“People on TV told me so!”
Newsmax motto: “So unhinged we make even Fox News look normal” .
“Trump Leads Among People Who Say They Are Going to Vote For Trump”
So, then no, no cite. Okay, got it.
Have you considered not tossing nasty little rumors about like candy? If they are common then you aren’t adding anything, and if they aren’t common you are our source…and you don’t seem to have any details that we can look into.
Excellent points, thank you. I just want to add to point #4, where @Superdude also said “During a previous interview, Harris said having more cops on the street is ‘wrong’.” I don’t know what specific interview this was, but I know that when Harris has talked about this in the past, it was in the context of police budgets taking up a bigger and bigger piece of total municipal budgets, and that at some point money has to be spent on addressing the root causes of crime rather than just more policing and bigger prisons.
So Trump’s claim that Harris wants to “defund the police” was every bit as outrageous a lie as all his other lies, like Haitian immigrants eating their neighbours’ cats and dogs.
This clip pretty much sums up the whole debate:
It shows how the tiny-brained orange man-child can be triggered to go off on an insane angry rant on even the slightest provocation, which pretty much characterized his behaviour through the rest of the debate – all debate prep about “be sure to sound calm and presidential” completely abandoned! 
The only thing that would have made it more perfect is if the famous invisible accordion had come into play. But alas, apparently they had his left arm tied down to the podium.
I enjoyed this, too …
There was one exchange that really rubbed me the wrong way, and I haven’t heard anyone talking about.
I would have liked to see Harris jump on Trump’s phraseology. This is not some commercial loan he’s trying to arrange with a bank, where you quibble over the interest rate and payment schedule. Soldiers are marching across borders, and artillery is being fired. People are dying and others are becoming refugees. To say he’d “negotiate a deal” is to trivialize a lot of aggression, suffering, and death.
No, the salient point here is that Trump was asked a “yes or no” question, and refused to answer it. And he refused to answer it because the real answer is “no” – he does not want Ukraine to win this war, what he wants is to be Putin’s best buddy – his BFF. He also wants more love letters from Kim Jong Un.
The problem in this case wasn’t the “negotiate a deal” phraseology. A normal person might have said “negotiate a truce” which may or may not be a reasonable position depending on what terms you’re advocating. The real problem is that Trump would let Ukraine get overrun and cease to exist as a nation.
Fully agree. He tried to duck the question with his “I’d negotiate” response.
I won’t guess at his motivations for his response (though I think there’s a lot to your guess), but it seemed to me that when he found himself trapped between a rock and a hard place—the Yes/No question posed by Muir—he fell back on the only weapon he had: he’d “negotiate” something. [Sarcasm on.] After all, he makes deals, great deals, the best deals; nobody’s ever seen anything like the deals he can negotiate. [Sarcasm off.]
That might have worked for an answer back in 2016, and possibly even in 2020, but Americans have learned about him in that time. He’s not a great negotiator, and he has demonstrated many times that he admires authoritarians. A wishy-washy answer, like “I’d negotiate a deal,” in response to “Yes or No?” isn’t going to wash any more; not with Mr. Muir in the studio, and especially not with a lot of the American people.
If I recall, Trump didn’t have a lot of time left for his response, but I kind of wished that Mr. Muir had followed up and pressed further. “Mr. Trump, what exactly would you negotiate?”
And I’m pretty sure that Trump would have replied, “I’ll tell you, in two weeks.”
How weird. Perhaps he’s had second thoughts after his ass-whupping.
Curiouser and curiouser. It would seem rather pointless to have more. Trump will just rant about the same nonsense and Harris will look at him with pity.
There is nuance to this one.
Trump was asked afterwards if “very fine people” included the neo-nazis and he said it did not.
So, without mentioning that, it could be considered misleading to say “very fine people” includes the nazis.
OTOH, it’s also misleading, as on right wing media to call it an outright lie. And I also disagree with snopes simply calling it false.
Trump had to be prompted twice to condemn the white supremacists. He clearly wanted to equivocate in the first instance and leave a statement like “very fine people” hanging out there.
That must be an incredibly sharp knife to split so microscopic a hair
My brother in Minnesota had to cancel his lunch plans after being reminded that Minneapolis had burned down.
The problem is, if you don’t, then the MAGA people seem like they have a point. He did eventually say it didn’t include the Nazis, and that’s their proof that the media has been lying.
I remind them that we knew this at the time, yet none of them pretended it meant he didn’t say it. (and there’s a reason the Snopes article is from 2024, not from when he said it.)
Seem like they have a point to who? People who are already inclined to believe them over their lying eyes? People who don’t believe them but like to make a show of aggrieved outrage to pwn the libs and claim media bias?
Somewhere out there may exist such a group of well meaning but befuddled, under-informed people, perhaps in that land where where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.
You spent way too much money in Afghanistan for Trump to pull an Afghanistan, and yet, he did just that.
I’ve seen this said by a couple other posters in various threads, such as the ‘Is trump confused?’ thread, and I don’t get it. Coherent? OK, maybe if you’ve watched clips of his stream of consciousness crazy rambling at his rallies, by comparison, he was relatively coherent.
But let’s break this down. He started off alright. Sure, he barely attempted answering any of the actual questions, instead going right into his talking points about immigration or whatever, but that’s pretty par. Candidates answering the question they want to answer, instead of the actual moderator question, is a time-honored American Presidential debate tradition. Harris did a bit of her own answer dodging and weaving.
But…he said a few weird things?!? “Immigrants are eating our dogs and cats”. “Kamala wants to give sex change operations to illegal immigrants in prison”. “Some states are making it legal to kill babies after birth”. This is a freakin’ candidate for President of the United States. Those aren’t weird things to say, that’s batshit crazy.
Maybe one can make the argument “saying crazy CT stuff is not the same as being incoherent”. But…I think there are different kinds of incoherence. There’s ‘rambling and losing the plot’ incoherence and there’s ‘shouting crazy things in a serious public debate forum where you should know better’ incoherence.
Also, not to beat up on you, Dr_Paprika, but it’s concerning to me that either trump’s wall of BS wearing us all down, or the media sane-washing of trump, seems to be so successful that even some Dopers here-- as smart, well-informed, and thoughtful a group as there’ve ever been in an online forum, can listen to trump’s performance in that debate, shrug their shoulders and say “eh, not too bad”. I watched this clip in my YT feed of comedian Taylor Tomlinson talking about the debate and she said in reference to media sane-washing “Harris can say ‘I want to give every American $100’ and trump can say ‘I want to fill everybody’s house with locusts’ and the media will report ‘Candidates clash on their visions for America’s future’”.
You laugh, but he was essentially saying this in 2019, when he kept bragging about how many Republican voters approved of him.