#2
Or Big Parma, or Canada, or Tom Hanks/George Clooney/Taylor Swift, or the shills for Acolyte..
Best I've heard, considering the track record of this administration forgive my doubt as I reserve judgement.
I will add, especially since any slip in the backing of the war in Ukraine would sink any chance Harris has to be installed. Just ask any of the ten officials backing her decision on Afghanistan as the best of us.
[Townhall] It's a fair question. Why? Because it’s happened before. It’s not some tin foil hat, pie-in-the-sky conspiracy theory: Democrats hired by major news networks have fed debate questions to their party’s presidential nominees. While many analyses and polls are being discussed about the ABC News debate on Tuesday, what about the possibility that Harris got the questions in advance?
To tee this up, let’s not forget that Donna Brazile gave the Clinton campaign the questions before the CNN debate:
Former Democratic National Committee interim chair Donna Brazile acknowledged sending town hall topics to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, calling it a "mistake I will forever regret."
Brazile wrote in an essay for Time magazine that she shared potential topics for a CNN town hall with the Clinton campaign in her role as a Democratic operative and the DNC vice chair.
"My job was to make all our Democratic candidates look good, and I worked closely with both campaigns to make that happen," she wrote. "But sending those emails was a mistake I will forever regret."
WikiLeaks posted emails from Brazile to the Clinton campaign that tipped it off that a woman from Flint, Michigan, would ask Clinton about the situation there for a town hall. Brazile also told the campaign that Clinton would be asked about the death penalty at a separate town hall.
CNN dropped Brazile as a contributor after the revelations. When the email alerting the Clinton campaign about the death penalty question was released, Brazile suggested the documents were "misinformation."
#3
How about a debate where the candidates each submit 5 questions? At the start of the debate.
The questions are not of a personal nature, because this isn't "The View".
The questions are strictly related to how either of the 2 would handle important government situations. Like civil rights, border control, budget controls, taxes, etc. Then themselves explain why they handled each the way they did, while in office, or would if in office.
Allowing a followup comment when each is finished.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
09/12/2024 13:41 Comments ||
Top||
#10
#6 has it!
Demokrats lie with partial truth and inference. You catch the lie by noting the curious partial truth. Why else are the partial truth statement so precisely worded?
#13
#6 - best covered by the DNC feeding both ABC and the Kamala campaign the same script. Technically, ABC can say that lawyerly line with a straight face.
Harris dances
As news hounds discuss her new stances.
"Kam, any suggestions?"
"Uh... gimme them questions!"
"Just answers."
[askance]
"Why take chances?"
#3
Suggestive indeed. On the other hand, how many Independents actually watched the debate? I saw somewhere (sorry, can’t find the link) that viewership for the debate is down significantly from previous presidential debates.
#4
Interestingly enough:
Eldest discussed this with me with decent detail and specific events, and that classmates also watched it by -other means than live watching-.
This would be the Influencer arc.
To be broad, this is a 16-20 year old arc. Easily the most influenced age group historically and I'd call it a 50/50 call with who won from that report, anecdote of course. The 'pet eating' stuck. Wild.
[X-Glenn Beck] The Cloward-Piven strategy of overwhelming the system is in full swing. Chaos driven by communists, socialists, globalists, anarchists, and Islamists working together has already engulfed Europe. God HELP US if the radicals complete their plans for America this November...
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Malek Dudakov
The view from Russia. Remember as you read this, dear Reader, that Russian president Vladimir Putin publicly endorsed Kamala Harris.
[REGNUM] The second presidential debate of this election season took place in the United States. The list of participants has changed. If Donald Trump and Joe Biden were at the first debate, now the latter has been replaced by Kamala Harris. But that is not the only way the events were different.
Compared to the June debates, there was a palpable sense that Democrats were going all out to defeat Trump.
The Trump-Biden debate on CNN was surprisingly well-organized — the host was fair and the questions were polite. That certainly can't be said about the latest debate.
The ABC moderators, on whose air they were broadcast, were too obviously playing along with Harris. They tried to fact-check any of Trump's statements in real time. At the same time, many of Harris's outright false comments went unnoticed and "fact-checked."
Under these conditions, Trump had to debate three people at once: Harris and both hosts.
In general, such a biased attitude was predicted earlier. After all, ABC's media agenda is already 93% positive towards Harris and 100% negative towards Trump. But the latter could have hoped that the moderators would still try to maintain the illusion of objectivity. In the end, this did not happen.
Well, Harris tried to constantly press Trump, presenting herself as an “aggressive prosecutor” who is trying to punish a “criminal.” That’s how her campaign likes to call Trump, even though the latter has managed to successfully fight off judicial pressure from Democratic prosecutors.
During the debates, Trump was forced to constantly respond to Harris' accusations that he was a threat to democracy in the United States.
In turn, Trump himself tried to present Harris as responsible for all the crises that the US is currently facing. Like the rise in inflation, the growth of unemployment in recent months, the influx of migrants, or the rampant crime. And on the external frontier – with the unresolved Middle East crisis and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
Kamala was very nervous and clearly overacted her role.
She also constantly made very strange faces in response to any attacks from Trump. But what cannot be denied is that Harris really made an effort and memorized the speech instructions. True, she often answered them inappropriately and not to the questions asked by the hosts.
Oh dear.
The strategy of Harris's campaign was to distance themselves in every possible way from the sad legacy of the Biden era, since there is nothing to be proud of there. Not to say anything about their program, which de facto does not exist. Only on the very eve of the debates did some abstract program appear on Harris's presidential campaign website, and it is a set of general phrases for everything good against everything bad. And thirdly, to devote the debates to criticizing the platform with which Trump is going into the elections.
In general, the thread of the discussion should have been around Trump’s “radicalism,” and not the failures of the Democrats in recent years or the figure of Harris.
This strategy was partly implemented. Trump had to justify himself more often than Harris. And it was clear that he was even surprised by the pressure from Harris that he had to face.
Harris was keen to scare voters with the “horrors” that would await them if Trump won. The tariffs he promised would lead to higher inflation, abortion would be banned, and attacks on ethnic and sexual minorities would intensify. US opponents around the world would strengthen their positions, and Russia would gain the upper hand over Ukraine.
Harris could not offer any reform plan of her own, and she did not want to. Her entire speech was based on the negative – criticism of Trump. And the latter tried to remind Americans how much worse their lives had become during the four years that the Democrats had been in power. And Trump assured voters that with Harris as president, things inside the US would get even worse than they are now.
There were even some completely ridiculous moments when the candidates began to seriously measure each other by the size of the rallies they were holding. Both Trump and Harris are holding multi-thousand rallies of their supporters. However, on the eve of the debates, a scandal broke out about Harris deliberately transporting the same volunteers to her rallies on buses.
Trump was still proud of the fact that he survived the assassination attempt. And he indirectly blamed Harris and other Democrats for what happened, who turned the state machine against him.
Kamala could only laugh nervously in response. She similarly tried to ignore any questions about why Harris changed her views so often. She was for accepting migrants, now she was supposedly against it. She used to support fracking, the extraction of shale oil and gas, now she apparently doesn’t.
But overall, Harris was more successful in achieving what she wanted — she avoided the silly blunders and mistakes that she often makes during public appearances. Kamala, on the other hand, was able to prevent Trump from achieving the confident victory he achieved in the June debate with Biden.
That doesn't mean Harris won. It was a draw, really.
But for the Democrats, even this scenario is not the worst. After all, they were preparing for the worst - that Trump would steamroll Harris. In the end, through their tricks, memorized answers and endless bickering, as well as a refusal to answer questions seriously, they managed to partially hide the weaknesses of Harris's candidacy.
After the fact, scandals began to flare up about Harris allegedly using an earpiece during the debates, into which she was prompted with answers. Therefore, she did not suffer from her usual tongue-tiedness. Such dishonest tricks are quite in the spirit of Democrats who are trying to squeeze the maximum out of the debates for themselves and their presidential campaign.
It was not for nothing that Harris officially supported Taylor Swift immediately after the event. The singer did not perform at the Democratic Party convention and only posted an appeal on social networks calling for voting for Kamala. But this was done now, in order to somehow maximize the effect of the debates.
In a fit of elation, Harris's campaign immediately proposed holding another debate. However, it is not a given that they will take place, given the Trump campaign's obvious dissatisfaction with the moderators' bias. Choosing a new venue will not be easy. This has dealt a severe blow to the reputation of the institution of presidential debates, whose future remains unclear.
The question of the debates' audience and their effect on the presidential race also remains open.
The June debates literally derailed Biden's presidential campaign. Don't expect the same effect now.
Fewer and fewer Americans are watching the debates. In 2016, the audience for the Trump-Clinton debate exceeded 80 million. In 2020, 70 million watched the Trump-Biden debate. But this year, the debates attracted only 50-60 million viewers — only one-fifth of the total number of American adults of 260 million.
I admit to being one of those who did not watch. I chose to do articles for Rantburg instead.
Harris's ratings have been trending downward since late August. Her honeymoon is over, and her lead over Trump is rapidly closing.
If Harris had lost the debates in a landslide, her campaign would have been on the verge of collapse. The Democrats managed to avoid that. But whether they can regain the initiative now is still in question. Harris did not lose the debates – but she did not win either. So in the end, it may turn out that the effect of the debates on the election results will be insignificant.
#3
Harris won, IMO. She managed to avoid actually saying anything, which was her top priority. She was given a pass on her lies.
Trump looked tired and frustrated and disorganized ... worn down by it all. And was unable to even get his true statements accepted as true.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
