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.
- 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.
- 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
As one who is 100% on the democratic side, I think Harris obviously won the debate.
But I'm very curious about what Republicans think? Do they think Trump made a good response saying he didn't need a plan because he isn't president?
I was a bit disappointed Harris didn't attack him on the fact that it's been more than 8 years now since Trump said he would come up with a better healthcare plan. Stressing the 8 years, and the result being still nothing. So a concept of a plan for Trump seems to mean he has NOTHING!
But still, do Republicans view this as Trump did OK?
I'm disappointed a little in Harris. She's letting him get away with the narrative that she hasn't done anything in the last 4 years.
I really wanted her to turn to him on immigration and say his fucking wall was in that boarder bill and he scuttled it for political points, drop the mic and walk out.
She won overall, but she could of hit a couple of those rebuttals out of the park for a walk off homerun...they were singles instead.
She was only the VP, though. Her job is to do the things the President lets her do, and break up fights in the Senate. VPs simply don't do that much. She could (and did) bring out the accomplishments of the Biden administration, but that just called attention to the fact that Biden had to drop out, so she could only do it sparingly.
Also, Donald "I have the concept of a plan, I'm not president" Trump probably shouldn't be pushing that angle too hard
I know the below doesn't quite work since Biden dropped out before 8y but doesn't it benefit the party for the president to give some higher profile jobs to the VP so the VP can campaign on those after their 8 year run? Maybe they wait for the 2nd term to be more beneficial, but it'd seem like a good idea for both terms in case something like this happens.
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.
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..."
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.
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.