Harris and Trump are getting ready for Tuesday’s debate in sharply different ways
Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are veering sharply in how they gear up for Tuesday’s presidential debate, setting up a showdown that reflects not just two separate visions for the country but two politicians who approach big moments very differently.
The vice president is cloistered in a historic hotel in downtown Pittsburgh where she can focus on honing crisp two-minute answers, per the debate’s rules. She’s been working with aides since Thursday and chose a venue that allows the Democratic nominee the option of mingling with swing-state voters.
Trump, the Republican nominee, publicly dismisses the value of studying for the debate. The former president is choosing instead to fill his days with campaign-related events on the premise that he’ll know what he needs to do once he steps on the debate stage at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.
“You can go in with all the strategy you want but you have to sort of feel it out as the debate’s taking place,” he said during a town hall with Fox News host Sean Hannity.
Trump then quoted former boxing great Mike Tyson, who said, “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
Trump pooped his pants at the last debate. Literally pooped his pants and there is audio evidence of it and no one cared.
He's going to spout off a bunch of dog whistle, nonsensical bullshit without answering a single question and his base will eat it up.
I ha e hope for Harris, but this debate will change nothing.
Found the clip. It could have just been a REALLY wet fart, but the fact that the lapel mic picked it up makes me think Biden DEFINITELY heard it.
I know you're supposed to confirm things for yourself but I'm very sensitive to audio and sounds have a tendency to stick in my brain. I'll take your word on that so that I don't have to stick my head in a blender later tonight.
I’ll confirm it for you: It’s so wet it sounds like a stomach gurgle. But for the mic to have picked it up, it had to have been loud enough to carry all the way to the mic.
There’s also a good chance that Biden heard it. You can see him look confused for a split second afterwards, then the realization hits him and he shakes his head.
Couldn't hear it. Quite disappointed. Can you give a time index so I can try again with headphones?
E: ok, I heard it. 🤮 0:14
Skid marks in his underwear after that one for sure,
it's possible it's a really wet fart, but i don't know how many people fart in the middle of talking either.
Could be stomach settling noises or swallowing, but he doesn't seem to be swallowing, idk.
if kamala doesn't fucking steam roll in this debate i'm handing over my citizenship card, whoever wants it first can claim it later.
You actually have to pay a hefty fee to denounce your citizenship
that why we're doing it black market
That's like handing out the condom that was used by your country to f--k you in the a-- for your entire life.
Hard pass.
Ive had so many arguments with my mother where she just can't wrap her mind around the fact that someone might not want american citizenship. She always says the dumbest phrase too: "american citizenship is worth too much money to pass up".
Right, cause I'd love to pay the US taxes when I don't even live in the country.
do you have to pay them? I thought it was just that you had to file them, which afaik doesn't include paying them.
Yes the taxes work exactly the same whether you live in America or not. They have a cutoff level where if you are below that income you don't have to file.
They also claim you can receive a tax refund for overpayment like a lot of americans do, but I believe that would only happen if you actually overpay your taxes somehow prior to filling out the tax form.
i assume it accounts for where that income is made? Or does it just apply to all income period, such that you have to pay federal taxes on money made somewhere else, obviously i don't think you can file state taxes, since you don't live in a state. But idk about that one.
Any money an american citizen makes is taxed, no matter where it comes from. I'm sure theres loopholes and exceptions for wealthier folk but yeah its a rough pill to swallow for those living abroad who want to keep citizenship.
hmm, seems like it's not a done deal explicitly
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-earned-income-exclusion https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/foreign-tax-credit
fascinating. I guess that's just a citizenship trolling thing.
Yeah it varies widely from person to person but it seems the average consensus is you at least have to file and at most you have to pay america and the country you work in both.
You also have to make America aware of any assets you have over 10k. Not really the same but I consider it odd behavior if you don't live in that country.
perhaps this is relatively normal among dual citizenship? I don't actually know much about that, but people don't generally have the most flexible citizenship arrangements, otherwise you would expect to see people with like 10 different citizenships lol.
From what ive read there are two countries that do this, and I'm not even joking the second country is one ive only heard the name of twice and I can't remember it.
I'm sure theres gotta be some close examples but apparently america stands relatively alone in some important ways.
there's definitely gotta be some examples of this outside of the US.
Though western europe is probably unique for the simple reason that it has to be highly comingled with other countries, due to the EU. So that probably doesn't count. IDK fuck shit about the middle east/asia, and africa tho.
one mans trash is another mans treasure
You need to stay off of the internet for a lil while.
it's just a little bit of shitposting homie
Oh. Carry on then
no worries!
I think Harris may be neglecting a key part of necessary prep. She should spend some time at the zoo outside the monkey enclosure dodging their flung shit, or I fear she might lose.
It’s Pennsylvania, so they’re flinging batteries, but otherwise you’re right.
Kamala Harris will be spending a great deal of time both studying policy and practicing with seasoned opponents and people with a deep understanding of Trump's psychology.
Trump will argue with a cheeseburger.
Hamberder.
cheeberder
Chips.
No coke, Pepsi.
Trump will ramble nonstop, hot mic rule will prevent them from moderating him (as if they would) and Harris will look bad because she has to endure his ramblings because getting into a shouting match will look worse.
There's no way they're not anticipating this. We didn't all wake up yesterday to Trump.
They can put him in a bulletproof glass box with option to make it sound proof whenever it's not his turn.
Let's hope so. Media is mostly on trumps side. Murdoch that is.
I thought that they weren't going to have hot mics?
If that means they were going to have them muted then yeah that’s what I understand. That they will be muted just like with the Biden one.
That was what was reported on bbc news well I think they actually said “likely” about their mics being muted so actually it wasn’t conclusive. I know Harris didn’t want them muted.
I agree with her wanting them unmuted, I think that will benefit her. She’s very quick on her feet from clips they showed of her (I literally hadn’t seen her speak until today, so I’m only going by a few clips they showed of her in debates and in congress).
She will be quick. Trump will be senile and slow and she can quickly shut him down while also letting him ramble just enough to show he’s senile.
But Trumps side wants them muted, clearly knowing it will be better for Trump that way. Especially if Trump needs to shart again. He will be hoping he can hold it in until he mic is muted and it’s Harris’s turn to speak.
I thought they were going to have microphones muted? So no interrupting possible.
Kind of ironic that Donnie uses that particular Mike Tyson quote because he’s a whiny little bitch who is afraid of direct confrontation and has only ever punched women.
If the article said that Trump was huffing paint and doing whippits as prep I would believe it.
So Trump's plan is to punch her in the face on live TV?
It's a bold move...
If he does I would like the Secret Service let her punch him back just to see his orange surprised pikachu face.
You know. That's actually an interesting hypothetical. How does the Secret Service react if two people with Secret Service protection try to fight each other? I imagine they would first protect whoever has the most seniority, as in the current serving president, then current vice president, etc. But what if say, two former presidents try to duke it out?
Or can the president waive Secret Service protection? Since the president has broad immunity for 'official acts', does this mean the president can now duel someone on the White House Lawn at dawn?
Surely they’d just split up the fight lol. If you can grab hold of one of them, then the fight is over isn’t it? So it doesn’t matter who you grab or who you protect, you’ll be protecting the other in the process.
They each have their own protection detail. Each will quickly move to protect the one they are responsible for, which will mean separating them (probably by a lot of distance).
Someone under SS protection can choose to waive it. There are some former presidents who deemed it unnecessary later in life.
No idea about the rest of your hypothetical
let_them_fight.jpg
Looking forward to the grand American tradition of having candidates accuse each other of doing good things while vehemently denying the other's slanderous accusations that they would ever do anything good.
Preposterous! Nobody has ever accused Donald Trump of doing a good thing.
He gets accused of wanting to deescalate conflicts, pull out of NATO, and generally refusing to uphold the constant state of war that every single US politician wants. The fact that he isn't ideologically invested in stupid pointless conflicts is literally his only positive quality, so of course it's where a lot of criticism gets directed, in order to uphold the grand American tradition. Of course, he's not actually ideologically opposed to stupid pointless wars, so the machinery still gets to run uninterrupted, but he did at least give us an excellent roast of John Bolton, a notorious hawk.
I wish we could ever get offered a candidate who's actually as isolationist as Trump gets accused of being, but unfortunately he's not it. We got rising tensions and a trade war with China, which Biden normalized, and we got pushed to the brink of WWIII with the assassination of Soleimani, which Biden's also following up by supporting Israel's antics. Voters will never be given any sort of choice or input about such matters, and Trump is no exception, despite what people say.
Just going off e.g. the stunt he pulled with moving the embassy to Jerusalem, I would say this sentence is giving him way too much benefit of the doubt.
The way see it, what he is mostly accused of is claiming to want to do those things (and most candidates would claim they wanted to "solve" e.g. the middle east conflict) but not actually having any kind of realistic idea of how to achieve any of them. Possibly besides pulling out of NATO, which, given the current state of the world, is a stretch to call this a "good thing".
Also, when it comes to stupid pointless conflicts, I think we can rest assured that he will always be invested in them on the side he believes he can personally profit off the most. Which is an ideology too if you think about it.
I don't think I've ever heard a politician accuse Trump of just "not having a realistic idea to achieve" isolationist goals. They attack him for having isolationist goals at all (which he doesn't actually have, really), because all of them are extreme interventionists.
Now you're jumping from "deescalating conflicts" to isolationist goals. That's not the same thing. However it beautifully illustrates the point of my original comment. It's highly debatable if "isolationist goals" are a good thing he would be accused of.
(Actually) Deescalating conflicts would be a good thing, I think most would agree. He just won't be able to, because his idea of deescalating is submitting to dictators. His interest isn't solving anything, just blocking out the noise and taking credit.
Well, I mean, if you're invested in the preservation of US hegemony for some reason, then I guess it's debatable whether keeping up a constant state of war and bloodshed is a good or bad thing. I, however, am not. I don't give a rat's ass about US hegemony and I would love to have a president who's willing to """submit to dictators""" to avoid conflict.
The only people who actually gain anything at all from US hegemony are the people at the top. Nobody else, at home or abroad, benefits from it at all. Rather, we get all our domestic programs cut to fund a war machine that spreads fear and destruction to innocent people around the globe. Unless you're part of the elite, invest heavily in companies like Lockheed Martin, or have confused national interests with your own, then yes, isolationist policies are a good thing.
I'm not gonna debate this here further. The fact that we obviously disagree proves my point.
What, that not everyone agrees with me on what things are good or bad? No shit, that's why politicians are constantly accusing each other of doing good things as if they were bad.
I'd love it if you could point me to someone not in the defense industry, politics, or journalism who actually benefited from the Iraq War. What a great idea that was, to avoid """submitting to a dictator""" by randomly invading a country on the other side of the globe.
You want America to be isolated? In a world where we have a Russia and a China? Are you for real dude?
When the US finally pulled it’s finger out of its arse and stopped just benefiting financially from world war 2 and decided (more like was forced but whatever) to join in and fight Hitler, they were able to end it.
That was a good thing. The UN and NATO originated off the back of that stuff.
You cannot be isolated in a 2024 globalised world. Absolutely bizarre take. I suppose you don’t want to trade with anyone else either right?
Absolutely.
The US is losing the peace to China because we've wasted so much money on bombs and invasions, while China's been pursuing domestic development. Our roads and bridges are crumbling, our healthcare system is completely unworkable, our life expectancy is in decline, our education is being gutted, and wealth inequality has skyrocketed. Our country is falling apart at the core, this is no time to be fussing about shit on the other side of the world.
Only a few years ago, things were fine with Russia and China, and they could be fine again. The US pulled out of the Middle East and needed new conflicts to justify the military industrial complex, and so we got a bunch of sabre-rattling, proxy conflicts, and propaganda.
That was 70 years ago, and has been used as an excuse for every single major conflict since. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc, all had major US political figures drawing comparisons to Hitler and WWII to justify them, and all were unjustified, pointless wars of aggression that slaughtered countless innocent people.
NATO did not originate in response to the Nazis, it originated to counteract the Soviets. In fact, ex-Nazis were often brought on board, because they were reliably anti-communist. Adolf Heusinger, for example, served in the high command of the Wehrmacht and went on to become chairman of NATO.
Trade is fine. Love trade. Although I am critical of the system of neocolonialism that keeps many countries poor, but that's more a question of returning the natural resources that were stolen during colonialism and letting them regain control of their domestic policies. I wish we focused more on trade instead of war.
Well countries may not want to trade with someone at least not on favourable terms if that country isolates itself in every other way.
My point about NATO was that it’s all about working together to defeat something, so okay, in that case communism if you say so (honestly don’t know that much about it).
The point is that Russia and China are dangerous. I suppose you’re okay with the Ukraine stuff because it’s all about America right? Okay with the Palestinian genocide?
Note that I’m clearly not supportive of all Americas wars. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc.
But to just not form military alliances with other countries? That’s dangerous. Because Russia and China aren’t gonna stop with their alliance. If the US was to just ignore them two slowly taking over the world, then guess who will be the last country left, isolated as is your wish? The last country left to be taken over? Which will be much easier once they’ve conquered the rest of the world.
You can’t let the likes of Russia stomp around invading its neighbours. It’s a very selfish attitude that ironically won’t benefit itself. As in letting Russia do that will eventually lead to America’s own demise. We also won’t be able to trade with the countries who have been bombed into oblivion by Russia/China/North Korea and whoever else joins them rather than die.
I'm not sure reducing military interventions is going to make countries less inclined to trade with the US. They're a part of what's pushing more and more middle income countries over to China, when we invade and devastate independent counties, when we seize assets held in our banks, when we put up sanctions and blockades, other countries have to wonder if they'll be next.
Well, I'm a communist, so "working together to defeat communism" isn't exactly a point in favor in my book.
I have no idea how on Earth you're making that logical leap with regards to Palestine. The US is actively funding and supplying Israel. That's the sort of thing I'm saying I want to stop.
As for Ukraine, I just want peace. If that means giving up some territory, that's fine with me. It's not as if life is that different in Russia compared to Ukraine. If you really care about Ukrainians, get the killing to stop and then spend the money we're blowing on bombs on actually improving their quality of life. If we'd done that before, maybe the people in eastern Ukraine wouldn't have wanted to split off in the first place.
I'm fine with foreign aid, so long as it's going to actually helping people and not to blowing people up to line some executive's pockets.
What indication is there exactly that they're out to "conquer the world?" When was the last time China was engaged in a major military conflict? When was the last time the US wasn't engaged in a major military conflict? Seems pretty clear which country is more intent on aggressive expansionism.
But that's not really how empires fall, anyway. It's the declining conditions in the core that you have to watch out for.
Pure fantasy.
Ok my point about Palestine was to prove that I wasn’t on America’s side in most of its wars. Like I’m largely in agreement with you on US’s interventions in other countries.
Just not completely. Not if we are counting Ukraine. Ukraine were attacked by Russia, we are trying to help them defend themselves and in the process hopefully put Russia off pulling a stunt like this again. They’ve had a pretty sharp shock that it wasn’t the walkover they thought it would be.
Where America piss me off in regards to the Ukraine though, is this trickling of weapons. Basically America have given Ukraine everything they have asked for… just a year after they ask for it. Had they given them everything they have given them now at the start of the war, then Ukraine may well have won this war.
I have no idea what the fuck you are going on about saying Ukraine isn’t much different to Russia??? Dude they were fucking invaded they don’t want to be part of Russia. They are a democracy - Russia is NOT, they are not similar at all. The Ukrainian people aren’t fighting and dying for nothing dude??? If Russia wasn’t that different they would have immediately surrendered rather than lose all the lives they’ve lost over this.
In regards to sanctions, we sanction countries that need sanctioning. We sanction North Korea because they openly say they want to destroy America given the chance, so we aren’t making it easy for them to fund their nuclear program.
I’m a socialist. But if you’re somehow saying that STALIN is someone we should have left alone because Russia was communist, like dude have you been on the crack or something cos you appear to have lost your mind.
You say you want peace in Ukraine and giving up territory blah blah. Holy shit. Crimea. 2014. Do you remember that? That was them giving up territory. That was the western world not responding to Russia, not interfering. That has led to their invasion of Ukraine. That literally proved that Russia will not be happy until they’ve restored USSR borders.
You’re literally promoting appeasement. Do you remember world war 2? The policy of appeasement worked wonderfully there didn’t it?
You mentioned China. Have you heard of Taiwan? Taiwan is China’s Ukraine.
The reason China haven’t been involved in any major conflicts is literally because of the current situation where we have NATO.
You’re advocating to get rid of all that. To isolate. If we did that, that’s when you’ll see a major military invasion from China and Russia and whoever fucking else has the means to bully their neighbour.
You clearly haven’t thought this through very well. I’m not really sure I’m going to be able to get through to you at this point.
The major thing that’s hit me with your response is the way you’re saying how big shit hasn’t happened with Russia and China trying to take over the world. Well for one, Russia have clearly already started with Crimea and then Ukraine. China are eyeing up Taiwan. But yes they aren’t going full on world war 3 yet as I say, LITERALLY BECAUSE OF NATO PREVENTING THEM FROM DOING SO. They wouldn’t dare invade a NATO country.
You take away NATO and the situation completely changes. So obviously things would be massively different.
Dude, Trump would be a nightmare on foreign policy. All Putin would have to do is give him a compliment and he’ll start trading sensitive documents with him.
I suspect a big part of the war lust in America is because politicians are getting hand jobs and bribes from people who benefit in the defence industry. Trump is certainly not above being bribed.
The way he spoke to North Korea’s leader whose name has escaped me for now.. king jung un? Or something. The way he spoke to him could have potentially caused a fucking nuclear war. He got lucky and came out of it looking good, there was no skill there just absolute stupid luck.
You want America to pull out of NATO? Wtf? Haha maybe you didn’t mean that? Hopefully not cos that would be crazy and yeah he could well pull the US out of NATO, so again - not good.
I’m not understanding you at all in thinking Trump would be good for foreign policy.
At no point did I say he'd be good for foreign policy. What I said is that he's (incorrectly) accused of stuff that, if true, would be good for foreign policy.
Yes, that's more or less what I meant when I said that, while he isn't ideologically committed to being pro-war, he isn't ideologically opposed either, so the machine can continue uninterrupted.
Yes, I would like the US to pull out of NATO. I'm an isolationist, and I don't see how US global hegemony or adventurism benefits me as an American citizen, or anyone else outside of the elite.
Trump isn't going to pull out of NATO, of course.
NATO is a good organisation, it's a defensive organisation.
Thinking that leaving or destroying/weaken NATO is good is just being fooled by the dictators held in check by NATO.
Why don't you tell the Libyans about how "defensive" of an organization NATO is? It's "defensive" in the same way the US department of "defense" has led invasions of countless countries and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Even if that were true, the US is an extremely belligerent and aggressive country, so giving it cover only enables it to act aggressively without fear of repercussions or backlash.
Well clearly you just don't understand that the US has to make a living somehow!
Can't you let a man work?!
US is not NATO. Sheesh.
Well sorta
Libya and Gadaffi was a french operation. But even, yeah just let Russia have its way right.
Literally the first sentence lmao.
Yeah you don't know your history.
By the way, what's your take on Tianmen square and the Uyghurs?
Lmao, you literally only know two events from all of history, don't you?
Its a litmus test, now answer please.
Edit: Busted!
Never been. US News and World Report rates it as the #6 thing to do in Beijing, so I will defer to their take on it. Apparently, the square itself is just a big concrete area but it's nearby some other tourist attractions.
Never met one.
Wtf is y'all's deal with this shit? You bring up these same two things in every conversation, regardless of how completely irrelevant they are, and then if the other person doesn't kowtow you act like you "busted" them? Absolutely bizarre, nonsensical behavior.
Congratulations, you revealed that I'm not a part of your tribe, which I never pretended to be in the first place. I guess now it doesn't matter that I proved you objectively wrong now, because I'm the "other," so your little in-group can write off anything I say, no matter how correct and sourced it is. Blue MAGA shit.
Lol I'm not even american.
You're busted as a CCP boot licker and troll (from .ml so yeah that's a simple one).
Liberals are so weird lmfao
I propose we do debates, and also do roasts like on Comedy Central. The candidates get to point out eachother's flaws. That would be fun.
I don't understand how that would be different from the debates.
One is (usually) more serious/professional and the other more casual/fun.
Hah! In that case, what you should propose is that we have a different event that's actually a serious debate, and rebrand what we have now as comedy roasts, without changing a thing.
Debates are pure entertainment, it's just a bunch of quips, one-liners, and power plays. There's no serious, formal discussion of anything. It's glorified reality TV for nerds who would be too good for it otherwise. And that's something that predates Trump, it's part of what set the stage for him.
The sad part is his base won't care how stupid he looks and how great she does. They're beyond reasoning. I do look forward to our future President kicking the shit out of him at the debate though.
Debates aren't for the candidate's supporters. They're for the undecided voters. How anyone is still undecided at this point is the real mystery
Back in 2004 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney said that if you couldn't decide between George Bush and John Kerry in five minutes you were too stupid to have a vote.
edit = I had 2000 not 2004. credit wreel for noting it
Al Gore was 2000. John Kerry was 2004. But your point still stands. Any fuckwad who's "on the fence" might only be barely above "too stupid to breath".
You are correct and I'll edit.
I'm convinced anyone who claims they're undecided is just being polite to the pollster instead of telling them "none of your business". Or "undecided" is some statistical construct based on the last 70 years of data. Or, someone who hasn't been paying attention and doesn't want to admit to their own apathy.
The idea that someone has thoroughly weighed the offerings and is still waiting for more information to make a decision is utter fucking nonsense.
I think it's not so much people who are undecided about who they will vote for, and more people who are undecided whether they will bother to vote for their preferred candidate or just stay home.
It’s more like vote or go to work. I really don’t get why this country doesn’t hold elections on a day where most people can participate. Actually I do get it, but I don’t get how people can still think of the USA as a democracy
Why have a specific day? Why not have a two week period, this would have almost everyone not having to choose between work and voting.
What time can you vote from then? I think in the UK it’s 7am-10pm so surely anyone can make it at some point during then?? If it’s the same there… but to be honest at least making it a two day thing seems like a decent option.
But I struggle to see how you can’t make it between 7am and 10pm. It should be a legal right that your workplace has to let you have time to vote at some point during the day.
I had a quick google of this (I’m from UK) and it seems to indicate that in most states you can actually vote early.
Well specifically it says:
For the 2024 Presidential General Election, early voting will be available from Thursday, October 24, 2024 through Thursday, October 31, 2024 (including Saturday and Sunday) from 7 am to 8 pm.
That’s for Maryland. Gotta say it’s confusing that you seem to have different rules in different states, well not just confusing but actually undemocratic surely? Because it means some people in some states will have an easier time voting than others so are more likely to vote.
Surely it should be exactly the same rules in every state. I’m assuming now that the times you can vote on the actual day may even be different depending on state.
I get that you have different laws in different states for stuff. But surely for voting, it should be the exact same rules, because you’re electing the president of the whole of the USA not your state. (Although maybe you technically actually are only voting for the elector in your state that then casts their vote on your behalf, I even read that there have been rare occasions where the state elector went against what their state voted for!?)
I dunno. Seems a little crazy and quite confusing.
From what I read is that republican led states usually make it harder to vote than democratic states, but I haven’t looked further into this.
This whole process of voting in the US seems very outdated to me (I am from Europe too). I know that it is hard to fundamentally change the system as long as nothing goes completely wrong. Germany had big loopholes in the constitution during the Republic of Weimar too. Changing this was easy after the total defeat during the Second World War. I have no idea how you could get through with updating the complete political system of a more or less „functional“ country. Even less if the country is as divided as the US is at the moment
There’s a lot of Americans who don’t follow news and to them they only started paying attention after Labor Day.
I was going to say the real mystery is how anyone could vote for the racist, but then yeah, that's why they're voting for him. We have a lot of shitty people in this country, but then again, the world is full of shitty people.
The low information voters who are still undecided will not respond to a reasonable person, they need a show of strength.
I hope Harris doesn’t over prepare, she does need to maintain a certain level of off the cuff affability.
Over preparation was Biden’s fatal error, he was struggling so hard to hit his talking points he couldn’t keep things straight. Obviously things are vastly different with Harris, but she’d be best to not just be a talking point machine.
That's the main reason I gave up on watching political debates years ago, because nothing ever gets directly answered. It's all fillers and boasting about past hurrahs and talking points.
If they just answered the fucking questions I'd be happy.
Calling these things presidential "debates" is rich, indeed.
I totally see your point.
But with the switch from "when they go low,..." to "fuck it, we can hut below the belt even better", I gotta admit I am quite interested to see how she will handle a formal debate: Hammer phrases like everyone before or hitting hard and agile.
Idk, somehow I feel we might see something refreshing this time.
Maybe I'll watch the highlights or something 'cause I can't stand Trump's voice, his meandering and the bullshit he spews. His mere existence just pisses me off to no end.
Preach
The media spent so much time focusing on zingers over ideas, they kinda created the mess.
well one advantage she has is that she's not legally dead.
also she seems to actually study things to understand them, not to parrot them by heart. being a prosecutor she probably knows how to study things and make cases.
Biden’s stutter leads him to greatly overprepare.
What she needs to be doing is trumping all over Trump. Like farting all over his face. No cancel that. Not farting. She needs to be consistently SHARTING all over his face, all over his whiskers and in his mouth.
Yessss… yessss.
Side note: fuck Shapiro that guys a fucking sellout like I’ve never liked the guy at all. Obviously. And I’ve never really thought he was actually principled. But like he has always tried to act like he’s super rational and it just makes no sense that he could still be supporting someone who blatantly tried to steal the election to stop the transfer of power.
His excuses to justify still supporting Trump make me sick and he also needs a caking of shart IMO.
Yes they do Donnie. I wonder if you'll remember that when you're laid out on the debate stage from the beatdown Kamala inflicts on your orange ass.
He's into being spanked on the ass. Ask Stormy Daniels.
Well yeah. Because Trump’s strategy will just be to talk about all the shit he already talks about, regardless of the question. If he does actually try to answer the question he will likely just waffle, call things fake news, call Kamala a communist, shit like that. Kamala will have a normal strategy of actually answering the questions like literally any other politician would in any other debate. Hopefully she can also shut down Trump with a few simple similar to “he’s weird” comments, because even though it’s a shame that they work, they do actually work for just dismissing his bullshit and are simple to understand for the simple minded.
As I say, it’s a shame so many people are apparently that simple, that stuff like “make America great again” and “fake news, that’s just fake news” actually work: but they do work for persuading certain simple minded people who the Democrats need votes from.
It’s kinda how the whole “when they go low we go high” thing doesn’t actually work as a complete strategy.
Yes she needs to be making coherent, actual points as well. But having the odd simple put down and knowing when something Trump has said is so insane, that it actually doesn’t deserve a proper answer, but simply a dismissal is important.
Otherwise you end up being on the defensive constantly and run out of time to actually make your own coherent points.
Will you shut up, man?
I doubt it. I don’t usually.
Sorry, I agree with you. It reminded me of this line from Biden during the 2020 debate with Trump. It had similar energy to what you're saying and just cut through Trump's bullshit to highlight what we were all thinking.
Ohh Biden said “will you shut up man?” to Trump? Aha that’s pretty funny.
https://youtu.be/LxZM5wB3nVM
We bought coffee mugs with it etched on them; we use them daily.
I would enjoy it if she brought out a large 2 minute countdown timer to start every time he starts talking.