this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
1018 points (97.7% liked)

politics

18925 readers
3727 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
 

She set a tone at the very start when she walked right into his space to shake his hand and made him almost pull back into himself in response. She was in charge and never stopped being in charge. 

Harris also managed what neither Joe Biden nor Hillary Clinton nor any of the 2016 Republicans managed to do which is successfully bait Donald Trump and get under his skin. Within a few minutes Trump was visibly angry and not in a way that empowered him but in a way that made him lose focus, go down rabbit holes and generally go off onto damaging tangents. Spittle anger, not righteous anger, shall we say.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (3 children)

Yes there were a couple of situations where she could have made him look like a huge idiot (more than normal), but she kind of dropped the ball IMO.
It's probably easier to see from the outside, she'd have to be razor sharp to catch these opportunities real time.
Still she did well, and did catch him a few times, and made no serious mistakes.

But border security, healthcare and the idiot thing about emigrants eating pets, were all obvious chances.
We just have to hope enough voters know enough about the issues to see through Trumps lies and lack of policy.

[–] btaf45@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

When talking about Climate Change, I was wishing Harris would say something like "Trump is 79 years old and won't be around long enough to see the worst effects of climate change so maybe that's why he doesn't care anything about it...."

When talking about international affairs, I was wishing Harris would say something like "Trump's chaos is going to cause an explosion of nuclear proliferation, but Trump is 79 years old and won't be around long enough to see the terrible problems he is going to leave us..."

[–] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 2 points 2 weeks ago

Agreed. To me it seems like a mix of relying too much on her memorized prep and possibly a bit of the old Democrats "taking the high road" thing. She did well at baiting him, but less so at exploiting his openings I'd say.

[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 weeks ago

It’s a fine line to walk, between drilling deep into each of his faults and failures and presenting herself as the capable adult in the room – especially when his lies per minute are so high, he’s just spouting a firehouse of bullshit, and they’re limited to 2 minute responses.

I think she did a fantastic job of baiting him into anger and incoherence without seeming petty, and delivering her points concisely. Trump is a challenge to debate, not because he’s good at it, but it’s like trying to wrestle a pig – his only strategy is to drag you into the mud with him.

Even when she was muted, she got her response across very effectively with her facial expressions of disbelief, astonishment, and incredulous amusement. Her reactions where she didn’t even speak are already becoming memes.