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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
I don't disagree but her saying "I know he's going to lie" would be really dumb. Saying "I think he's going to lie" leaves open the possibility that he will overcome his lying nature (which would be a win for Harris anyways) while also reinforcing how predictable is.
It's a good statement as-is and anything stronger would have been unproductive.
I disagree, this smacks of the same limp wristed response that Democrats have been using for decades now. That's how we ended up in this situation in the first place. It's beyond time everyone stop pretending the emperor has clothes and actually acknowledge it. Trump lies. He always lies. I don't think he's ever given a single speech where he hasn't lied at least once. There's a reason his lawyers will move heaven and earth to prevent him from testifying in front of a jury in all his legal cases, and it's because doing so would be an absolutely guaranteed way to catch a perjury charge.
So yes, she should have just said "Trump will be repeating lies during the debate, so we're preparing to counter them. At this point everyone knows all his favorite lies, so we've got a pretty good idea of what we need to be prepared for."
That would have been an actually good statement that clearly sets expectations and shows an understanding of the situation. Soft peddling anything with Trump and the MAGA crowd just wastes time and makes you look indecisive.
That's not as memorable as a short sarcastic jab that says exactly the same thing as what you said. The real point she was making is that they are preparing for Trump to be Trump. Simple as that.
The problem is a "sarcastic jab" is only one way of interpreting that statement. It also comes across as a mild but politically deniable statement of the sort that politicians have been criticized for making for nearly as long as politicians have existed. This is just the latest in a very long line of responses to Trump that stop short of actually saying what needs to be said. It's the equivalent of news companies peppering "alleged" and "accused" throughout their reports. Most of the time that's a good thing, but Trump has long since burned through whatever good will he was due. Stop treating him like a reasonable functional adult. If you give him and his followers (as well as the boot lickers over on fox) any wiggle room at all they'll take advantage of it.
You should read everything she said and not just the title. Context is everything, and she said plenty of other things that showed she wasn't playing nice but being sarcastic.
I did read all of it.
This was a great statement. More of this.
This is far too weak, and doesn't come across as sarcasm when printed. Maybe in person hearing her tone it would, but printed it's too ambiguous. I'm just absolutely fed up with people soft peddling around Trump. He's a habitual liar with at best a poor grasp of reality, who has run cons and scams for nearly as long as he's been alive. It was one thing when he was just a scummy business man, but with his turn to politics and dictatorship we can't afford half steps anymore.
Ready for the worst down voting of my life but I'm with you, orclev. Harris can and should do better. She needs to call him on his bullshit relentlessly, unapologetically, and with no regard to decorum. You know, like we should have done eight years ago. Don't play games. Call a spade a spade and save our fucking democracy already.