Visually, Trump looked flustered and irritated the whole night. Importantly, he barely even looked at Harris, just started straight ahead for almost the whole night.
Meanwhile Harris had dominant nonverbals. From walking straight up to him on his side of the stage and catching him off guard, to staring at him while he spoke.
On content, Trump got baited several times and also made some unprovoked errors. Harris stuck to the points she wanted to make, seemed to effectively get across the message she intended to get out, and landed a few memorable lines. I don’t recall anything that could be considered a mistake from her.
She wins the debate and comes out of it seeming more competent than I think a lot of people had penned her.
one is Conspiracy Theory made by the left and the other is a proven lie that she parroted in the first what? 10-20 minutes of the debate where the ratings are the highest. Doesn't that sound like a mistake to you?
Do you have any evidence of Trump endorsing 2025?.
As for the fine people, we have the recording of his remarks about it so I don't know what you are talking about.
that would be part of a deliberate strategy, not a mistake.
the strategy of giving your opponent easy rebuttals I suppose, but at that point your judgement on what constitutes a mistake and what is a Strategy is useless for normal conversation.
To be fair Trump's own leaflets I got through my door, have a whole section attempting to distance Trump from Project 2025. That indicates they do have some worries that it is getting traction and sticking and feel they have to actually work to counter it. That in itself means they are having to spend time and effort on defence.
So tying them together on live TV, is probably smart. Plenty of people believe it whether it is true or not. I think you overestimate how easy it is to rebut, and how many people will seek out or see that rebuttal at all in the first place or believe it if they see it.
I think it’s that project 2025 may be basically standard Republican fare, but it’s a scarily long detailed document. You can make up whatever the hell you want about it and no one will double check- they’ll believe you or not on the basis of how plausible it seems.
I think you overestimate how easy it is to rebut, and how many people will seek out or see that rebuttal at all in the first place or believe it if they see it.
magic9mushroom
If you're going to downvote me, and nobody's already voiced your objection, please reply and tell me
Pynewacket 2mo ago
Do you have any evidence of Trump endorsing 2025?.
That's not what @aeqno is saying. The argument is that Harris is baldly lying because she thinks she can get away with it (i.e. because she thinks Reliable Sources will back her lie over the truth).
I think they know they can get away with fine people on both sides for the rest of Trump’s life. Trump rebutted it both at this and at the last debate, it doesn’t matter.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Visually, Trump looked flustered and irritated the whole night. Importantly, he barely even looked at Harris, just started straight ahead for almost the whole night.
Meanwhile Harris had dominant nonverbals. From walking straight up to him on his side of the stage and catching him off guard, to staring at him while he spoke.
On content, Trump got baited several times and also made some unprovoked errors. Harris stuck to the points she wanted to make, seemed to effectively get across the message she intended to get out, and landed a few memorable lines. I don’t recall anything that could be considered a mistake from her.
She wins the debate and comes out of it seeming more competent than I think a lot of people had penned her.
she laughably refers several times to project 2025 in connection to Trump and repeats the debunked "fine people on both sides" story.
How is that a mistake?
one is Conspiracy Theory made by the left and the other is a proven lie that she parroted in the first what? 10-20 minutes of the debate where the ratings are the highest. Doesn't that sound like a mistake to you?
Even if what you say is true (it's not), that would be part of a deliberate strategy, not a mistake.
A mistake is Trump getting completely derailed by Harris' constant trolling.
Do you have any evidence of Trump endorsing 2025?.
As for the fine people, we have the recording of his remarks about it so I don't know what you are talking about.
the strategy of giving your opponent easy rebuttals I suppose, but at that point your judgement on what constitutes a mistake and what is a Strategy is useless for normal conversation.
To be fair Trump's own leaflets I got through my door, have a whole section attempting to distance Trump from Project 2025. That indicates they do have some worries that it is getting traction and sticking and feel they have to actually work to counter it. That in itself means they are having to spend time and effort on defence.
So tying them together on live TV, is probably smart. Plenty of people believe it whether it is true or not. I think you overestimate how easy it is to rebut, and how many people will seek out or see that rebuttal at all in the first place or believe it if they see it.
I think it’s that project 2025 may be basically standard Republican fare, but it’s a scarily long detailed document. You can make up whatever the hell you want about it and no one will double check- they’ll believe you or not on the basis of how plausible it seems.
More options
Context Copy link
yeah, sometimes I overestimate the average voter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That's not what @aeqno is saying. The argument is that Harris is baldly lying because she thinks she can get away with it (i.e. because she thinks Reliable Sources will back her lie over the truth).
More options
Context Copy link
I think they know they can get away with fine people on both sides for the rest of Trump’s life. Trump rebutted it both at this and at the last debate, it doesn’t matter.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
And she lied about "bloodbath". She said that Trump would ban abortion nationwide. Etc.. etc..
Both candidates lied pretty much continuously throughout the entire debate. But I think this was a calculated strategy from Harris, not a "mistake".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link