. Any of the popular Democrats could have taken her on, but none of them did.

And frankly, they would have face an even more impossible task than the one she's on the cusp of pulling off against all conventional odds. But be clear, as objectively remarkable her career has been, no one need to bend any knees. If you don't like her, vote for somebody else. Just don't dismiss how she rose to where she is based on her accomplishments and lifelong work to get there.

Her weird facial gyrations during the debate are a sign she is hormonally unbalanced and not Presidential.

You stick with that, okay? See how far it gets you. Kamala got $47 million from 600,000 donors after what you claim proved her to be unbalanced. Obviously they didn't see what you thought you did.

I watched a panel of political analysts all saying that Harris' splitscreen when Trump spoke was powerful as she changed expressions based on what he was saying. And more importantly they emphasized that she DIDN'T provide any of the expressions you claim she made or if she had it would have been on the front page of the New York Post.

Can you provide a link to a still-capture showing her in a state like you claimed? We'll wait patiently for you to back up your delusional gaslighting.