politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
This is exciting, and I'm hopeful that this will accelerate her momentum. But I don't think we can count Trump out yet. If nothing else, he's usually good at playing to his base.
Harris has a lot of pressure on her. People are basically expecting a total domination from her, so anything less than that could derail her momentum very fast. And Trump might be terrible at classic debating, but he is actually very adept at bulldozing others by ignoring speaking in turns, deploying a fire hose of lies and misinformation and loudly talking over others.
Let's hope for good moderation.
Remember that Harris is an experienced prosecutor. Her literal job has been dealing with liars, cheats, and various scummy and desperate lawyers for years. If anyone can shut down the Trump oral vomit, it's going to be her.
She is, but Trump is special. I don't know that any previous experience will necessarily apply. In the courtroom she would have always been empowered by speaking from a position of authority - Trump will show her no such decorum.
That's on the moderation, and I can't say I've seen good moderation for the big debates in a long time. They should bring in a grade school teacher who does regular debate classes and let them do what they know how to do.
I guess I left that part unsaid, but yes. With good moderation Trump wouldn't be able to run his schtick - but here we are. We have to play the hand we're dealt.
I hear Katie Porter needs a gig and she would be a fearsome moderator.
Trump is special because other people give him decorum. She's not likely to. She's playing to win.
That's what I'm saying, I think she needs to be authoritative and push back against him. None of the kids gloves wait-for-the-moderators-to-intervene bullshit. Put your foot down, put him in his place. Stare him down.
In the actual courtroom he was insulting the jury, and even a judge who could issue contempt charges was struggling to keep order.
Or the previous trial described by the news as "tantrums in court", talking over the witnesses and arguing with the judge.
I think every time he interrupts her she should just stop talking and wait until he’s quiet again, then continue whatever she was saying without addressing anything brought up outside of his allotted times.
Keep projecting “the adult in the room” energy. She isn’t allowed to get frustrated because she’s a black woman. That’s the sad reality.
I'd like to hear an "anyway" when he's done and she gets back to her point. Like completely ignore his existence for a moment.
Problem is she might not get single word out with this strategy
If all Trump does is interrupt the entire time and sound like an idiot I guarantee you that anybody who is “on the fence“ or moderate or whatever will not see that as winning. There is also zero chance he will just keep doing it and not explode on camera. The point is to not let him fight on his terms. If you get into a shouting match with Donald Trump you are losing. It gives him opportunities to just drop shitty/sarcastic one liners that people love.
Trump sounded like an idiot against Hillary too and went in with interruptions like the classic shouted "No puppet! You're the puppet!" and he didn't seem to scare any voters away then. In fact, if I recall right the consensus was the debates were at best a tie for Hillary.
Yes because she kept trying to make snarky comebacks and talk on top of him as a response. When you’re a woman you’re not allowed to do that.
Not only that but she can't come across as condescending either because she's a black woman.
At the end of the day she must cater to low-info battleground state swing-voters. That is her target audience because she can do no right in the eyes of maga and she doesn't really have to worry about Democrats.
So what will someone like my uncle who fits that description respond positively to in such a debate?
Probably not a pissing contest, but constantly pivoting directly to saying, "look I hear you. I understand many of you are feeling the pressure in the economy. You've been told it's getting better but many of you aren't feeling it. I understand. But we have a plan to relieve some of that pressure. And while we aren't where we want to be, our country has recovered following the pandemic better than any country in the world. Slow and steady wins the race, and electing someone as volatile as Donald Trump who only helps his rich friends will not help the markets."
I hope she brings up the piss tape and calls him an orange bitch.
Once he starts, he won't stop. So that would be a failed plan by Harris.
Yes. I would love to hear her say, literally, "I heard everything you said but I didn't hear anything worth listening too. Anyway back on topic."
I don't know, that seems like something the Dems of old would do. "They go low, we go high" kind of thing. And also would let Trump completely control the flow, which is what he wants. I suspect the only way to beat him is to match him in loudness and push back with authority.
I don't think you can beat him by being "fair", you have to beat him at his own game.
It’s not even going high. It’s strategic. If you start shouting on top of him then you are just playing his game, plus moderators will inevitably have to tell him to stop talking. If she is playing his game they can’t do that because then it looks like they are playing favorites.
I liked how Pete buttejudge handled it on Fox News last week. He just kept talking as if the host wasn't there.
What’s interesting is Pete didn’t come off as rude, to me, even though he completely steamrolled them lol
Maybe say something like "well that was weird" and then, like you say, just go back to her point.
Blow a raspberry when he starts talking shit.