A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
Trump started off coherent, but ~30% in he went of the rails.
Kamala on the other hand looks like she has no strong values, she doesn't seem like a Dem candidate. What kind of Dem candidate is pro fracking? Kamala honestly seems disingenuous.
Trump on the other hand didn't form more than 20 complete sentences, so I can't really call him disingenuous because he doesn't seem to stand for anything
They should do another debate next week between two people who are not running and can actually answer questions and talk about policy. Just to show us what we could have. Elizabeth Warren vs Mitt Romney.
Then a Bill Clinton vs George W Bush rematch.
The Heritage Foundation released one that includes several former Trump staff and the current VP nominee; it is Project 2025. You aren't going to get anything more precise out of Trump or his campaign.
Harris released her full platform and it is ok. I'm sure people want her to do more, but I don't know if she has the votes for it.
I don't think you are going to get a full policy update because the policies in Project 2025 are so bad and the Trump campaign doesn't want to run on it. That's why Trump is running on the idea he will stop immigrants from eating your pets.
Mexican here. Can confirm that we have plenty of stray dogs and cats here to eat. We have plenty of pet dogs and cats to eat too, but it's troublesome to deal with their owners/masters. Don't worry about us, we won't go there to eat your pets. I wish my fellow countrymen wouldn't have to go there and expose themselves to be treated this unfairly.
My favorite was when he accused the entire world of giving people to Harris so she could place them into the US as harmfully as possible.
It didnβt matter what the question was, Trump kept turning it back to immigration. Heβs only got one talking point, and itβs based on fear of the other.
Exactly, if the Republicans didn't bomb the immigration reform bill not to long ago, he'd have nothing to fearmonger over.
I can't believe that these are the best two people that the US can produce right now.
I can. Empire is in decline thanks to its incessant fixation on the Offense industry and refusal to tend to infrastructure, education, or social works, now mix in the steady erosion of critical thinking and literacy skill in this country, coupled with the crippling of any kind of recognizable civics curriculum to allow for principle-less, tribalist "vote my color no matter who no matter the policy platform" philosophies to grip the populace by the throat.
That's exactly how we get here.
Couldn't care less.
not my circus not my monkeys
He dodged every question successfully and neither Kamala nor the moderators did a decent job pinpointing it.
That he comes out with a statement of having a concept of a plan just shows me how much freedom were granted for his weird and insane mind.
Imagine beeing in any relationship with him. I have no sympathy for people who are willingly.
Trump looked more incoherent this time than in the previous debates, what with the "immigrants are coming to eat your pets" line and other zingers like post-birth abortion nonsense. There were also some weird moments where he said stuff like "Kamala hates Israel," prompting her to go off on her undying loyalty to Israel.
Harris was overall more presentable, but had some horrible policy moments, such as repeating debunked claims about sexual assault on October 7th as she restated her undying loyalty to Israel (which could materially cost her Michigan as Muslim voters are turning to Stein and Cornel West over Harris), or stating that Climate Change is an existential threat in one breath and promising to never ban fracking in the next, along with bragging about gas production.
Overall it's a clear "win" for Harris over Trump if we are purely measuring debate performance, Harris looked far better and answered more coherently, though her environmental positions, immigration positions, and foreign policy are far to the right of where they should be, especially concerning swing state polling.
That is, of course, ignoring my personal disdain for liberalism and both candidates in general for being far-right, this is purely an analysis of the debate within the context of the election.
this pretty much sums it up. I thought trump would be incoherent, but some of the stuff out of his mouth was borderline surreal. Harris had completely tuned herself to 'beat' trump, and while it worked, it's painfully clear that she doesn't have a single original thought - nothing but platitudes, the same canned phrases about working families and small businesses, same tired defence of Israel.
That pretty much sums them up nicely. Both represent the two sides of dying Empire.
Trump is a bit of a wrecking ball, his far-right populist rhetoric appeals to rising material frustrations with the Petite Bourgeoisie, ie small business owners and the like, along nationalist lines. Strong aesthetic patriotism, lack of consistency or coherence, promises of restoring grander times and power. General far-right nonsense that sees dying Empire as it is, but blaming it on immigrants and minorities instead of addressing material conditions.
Harris is plucked straight from the stock-standard Empire maintainers. Her policies are largely Biden's promises carried over, with firm Imperialist support for Israel and "the most lethal military in the world." She isn't attempting to appeal to fascists, but she is trying to appeal to those with vested interest in maintaining Imperial Hegemony. Small concessions and frequent doublespeak - claiming Climate Change is an existential threat in one breath, then boldly taking pride in record gas production and promising to never ban fracking in the next. She's more coherent, which ironically makes the double-speak stand out clearer.
It would be funny if it wasn't tragic.
Uh so one side rabbled louder than the other side who also rabbled.
Haven't watched it, can't care to.
Who woulda guessed the former prosecutor out performed the convicted felon
Watched it for the lolz. Lots of rhetoric aimed at their bases, with very little in the name of actual policy, outside short slogans that got repeated 3 or 4 times over with next to no detail. Each trying to 'gotcha' the other and each tried to miscategorize the other a few times. Each echo chamber will claim their person won, yet as an outsider and non-American with no skin in the game, I would say they both did pretty poorly with both stating a couple of valid comments, but few and far between. A couple of ABC commentators later said the same.
Looking forward to the headlines cheerleading their pre-selected person on Wednesday. Each camp trying to out meme the other. Lastly, weren't the microphones at the debate supposed to be muted when the other was talking? 'Cause they weren't at times. This made the thing funnier. Would have been better with an actual audience. Otherwise, it looked so fake and performative.