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
Strategically speaking, why does Harris want open mics? I thought Dems pushed for the muted mics to prevent Trump from blabbering past his time? Seems like a situation that would make it hard for Harris to get a word in otherwise, trying to understand the benefit.
Probably because they think when (not if) Trump blabbers while Harris is trying to speak, it will make Trump look bad in front of undecided voters. I think they're right.
Team Harris might even try to pull a Chris Christie, who predicted what Rubio would say and watched his prediction come true, eg
Harris: "As a former prosecutor, I believe in following the rules. But Trump believes rules don't apply to him. He's not supposed to interrupt me, but he just did a moment ago. And mark my words: he will do it again soon, because -"
Trump: "No I won't!"
Hahaha - you must be Nostradamus because that's exactly how it will go.
He won't be able to stay focused the entire time. I assume the Dems think that at some point he'll say something so monumentally stupid that even the media can't gloss over it any more.
But he says monumentally stupid things every hour of every day, it's hardly a blip any more. Idk, I have my doubts. I know Harris can hold her own but when his lies compound more lies before anyone can make an argument for truth, it becomes impossible to keep up even under the best conditions. It's not a court room with a judge that's going to hold anyone in contempt.
To me or you, but not to MAGA. What if, on the topic of crime, he goes off on a tangent and says something to the effect of "I'll just repeal the second amendment, no guns no problem!"
That would be something monumentally stupid for him to say to his MAGA base
He already did pretty much exactly that and zero fucks were given.
They have no principles and no values that they put above their god-king the Mango Mussolini.
And Harris knows exactly how to lead a witness.
It would be something stupid, but #1 they likely won't be watching a debate that's not on one of their propaganda/outrage channels, and #2 his spin teams would either call it fake or just dog whistle it as "not our second amendment rights wink wink"
Maga will care if he looks weak. She will make him look weak.
Have the Trump handlers considered dangling a set of shiny keys above his head during Harris's answer to distract him?
Laser pointer?
That might, you know, trigger him.
You mean like, “Friends, Americans, countrymen, lend me an ear?”
I can see him muttering all sorts of BS while Harris is speaking.
Because she’s a former DA with a significant amount of trial experience in pretty high-stakes cases, and Trump is an imbecile. I really do think she’d absolutely take him apart in a debate.
A courtroom is a highly controlled environment with everyone operating under oath and tangible consequences for breaking decorum, like I said in my other comment, overall I don't doubt Harris could hold her own - but it seems like a misstep that will allow trump to soak up all the airtime. I hope I'm wrong!
Go watch the "I'm speaking "moment when Harris debated pence.
Destroyed. She wants this again.
Sure that makes sense, but I also believe Pence backed off because he had a shred of self respect.
What will Harris do with someone who doesn't yield and instead raises their voice, doubles down, and starts redirecting, asking when she became black?
Different beasts, guess it will be interesting if nothing.
To his credit, Biden adhered to the give/take of ideas with Trump. It's courteous to let the other person speak and I'm sure he thought those watching would clearly see he's the reasonable person in the debate. Since Trump has no such courtesy, he just ran out the clock with nonsense, making Biden look weak/confused rather than reasonable. So they wanted the mics cut. I think they're confident in Harris' ability to put Trump on his ass when he tries with her.
They're pointing out that Trump wants muted mics because he can't shut up and won't be able to stop blabbering. The relatively sane people running trumps campaign know that would be a huge problem because he's already getting press for babbling batshit and a debate in prime time would be the last place they'd want him to go full demented narcissist.
By making it a news article, Trump sees it and is therefore pitted against his own campaign which he can't allow, so - it's win-win and they haven't even agreed to anything yet.
It could be that the Harris people are playing mind games.
If Donnie wants open mics, demand open mics.
He's a toddler, so he'll switch and demand they be cut off.
She's ging to shout "Liar' everytime he lies. I'd use an airhorn but whatever works
I know you're kidding, but that's the second-worst thing she could do, with not calling him on ANY of his lies the worst.
No matter how true, yelling the same word every 5 or so seconds is NOT an effective debate strategy.
Guy’s completely fucked in the head. He’s going to say all sorts of weird stupid shit that will further entrench some fraction of undecideds in the Harris camp. Harris has been very smart to mock him and goad him into fits of verbal diarrhea.