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.

many of the Haitians aren't citizens.

All of them are indeed citizens. I didn't call them American citizens, just citizens on purpose. They're legal immigrants escaping a failed government rife with corruption and violence and now Trump and his reprobates are targeting them again as though it's their fault the local community hasn't had the time and resources to better accommodate them as yet.

So let's ask Americans along with our corporate community to jump in and provide the help this community needs, with the point being to help ALL Springfieldians, not just one part or another. They live together, work together, and use services together, so let's help them all together.

That is the traditional American spirit, something as antithetical and toxic to Trump as kryptonite is to Superman.

This is the perfect time for a twofer that will absolutely be the end of Trump. The Harris campaign should make immediately helping the entire Springfield community the living example of how her government cares about all of America especially when it attacked by an enemy.

Call volunteers and resources to the community to meet its pressing needs. Get corporations to donate needed goods and supplies, ask law enforcement officers to volunteer to take security shifts to keep all the citizens safe from Trump's deranged followers. Make improving Springfield the unmistakable example of all her words of unity and shared destiny. Trump words have laid a veritable siege on the people of Springfield, not just the Haitian immigrants.

Lift up Springfield as Americans have lifted up other nations in their moments of crisis. We can take care of our own with and outside of government, that what America has always excelled at. We help our struggling neighbors, we don't try to make them targets through lies and smears.

In Harris' America, We are Springfield and Springfield is US. Let's get to work. Trump's trying to tear Springfield down. Let's lift them up instead and show Trump what REAL America truly is. It's brother helping brother without caveat, simply because we can, and he's hurting. And it's truly that which makes America Great.

Springfield, where he was born in 1978, has been "shrinking for decades," he says, but during the Biden administration more jobs opened up in manufacturing that needed employees to fill them. At the same time, he explains, Haiti erupted in turmoil and the U.S. federal government expanded a legal immigration program for Haitians fleeing the violence.

In the last few years, some 15,000 immigrants have settled in the city, which had a population of about 60,000.

"You might imagine there are some challenges with integrating a new population," Legend continues. "...But the bottom line is these people came to Springfield because there were jobs for them and they were willing to work. And they wanted to live the American dream."

"Nobody's eating cats. Nobody's eating dogs," he says. "We all just want to live and flourish and raise our families in a healthy and safe environment. How about we love one another?"

Legend ends the video with a nod to his roots and the name he grew up with: "John R. Stephens from Springfield, signing off."

And I can also see an all-star concert heading John Legend with all the proceeds going to the community. This is an opportunity to really turn the page from the vile misogynistic, bigoted, fear-based politics that culminated when Trump came down his golden escalator in 2015.

I'm tired of letting these ------ have control over our lives and their politics pitting citizen against citizen. It would also be extraordinary symbolic should the Harris campaign take the lead in helping Springfield as it deals with the chaos and fear that Trump needs like oxygen. Let's choke him out for the last time and be rid of his toxic, demeaning, and simply anti-American politics once and for all.

Another trash thread from the DR's resident trash person.

Exactly. And when spoon fed the truth, he can't wait to accuse others of being duplicitous when it's his own ignorance's fault he can't and won't understand history nor facts.

SCOTUS has been 9 justices since 1869, gaslitgtroma.

You just can't help but continue to prove what an ignorant gaslighter you are. Did you bother to see why the Court expanded to 9 seats in 1869?

It's for the very freaking reason I stated! ...[B]efore expansion, the number of courts used to equal the number of SCOTUS justices, with each having responsibility of a single circuit.

I am still of the opinion that it is just the real Trump taking over, and the base craves that real Trump, not the campaign-brainwashed Trump.

We're saying the same thing using different words. Trump would always rather be "real" when his professional campaign advisors want him to sometimes focus on policy.

Stephen Miller is supporting the "real conspiracy-spewing, stream of consciousness Trump" while La Civita wants more of the "campaigning Trump."

That's an average of $78.33 per donor folks. I pondered this last night:

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.

Several candidates for the 2020 presidential nomination, including Ms. Harris, said they were open to the idea of packing the court by expanding the number of seats.

The number of SCOTUS seats has changed multiple times in our history, and doing so is not anti-constitutional, it's wholly the call of the Constitution.

Again, anti-constitutional forces like Strawlighter try to hide their fears and manipulations behind supposed respect for the Constitution. All you care about is the power now skewing to the side you prefer. There are 13 US Circuit Courts and before expansion, the number of courts used to equal the number of SCOTUS justices, with each having responsibility of a single circuit. The only proposals of expansion that I've ever seen entail increasing the number of judges to 13 to again achieve equilibrium.

And further, no one has said that we let one President alone add 4 additional seats at once. I'd love to see an independent collection of perhaps retired federal judges do the vetting and nominating in conjunction with both parties and relevant legal organizations, with the goal being to find the fairest arbiters of justice with exceptional proven experience on the bench and a history of ruling from the Constitution, not against it.

If RCade decides to promote this thread, I have an idea for a more on-point headline:

Kamala Harris Used Criminal Psychology to Dominate Trump

#3

Putin couldn't have said it better himself. Blame both ideological sides in American politics with the intent of destroying people's faith in democracy instead of realizing one party is ready and willing to compromise while the other party openly stokes fear and loathing of any and all that don't view the world as they do, calling fellow citizens enemies while lusting for civil war.

Your answer is to tear it all down, the very thing Putin wants to happen.

but after that the real Trump takes over.

In his mind, that's the plan. The people he's talking to know exactly what he's saying in code-speak while the rest of us dismiss it as simply crazy talk.

It's all about stoking fear of the "others" trying to replace the "real Americans" comprising Trump's extended base.

I guess neo-Nazi groups on social media are reacting to Tuesday like the Proud Boys did in 2020. They're giddy about the shout outs.

All they care about is repeating the lie because Trump's ego won't allow him to admit he said something incredibly incorrect and foolish during the debate.

That isn't the only reason Trump's doing it. He's doing it mainly to attract usual non-voters (read, nominally more non-college educated who lack critical thinking skills) that consume the same conspiracies and social media memes his right wing supporters churn out like Pez shooting out of a dispenser.

He trying to reach people who'd never vote for Harris if their lives depended on it, but generally think all politicians are FOS. He's using their innate xenophobia and sometime bigotry to drive them to the polls in the swing states.

The target is people who already tune out traditional media and non-right wing oriented content. So even though most think he's spewing crazy, to those he's seeking he's spinning pure gold to fuel their already existent paranoia and belief in Replacement Theory.

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.

#20

It is a distinction, but it shouldn't matter. They're a community of legal immigrants who breathed life back into a dying town, revitalizing the local economy providing hard working laborers hungry to contribute.

But every coin has two sides. In the numbers they quickly relocated in, the existent community services, support infrastructure and housing capacity are severely strained by their presence.

The Ohio governor announced a big chunk of money headed Springfield's way immediately along with financial help and support from the federal government.

If this thing can simmer down without people being hurt through threats and violent reprisals, Springfield's going to turn out alright.

Clinically proven facts:

First, there's Donald Trump, the guy we saw in the debate, the guy we see at the rallies and the guy Trump is, mostly, on social media. This persona was really the entirety of the campaign in 2016 because there just wasn't any campaign infrastructure around, though a bit was built up in the last couple months. This campaign is mostly about Trump's anger and grievances and shows all the signs not only of his longstanding degeneracy but his cognitive and personal decline over the last decade. Let's call it the Trump campaign.

But then there's an entirely distinct and relatively traditional campaign being run by Chris LaCivita and Susie Wiles. That campaign wants to talk about inflation and the southern border. That campaign is running a vast and complex TV air war across all the swing states. Let's call this the "Trump" campaign. For the "Trump" campaign, [immigration and the economy] are the two big winners. You want to have them be the conversation every day.

You and I live in the national media conversation where Trump himself is the dominant story - his tirades, lies, chaos. But in the swing states it's different. That's where the "Trump" campaign is at least trying to and may be able to hold sway. There it's all about the 30-second ads and other kinds of paid messaging.

Trump keeps the hardcore degenerates on side through his stage show, albeit in a diminished form, and the swing state air war aims to pull in the occasional and lightly politicked swing voters.

Just how much these two campaigns interact, get in the way of each other, or keep to their own assignments untroubled will likely play a big role in the outcome of the election.

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?

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:

Even the Wall Street Journal's right-wing editorialists thought that Vice President Kamala Harris "won the debate because she came in with a strategy to taunt and goad Mr. Trump into diving down rabbit holes of personal grievance and vanity," while Karl Rove added in a column that the night "was a train wreck for him, far worse than anything Team Trump could have imagined."

An ebullient Harris campaign immediately called for another debate. (Trump, who once called for debates "ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, ANYPLACE," eventually refused the challenge after much hemming and hawing.) But Harris's gesture of confidence prompted Fox News's Laura Ingraham to argue: "They don't think she won. They don't think she's in a position to win this race."

Sean Hannity interviewed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), who claimed Trump notched "a big win."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Trump had "the best closing in presidential debate history."

Trump himself joined Hannity in the spin room. "I think it was my best debate ever," he said.

And that was just within the first 75 minutes after the debate. The next morning, Trump was back, on "Fox & Friends." "I won the debate by a lot," he said, and "every single poll last night had me winning like 90-10." The hosts did not contradict him.

On Thursday afternoon, conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt announced on Fox that Trump "is in the process of winning the debate" because "a debate isn't over in a day" and "upon further review, the American public has decided that debate was rigged."

It was a case study in how the dominant "news" organ of the right cleans up Trump's messes.

This is why defeating Donald Trump at the ballot box remains a daunting task because so many of his supporters simply are never exposed to anything close to the truth of the facts, circumstances, details and sometimes even the unedited news we outside their audience know as reality. On Fox, they hype fabulist tales that enrages Trump's base. Then the mainstream media looks at and discovers the facts, usually dismissing the created-hysteria, while Fox reinforces that the other side is ignoring the imminent danger that only exists as another vehicle to cement outrage inside their bubble.

Those outside Fox's bubble don't realize that they've been drawn into another racist cultural battle while those inside become lock and loaded, overdosing on gaslighted inventions meant only to unify outrage and stoke fear.

#3 continued

Or Harris could borrow the initials of the mega-popular Korean K-Pop kings BTS, repurposing the initials into representing exactly what she did 3 nights ago - and would do over and over again should he find the courage to man-up and debate her face-to-face again:

Beat Trump Senseless.

#3

While I'm sure most are familiar with the anagram BDE, Trump displayed BCS on Tuesday night: Beta ****old Subservience.

"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.

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.

#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?