You're viewing a single thread.
I saw the clip and I wish the moderators or Kamala had the balls to ask:
Where did you see that on TV and are you concerned misinformation is so advanced that even you are falling for it?
He'd have 100% thrown someone under the bus like he did with Faux News, it was a huge opportunity to frame it in a way that trump would burn any bridge to avoid looking dumb.
I think the point was to show the world how batshit crazy Trump was. He showed it and Kamala moved on to the next topic
Honestly, it reminded me of watching a cross examination in a courtroom drama. You get the witness to say what you want them to say, get it on record in front of the jury, then you move on before they get the chance to undo any of the damage they just did to themselves.
It was perfect!
Does it show him as crazy or do voters eat it up? I have no idea anymore.
His voters think that he is the path to Christian Fascism- their only chance at it, in fact. They will overlook everything because they think they have no choice.
His voters eat it up. Fox news will use every little bit of newspeak to change the story
Fox news actually posted the "He'll eat you for breakfast" line on their Youtube channel. I'm not sure they think that makes harris look bad or if they are trying to wash their hands of trump.
I think the point was to show the world how batshit crazy Trump was.
Everyone has already known for decades now. That accomplishes nothing. Causing him to burn more bridges however is a tangible loss.
There are a lot of people, who do not care about politics at all and maybe just go and vote in the next election. Please do not underestimate how little the average voter cares.
Votes come into 2 groups:
-
Partisans, who follow politics to a degree, informed, and already know who they are going to vote.
-
The Masses, they don't follow politics. They may watch the debate and probably going to decide who to vote on either one issue or on "vibes".
-
Yup, we talked about the election, and my coworker didn't even know who was running and didn't plan to vote.
I wouldn't say "perfect" she did what an average American would be able to do it's just impossible to not compare her to Biden and trump.
Mr Bean would look like the orator of his generation (what we used to say about Biden 40 years ago) if we're only comparing him to Biden and trump.
We can't just ignore Kamala's faults, if we do the only pressure she'll have the next four years is to move to the right.
Don't get complacent, the fascists won't.
So I'm fine with saying Kamal did well, fine with saying she didn't great even.
But we should never say a candidate is perfect.
Bruh, I’m talking about debate performance exclusively. She did perfect! I think there were a lot of subtle things she did that manipulated Trump into acting the way he did.
I’m proud of her!
May I split a hair?
I’d say… easier to defend “nearly perfect” - I’m sure if she created an edit where she gave new answers (think, magically, from a position of ignorance about what the opposition was about to say) it would be even better and could get to all but truly perfect.
I caught about 2-3 wording fumbles early on. Hey I’ll take it, that’s not a knock, wouldn’t bring it up outside the context of discussing perfect performances.
Wish we’d had her in the last debate :-/
She did perfect!
So you think Kamala has zero room for improvement and it can only get worse from last night?
Because that's what perfect means, not a single bit that could have been handled better
If I say you bowled a perfect game, that doesn’t mean every aspect of your life is perfect and everything will only ever get worse for you. It means in that one game you played, you could not do any better. Maybe in the future you can bowl perfect games as well, but you can never beat that game.
Her debate performance was perfect. If she has a future debate, I believe it could only be worse.
This says nothing about Kamala as a person or candidate or vice/president or even as a bowler.
It's wild that you had to explain the context of your remark as though it wasn't already clear as crystal.
It's just because the other guy is fishing for some kind of "gotcha" comment tbh
It makes sense that Harris would have to pick and choose what she fact checked or she'd be spending all her time doing that.
Yeah, she was making a very conscious decision to basically always respond, "That's a lie, here's why, not back to the actual question..."
Asking back is playing their game and letting them further their lies and misinformation.
They did ask, Trump talked over the mods. I can't find a clip of the entire exchange, but the mod asked later as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5qoaj3YndQ
Wow, I didn't watch the debate and now I'm kind of regretting that decision. That was hilarious.
You can still watch it on CSPAN if you want to. I was glad I went back and watched its entirety because watching her skill at taking him down was something. The first 10 minutes are kind of scary, he seemed normal and accessible. Then she started her campaign.
I may. There's no way watching the debates will change who I'm voting for, so it's relatively low on my list of priorities. But if it's entertaining, I'll give it a watch.
I found it really entertaining if you like someone skillfully tearing someone apart. She let herself and trump get comfortable and then she stabbed him over and over with her words. She said things we've all wanted to say while using a lot of his terms. This was a masterclass. She stumbled maybe 2x in front of a psychopath, I thought it was pretty good.
Here's the CSPAN link: https://www.c-span.org/video/?538053-1/simulcast-abc-news-presidential-debate