this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
408 points (97.9% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3756 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Donald Trump’s debate performance was far worse than even his inner circle anticipated.

While Donald Trump’s team is publicly pushing a postdebate victory lap, many in his camp were privately disappointed in the Republican candidate’s performance on Tuesday. 

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins reported Wednesday night that several Trump insiders were “stunned” by his poor performance and by just how easily he fell for all of Kamala Harris’s attempts to provoke him.

“I’m told that as soon as Donald Trump exited that debate stage, he immediately began quizzing those waiting in his viewing room about how the last 90 minutes had gone,” said Collins. “While several people praised him to his face, telling him they did a great job, that’s not what a lot of them are saying privately today.

Apparently, all that practice with members of his team, such as former Hawaii Representative Tulsi Gabbard, had ultimately amounted to very little when it came time to debate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] elbucho@lemmy.world 41 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (9 children)

It's amazing to me that anybody on his team was shocked he did so poorly. It just indicates to me that they're absolutely shit at their jobs. Being a good advisor requires you to be able to recognize the difference between reality and fantasy, and anybody who thought Trump would do well in this debate after spending any amount of time actually listening to him has failed this most basic of tests.

I'm surprised that he did so well in the debate, actually. I mean, he still got absolutely bodied, but no microphones picked up the sound of him shitting himself this time, so he's already showing an improvement over his debate performance with Biden.

Edit: it just occurred to me that Trump randomly shitting himself could be the reason his team were so gung ho for muted mics: it means that there's 50% less chance he'll drop a deuce while near a hot mic. If so, that's a great strategy on their part.

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (7 children)

He did fine. He likely lost precisely zero votes. There was nothing for him to lose. It's not like cult members watch their cult leader in a debate and then go "oh I guess I'll leave my cult." People leaving cults often literally have to go through a process of deprogramming and copious therapy.

Harris did well, so maybe she picks up a point, but since she's lost about a point since the DNC, that makes it essentially a wash. While it was a good debate for Harris, it ends up meaning very little. All the hyperventilating about it is way outsized to the effect.

[–] whostosay@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Is it immoral to start a cult and continue to use cult tactics to steal members from another cult to deprogram them and herd them all into therapy? Asking for a friend, and 90% of our parents.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 week ago

We need a cult of mental health.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)