[Tom Bishop]

I doubt that anyone here who watched the debate can even remember much of what Kamala said. Not too impactful to stick around in memory. Trump's words are remembered, however.

https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1834998735870308652

[Lord Dave]

I doubt that anyone here who watched the debate can even remember much of what Kamala said. Not too impactful to stick around in memory. Trump's words are remembered, however.

https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1834998735870308652

Remembering someone's failures is not the positive one wants the public to remember.

[Tom Bishop]

Considering that she was a late presidential candidate to the race and was still largely unknown to the general public, this widely viewed debate was her chance to become memorable to the public sphere. Nearly 70 million people watched the debate. It was one of her few chances to make an impact.

Everyone already knew Trump, and he had nothing to introduce or prove for himself. He made sure that she was forgettable, and only Trump himself made the memorable impact. Most people who watched the debate now barely remember what Harris said, and any of her content has been overshadowed by what Trump said by far. Being a forgettable participant is terrible for her campaign effort. In this sense Trump expertly nullified her goal and won the debate.

[markjo]

If being remembered as an incoherent, rambling old man is a good thing, then Trump certainly nailed it.

[Roundy]

I remember very clearly every incident of Harris baiting Trump to make an ass out of himself and how he fell for it like a child EVERY SINGLE TIME.

It takes a tremendous amount of TDS to actually have watched that and come away thinking Trump was the winner. Only MAGA cultists like Tom, who are truly too far gone to EVER come back from their brainwashing, could possibly come away with that opinion. And seeing them scramble to justify it like Tom is doing has just been madly entertaining.   

[Roundy]

Meanwhile, in reality, far from the comforting fictions of MAGAworld::

The poll of 3,276 adults, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates with fieldwork by Ipsos, finds that Harris did firm up some of her personal appeal: Thirty-seven percent say the debate made them feel more favorably toward her, vs. 23% less favorably. There was no such benefit for Trump: People by nearly 2-1 say the debate made them see him less favorably.

[honk]

I doubt that anyone here who watched the debate can even remember much of what Kamala said. Not too impactful to stick around in memory. Trump's words are remembered, however.

https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1834998735870308652

It's true that putting someone on the defensive and making them deny damaging allegations puts them at a disadvantage. A good example would be Elizabeth Warren, who has spent a lot of time fighting the (false) allegation that she pretended to be Native American to get herself jobs and scholarships. With every denial and plea for people to actually look at her employment history, she's only called more attention to the allegation, and so Trump's racist nickname for her has stuck and most people continue to believe that she pretended to be Native American, presumably because it's such a juicy story. Too good to be false, you could say. But for something similar to have happened to Kamala, she would have had to, like Warren, spend time specifically trying to deny the allegations about her racial identity and the eating of pets. She didn't, and I'm sure that Warren's case was the first thing she thought of when Trump first started making racist attacks on her. Really, what happened here is the opposite of the "pig-fucker" strategy. The goal isn't for the accusation to be remembered; it's for the denial to be remembered. But in this case, with no denial, it's only the accusation that's remembered.

[Roundy]

Meanwhile JD Vance just admitted that the Haitians eating pets story was always a pie, and rationalized by basically saying you have to tell some racist lies to make sure Americans understand the danger we're in, and James Lankford just admitted that the Republicans intentionally killed the border deal for no other reason than that Trump would have an issue to run on.

Why do they insist on giving Democrats so much ammunition? 

[markjo]

Why do they insist on giving Democrats so much ammunition? 

Because they know that Democrats are rarely able to properly take advantage of it.

[Rushy]

Looks like someone tried to assassinate ol' Teflon Don again. Sad!

[honk]

Meanwhile JD Vance just admitted that the Haitians eating pets story was always a pie

Ignoring the obvious pie joke, he really didn't:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/15/politics/vance-immigrants-pets-springfield-ohio-cnntv/index.html

“The American media totally ignored this stuff until Donald Trump and I started talking about cat memes. If I have to create stories so that the American media actually pays attention to the suffering of the American people, then that’s what I’m going to do,” the Ohio senator said.

Bash replied, “You just said that this is a story that you created.”

Vance said, “It comes from firsthand accounts from my constituents. I say that we’re creating a story, meaning we’re creating the American media focusing on it. I didn’t create 20,000 illegal migrants coming into Springfield thanks to Kamala Harris’ policies. Her policies did that. But yes, we created the actual focus that allowed the American media to talk about this story and the suffering caused by Kamala Harris’ policies.”

It was poor phrasing, but he clarified what he meant by "create stories." He wasn't admitting that the whole thing was a lie.

[AATW]

He wasn't admitting that the whole thing was a lie.

Why wasn't he? He's been told it's a lie. The police in the town have quite loudly stated there are no credible reports of this happening.
Trump was told that in realtime during the debate, he just muttered "Well, I saw it on TV".
Oh well, that's ok then. No further questions.

[Lord Dave]

Looks like someone tried to assassinate ol' Teflon Don again. Sad!

Did they or was it just someone fucking around?  Because he didn't even get grazed this time.

[Rushy]

Looks like someone tried to assassinate ol' Teflon Don again. Sad!

Did they or was it just someone fucking around?  Because he didn't even get grazed this time.

I wasn't aware that you need to get grazed by a bullet in order for it to count as an attempted assassination.

[AATW]

It's not a very good attempt if you don't even get a shot off.
I'm amazed this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time in the US, given that you're all armed to the teeth because reasons.

[Lord Dave]

Looks like someone tried to assassinate ol' Teflon Don again. Sad!

Did they or was it just someone fucking around?  Because he didn't even get grazed this time.

I wasn't aware that you need to get grazed by a bullet in order for it to count as an attempted assassination.

It is.  If you aren't hit, it could just be someone firing off a gun for fun or hunting bird, or alligators, or clay pigeons.  It's America, after all.

But as aatw said, he never even got a shot off so we can't even confirm he tried to shoot trump
  Maybe he wanted to protect him from the corrupt secret service?

[Roundy]

This "assassination attempt" looks even faker than the Miracle Ear one, not buying it.

[Rushy]

I'm amazed this sort of thing doesn't happen all the time in the US, given that you're all armed to the teeth because reasons.

It, quite suspiciously, only happens to one political party over and over again. I don't think it's a gun problem so much as it is a communist infiltrator problem.

It is.  If you aren't hit, it could just be someone firing off a gun for fun or hunting bird, or alligators, or clay pigeons.  It's America, after all.

But as aatw said, he never even got a shot off so we can't even confirm he tried to shoot trump
  Maybe he wanted to protect him from the corrupt secret service?

Yes, of course.

This "assassination attempt" looks even faker than the Miracle Ear one, not buying it.

I don't think it's surprising that the side that can't be trusted with guns keep using them against Trump.

[Roundy]

I don't think it's surprising that the side that can't be trusted with guns keep using them against Trump.

Not that I don't agree with you, but why do you think Republicans can't be trusted with guns?

[Rushy]

I don't think it's surprising that the side that can't be trusted with guns keep using them against Trump.

Not that I don't agree with you, but why do you think Republicans can't be trusted with guns?

Where did you find this one? It just cracked me up! Thanks for joining us tonight, Roundy. I really really like this joke. Hahah.