|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 11 2024 12:30 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2024 12:22 Introvert wrote:
Didn't hear the end, but it seems like no one will learn anything new and the moderators were terrible. Trump was angry and takes every piece of bait, while Kamala dodges her record and tries to cover it up by promising to give people money. They both failed.
Trump's a known quantity, but seems to me the way Kamala has campaigned I think she had more to prove, but spent most of her time dodging or repeating resist lib fantasies like dooming about project 2025. Both lived down to my expectations. But like Clinton v Trump, they'll say she ran away with it. But it didn't matter. Everyone will say their person did their job. You're trying to be objective, but you're not. Harris did a way better job staying mostly on topic (no debater ever says "yes I take responsibility for xyz that's negatively going to hurt my campaign") while trump was just bad at everything. He was trying to bully Harris and it didn't work. Objectively, Harris won that debate. It did no favors for trump and it was probably detrimental to a certain degree. Calm and composed vs rambling and angry.
I mean the people in this thread were always going to say Trump did badly, I'm not sure who here is objective. At least for my part I have disdain for both of them. But that's just what it seemed like to me. She didn't really make the case for herself, she just attacked Trump almost the whole time. When confronted with her own previous positions she didn't have a compelling answer. I think she took on the much harder task. She's already losing the "not-Biden" bounce. How many more voters who are undecided heard what she said and decided to vote her vs how many decided to vote for Trump? Again, talking about things like project 2025, camp David, the endorsement of the previously-but-no-longer war monger and war criminal Cheney family (seriously as if we needed any more evidence that dems never believe a word of what they say when they accuse someone of warmongering). All silly things that no one really cares about. Listen, I don't think Trump did himself any favors, but if she gains at all it could easily fade away again.
It's not important if she's "calm and composed" if she did little to answer any of the questions voters might have. Put it this way, I think you see in this debate why she's hiding from questions so much. She probably never becomes AG or senator if she ran in any state besides California. She really is a terrible advocate for herself, and she hides for a reason.
On September 11 2024 13:11 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2024 12:22 Introvert wrote:
Didn't hear the end, but it seems like no one will learn anything new and the moderators were terrible. Trump was angry and takes every piece of bait, while Kamala dodges her record and tries to cover it up by promising to give people money. They both failed.
Trump's a known quantity, but seems to me the way Kamala has campaigned I think she had more to prove, but spent most of her time dodging or repeating resist lib fantasies like dooming about project 2025. Both lived down to my expectations. But like Clinton v Trump, they'll say she ran away with it. But it didn't matter. Everyone will say their person did their job. People "doomed" about the Supreme Court, too. You and other right wingers are going to rinse and repeat on the whole spiel where you ask everyone to find it in their hearts to take Trump at face value, when he lies even to you. The man took no responsibility for anything tonight. Not things he's done in the past, not things he said, not things he did as president, not even other things he said tonight. He always found someone else to blame. He takes no responsibility for what everyone knows his policy platform is going to be. We've gone from "the buck stops here" to "I had nothing to do with it. Why didn't the Democrats just fire more people?" You deserve to have standards, too. This was a joke and you know it. Other people understand Trump. He'll say anything to get back in the White House and fall neatly in line with Project 2025 as soon as he can comfortably do so. More than just being an agenda he likes, it's a plan that other people came up with, so he doesn't even need to think about his plan. Again, other people did all the hard work for him. He'll claim to be against it until the day he gives its authors positions in his cabinet.
Did I say Trump did a good job? I take the fact that this post is all about how bad Trump is and nothing about Kamala as evidence of my above point. Come to think of it, far less praise of Kamala generally over the past two months compared to Clinton 2016 or even Biden 2020. No one thinks she's very good, just that Trump sucks. But most people already think that and yet the race is still a toss up. Need more.
|
On September 11 2024 13:11 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2024 12:22 Introvert wrote:
Didn't hear the end, but it seems like no one will learn anything new and the moderators were terrible. Trump was angry and takes every piece of bait, while Kamala dodges her record and tries to cover it up by promising to give people money. They both failed.
Trump's a known quantity, but seems to me the way Kamala has campaigned I think she had more to prove, but spent most of her time dodging or repeating resist lib fantasies like dooming about project 2025. Both lived down to my expectations. But like Clinton v Trump, they'll say she ran away with it. But it didn't matter. Everyone will say their person did their job. People "doomed" about the Supreme Court, too. You and other right wingers are going to rinse and repeat on the whole spiel where you ask everyone to find it in their hearts to take Trump at face value, when he lies even to you. The man took no responsibility for anything tonight. Not things he's done in the past, not things he said, not things he did as president, not even other things he said tonight. He always found someone else to blame. We've gone from "the buck stops here" to "I had nothing to do with it. Why didn't the Democrats just fire more people?" You deserve to have standards, too. Other people understand Trump. He'll say anything to get back in the White House and fall neatly in line with Project 2025 as soon as he can comfortably do so. More than just being an agenda he likes, it's a plan that other people came up with, so he doesn't even need to think about his plan. Again, other people did all the hard work for him. He'll claim to be against it until the day he gives its authors positions in his cabinet.
you take trump at his face value and he's an unhinged, rambling, incoherent moron. he crumbles at the first sign of resistance. this dude is on the level of a bronze player in SC when zerglings show up to scout their base. he's absolutely rancidly shit at this. the funniest part is someone thinking that somehow kamala harris is a bad public speaker and that this debate was ever going to go any other way. lol and dare i say lmao.
dude got shit on. best he could do was hit the tony hawk 5x combo on "forcing transgender operations on immigrant prisoners" and even then you take that at face value and you have to wonder what fucking world this idiot lives in.
how the fuck did anyone vote for him at all and why did the republicans let him coup their party? it's crazy. a bold political strategy, if one were to consider throwing an election a bold political strategy.
you don't even have to write the dunks. dude did it to himself. funniest shit to watch in the past two years.
|
Introvert, it doesn't make the point you think it does that all people can talk about is how fucking trash Trump was in the debate. Did Kamala say much that's new? No, not really. Is a debate the best place to say a lot that people haven't heard before? I dunno, doesn't seem that way to me, you get 2 minutes on each topic. But having a guy who couldn't help but respond to every statement with "but immigration" or some unhinged rant about how "these people" are taking our jobs and eating our pets should absolutely be the Republicans' problem! I dunno what else you want people to say.
It's certainly revealing if people think whatever *that* was was Trump doing his job. To anyone not already voting for him, he looked like a deranged lunatic. He's redefining TDS for you in real time.
|
I'm saying that Trump was Trump (not that he was "doing his job" whatever that means). He's the most well known politician in the country, who has massive vulnerabilities, and yet is at least even odds to win the presidency again. I think rather than preach the choir, she should have made her own case. That's hard because she's VP to the a very unpopular president (shades of 1968 there). She didn't really do that, she spoke to the type of people who think Project 2025 is creeping fascism (those who even know what it is). In fact I think you are one of those people who like to bring it up. She was speaking to *you*. But *you* were already voting for her. So what did she gain?
|
On September 11 2024 13:38 Introvert wrote:
I'm saying that Trump was Trump (not that he was "doing his job" whatever that means). He's the most well known politician in the country, who has massive vulnerabilities, and yet is at least even odds to win the presidency again. I think rather than preach the choir, she should have made her own case. That's hard because she's VP to the a very unpopular president (shades of 1968 there). She didn't really do that, she spoke to the type of people who think Project 2025 is creeping fascism (those who even know what it is). In fact I think you are one of those people who like to bring it up. She was speaking to *you*. But *you* were already voting for her. So what did she gain?
You can't separate her mention of Project 2025 and say that's all she did, though. As you said, Trump was Trump. He cried immigration about every issue he could and lost his mind when Kamala mentioned his rallies. She was the only person who, to an undecided voter, looked capable of taking on the job and representing the United States. She spoke to him, she spoke to me, but I think her main strategy was to act as a foil to an unhinged Trump and speak to people who are still making up their mind. Like it or not, Biden proved that works.
|
On September 11 2024 13:43 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2024 13:38 Introvert wrote:
I'm saying that Trump was Trump (not that he was "doing his job" whatever that means). He's the most well known politician in the country, who has massive vulnerabilities, and yet is at least even odds to win the presidency again. I think rather than preach the choir, she should have made her own case. That's hard because she's VP to the a very unpopular president (shades of 1968 there). She didn't really do that, she spoke to the type of people who think Project 2025 is creeping fascism (those who even know what it is). In fact I think you are one of those people who like to bring it up. She was speaking to *you*. But *you* were already voting for her. So what did she gain? You can't separate her mention of Project 2025 and say that's all she did, though. As you said, Trump was Trump. He cried immigration about every issue he could and lost his mind when Kamala mentioned his rallies. She was the only person who, to an undecided voter, looked capable of taking on the job and representing the United States. She spoke to him, she spoke to me, but I think her main strategy was to act as a foil to an unhinged Trump and speak to people who are still making up their mind. Like it or not, Biden proved that works.
I like the mention project 2025 because I think it's one of the best examples of something extremely silly that dems have latched on to. I bring it up because I've seen multiple people in this thread say things like "we have to vote for Harris to stop project 2025." And it was a constant theme of the Dem convention. It's hilarious. We could talk about how she embraced the endorsement of a "war criminal" with "blood on his hands" who was a key part of an administration where "Bush lied and people died." That would be fun! I might leave that to Greenhorizons though.
Either way, maybe she'll gain a point in the polling average for a little while but I suspect we already had the very important debate, the one that forced Biden out. We shall see.
|
You're repeatedly insinuating that Project 2025 is something that will be of no moment if Trump wins. A) Trump bullshits constantly, his people wrote the book, B) His entire 4 year record as president would beg to differ, and C) We've seen what happens when we take Republicans at face value. So I won't be taking you at face value on this one. You can repeat yourself as much as you like.
|
TRANSGENDER OPERATIONS ON ILLEGAL ALIENS THAT ARE IN PRISON
That's all.
|
On September 11 2024 13:00 Falling wrote:
These debates are terrible. ABC is so high on their 'historical debates' but these journalists don't know how to moderate. Whatever happened to the mute button?
I'm sure there are a number of quotes the Democrats can farm, but there needs to be more back and forth on less topics and hard time limits. Any time Trump got the first word, he also managed to butt in and get the last word too. I would give up the idea fact checking moderators as it just allows conservative media to say the debate was biased against their guy. Give more cross-examination time on each topic and let the candidates fact check each other.
But there absolutely cannot be extra time, every time for the candidate that believes they can walk all over the moderator.
I think Harris laid a lot of traps and Trump sprung them all. However, I don't think Harris was very good at digging in the dagger once he sprung them. But that's largely because they do one round of talk and then try to move on to the next topic while Trump gets one last dig in while Harris waits her turn. She did it a couple times towards the end where she started using her talking time on the new topic defang some of the stuff Trump threw at her in his extra time, but she needed to do that more and earlier and insist on having a reply to each one of his interrupted talking times.
Let Munk debates run these things. Nearly every journalist run presidential debate and especially the primary debates are clown shows.
Edit.
Right, yeah. 90 minute debate with twelve debate topics. TWELVE!
So something like 7.5 minutes per topic or 3 and change minutes per candidate per topic (If speaking times were even, and that's a big if.) That is simply not enough time to dig into anything of substance.
Eh, not sure the moderators/format are to blame as much as the participants. Munk moderation is pretty hands off as well and speakers don't get interrupted. It would just be longer time for Trump to ramble. You're not going to get anything of substance from either of these candidates no matter how long they have to speak. Trump has a 3 pronged plan on every issue 1. I'm going to stop them from destroying it. 2. I'm going to fix it. 3. I'm going to make it great again.
|
On September 11 2024 12:22 Introvert wrote:
Didn't hear the end, but it seems like no one will learn anything new and the moderators were terrible. Trump was angry and takes every piece of bait, while Kamala dodges her record and tries to cover it up by promising to give people money. They both failed.
Trump's a known quantity, but seems to me the way Kamala has campaigned I think she had more to prove, but spent most of her time dodging or repeating resist lib fantasies like dooming about project 2025. Both lived down to my expectations. But like Clinton v Trump, they'll say she ran away with it. But it didn't matter. Everyone will say their person did their job.
Ughh tired of these "BOTH ARE BAD" type of arguments. Can you just stop and just look at the debate for what it is. Dude just literally rambled on how immigrants eat dogs and cats. Jesus, just try to look at it and who's the more sane one here.
|
On September 11 2024 14:47 Shinokuki wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2024 12:22 Introvert wrote:
Didn't hear the end, but it seems like no one will learn anything new and the moderators were terrible. Trump was angry and takes every piece of bait, while Kamala dodges her record and tries to cover it up by promising to give people money. They both failed.
Trump's a known quantity, but seems to me the way Kamala has campaigned I think she had more to prove, but spent most of her time dodging or repeating resist lib fantasies like dooming about project 2025. Both lived down to my expectations. But like Clinton v Trump, they'll say she ran away with it. But it didn't matter. Everyone will say their person did their job. Ughh tired of these "BOTH ARE BAD" type of arguments. Can you just stop and just look at the debate for what it is. Dude just literally rambled on how immigrants eat dogs and cats. Jesus, just try to look at it and who's the more sane one here.
You're missing his point that nobody is going to be swayed by Trump being angry and rambling unless they've been in a coma for the last 10 years
|
On September 11 2024 14:53 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2024 14:47 Shinokuki wrote:On September 11 2024 12:22 Introvert wrote:
Didn't hear the end, but it seems like no one will learn anything new and the moderators were terrible. Trump was angry and takes every piece of bait, while Kamala dodges her record and tries to cover it up by promising to give people money. They both failed.
Trump's a known quantity, but seems to me the way Kamala has campaigned I think she had more to prove, but spent most of her time dodging or repeating resist lib fantasies like dooming about project 2025. Both lived down to my expectations. But like Clinton v Trump, they'll say she ran away with it. But it didn't matter. Everyone will say their person did their job. Ughh tired of these "BOTH ARE BAD" type of arguments. Can you just stop and just look at the debate for what it is. Dude just literally rambled on how immigrants eat dogs and cats. Jesus, just try to look at it and who's the more sane one here. You're missing his point that nobody is going to be swayed by Trump being angry and rambling unless they've been in a coma for the last 10 years
There's probably lot of undecided voters who are tired of this shit. TBH i was pretty intrigued by his 2016 political campaigns because he seemed vastly different from your usual politicians. But now, even the undecided voters are catching onto his scam tactics and the shine has worn off. It truly feels like people will more likely to vote for a reasonable candidate. Obviously there are still 30% of voters who will vote for him even if he rapes their own mothers. I have no hope if either of them wins. It's all the same shit anyways. People in power want status quo and make sure this unbalanced system keeps going. It's up to them and I don't really blame them because we all got our own agendas to strive for happiness. Enough with politics talk as it is pretty useless gossip
|
On September 11 2024 14:39 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2024 13:00 Falling wrote:
These debates are terrible. ABC is so high on their 'historical debates' but these journalists don't know how to moderate. Whatever happened to the mute button?
I'm sure there are a number of quotes the Democrats can farm, but there needs to be more back and forth on less topics and hard time limits. Any time Trump got the first word, he also managed to butt in and get the last word too. I would give up the idea fact checking moderators as it just allows conservative media to say the debate was biased against their guy. Give more cross-examination time on each topic and let the candidates fact check each other.
But there absolutely cannot be extra time, every time for the candidate that believes they can walk all over the moderator.
I think Harris laid a lot of traps and Trump sprung them all. However, I don't think Harris was very good at digging in the dagger once he sprung them. But that's largely because they do one round of talk and then try to move on to the next topic while Trump gets one last dig in while Harris waits her turn. She did it a couple times towards the end where she started using her talking time on the new topic defang some of the stuff Trump threw at her in his extra time, but she needed to do that more and earlier and insist on having a reply to each one of his interrupted talking times.
Let Munk debates run these things. Nearly every journalist run presidential debate and especially the primary debates are clown shows.
Edit.
Right, yeah. 90 minute debate with twelve debate topics. TWELVE!
So something like 7.5 minutes per topic or 3 and change minutes per candidate per topic (If speaking times were even, and that's a big if.) That is simply not enough time to dig into anything of substance. Eh, not sure the moderators/format are to blame as much as the participants. Munk moderation is pretty hands off as well and speakers don't get interrupted. It would just be longer time for Trump to ramble. You're not going to get anything of substance from either of these candidates no matter how long they have to speak. Trump has a 3 pronged plan on every issue 1. I'm going to stop them from destroying it. 2. I'm going to fix it. 3. I'm going to make it great again.
Agreed. It's nice to dream of truth, honesty, and policy mattering, but there's zero point being honest and truthful and accountable if there's no agreement to good faith. Ideally you'd make yourself appear a stronger candidate by being honest and accountable, but in reality you'd just look weaker and worse. If it worked another way you wouldn't be stuck with Trump in the first place.
|
I wonder how "special" someone needs to be to be undecided about Trump at this point.
|
On September 11 2024 16:04 Velr wrote:
I wonder how "special" someone needs to be to be undecided about Trump at this point.
Not that special. There are conservatives who do not like Trump, but could still vote for him. The worse Trump looks, the more of them will stay home. Republicans are using the same tactic the other way, and very successfully so against Hillary.
|
On September 11 2024 16:04 Velr wrote:
I wonder how "special" someone needs to be to be undecided about Trump at this point.
There are a lot of people who tune out from politics until shortly before an election.
|
On September 11 2024 16:56 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2024 16:04 Velr wrote:
I wonder how "special" someone needs to be to be undecided about Trump at this point. There are a lot of people who tune out from politics until shortly before an election.
The guy was allready president and is basically omnipresent in all media. If you haven't formed an opinion on Trump over the last ~10 years, then you are just not a serious person.
|
On September 11 2024 12:38 Djabanete wrote:
We the lurkers thank you, DarkPlasmaBall!
On September 11 2024 13:03 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2024 12:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Pretty happy with the debate tonight. Harris was far from perfect, but she clearly won. Trump got baited over and over again and mostly rambled. Thanks for the summary, the tl;dw is much appreciated.
You're very welcome 
I'll try to do the same for the remaining debates too.
|
On September 11 2024 17:04 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2024 16:56 maybenexttime wrote:On September 11 2024 16:04 Velr wrote:
I wonder how "special" someone needs to be to be undecided about Trump at this point. There are a lot of people who tune out from politics until shortly before an election. The guy was allready president and is basically omnipresent in all media. If you haven't formed an opinion on Trump over the last ~10 years, then you are just not a serious person.
Very true. My guess is that you would have a hard time to find people here in Germany who don't already have an opinion on Trump. I haven't met one yet. How do you manage that in the US? I guess if someone lives on a remote farm without TV or radio, and only goes into town once a year to sell their produce?
|
On September 11 2024 13:38 Introvert wrote:
I'm saying that Trump was Trump (not that he was "doing his job" whatever that means). He's the most well known politician in the country, who has massive vulnerabilities, and yet is at least even odds to win the presidency again. I think rather than preach the choir, she should have made her own case. That's hard because she's VP to the a very unpopular president (shades of 1968 there). She didn't really do that, she spoke to the type of people who think Project 2025 is creeping fascism (those who even know what it is). In fact I think you are one of those people who like to bring it up. She was speaking to *you*. But *you* were already voting for her. So what did she gain?
I don't get the argument here "Trump was Trump". Are you saying that we should disregard the fact that he's a moron because he's a moron?
I will give this to Trump, I don't think he's lying when he says he has nothing to do with project 2025 and knows nothing about it. It's a 900+ document. I can't picture Trump getting past the title page. The whole thing is just too difficult for him to understand. Trump can only grasp simple concepts like "build a wall to stop immigration" or "raise tariffs so other countries pay us more".
The more I listen to him, the less I understand why would anyone put him in charge of anything, never mind the presidency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
