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
Doing a debate on Fox is a terrible idea, no matter how good a debater you are.
Especially if it’s before the other ones.
He’ll look good on Fox then not do any others.
Hopefully Harris is smart enough to see through this.
My thoughts exactly. His bone spurs will suddenly come back after the fox debate so he can chicken out of the others, or some even lamer excuse.
He's still going to show up to the Fox "debate," even though nobody else has agreed to it, and act like Harris "failed to appear."
"only if we can move the September 10th debate to September 4th"
Considering the campaigns response, I think they are smart enough to see it for what it is.
and it would be terrible idea actually doing it before the one orange cheeto is trying to chicken out from. glad to see that harris campaign is not buying it.
Basically Harris needs to plan to have the Fox debate but hold off the decision until after Trump appears on ABC. That way she's still in the driver's seat.
If she agrees to the fox debate now, Trump would just not show up because of, um, let's see....bone spurs were acting up.
And then Trump can shit on Harris for not coming to the Fox debate she agreed to.
From their statement ("any additional debate would be subject to Trump actually showing up on September 10"), it sounds like they're talking about the NBC debate only, as the proposed FOX debate is scheduled before the original one.
The Faux Entertainment Network has a legitimate journalistic credibility problem. Don't people know that Fox has lost HUUUGE lawsuits that make them questionable? Wake up sleepy heads! DonOLD needs a skewed playing field to keep lying and grifting you and repulsing the solid message from the VP Harris. He IS a criminal, after all.
It'll be the only way some people actually watch it. If it goes even halfway decent It'll be huge. Risky, but maybe worth it
Bernie could do it, but I don't think Harris can. Maybe I underestimate her.
It will be tough to win over Fox viewers to begin with, and they will stack the deck to make her look terrible. Fill the room with diehard Trump cultists who will eat out of his hand and howl and cheer at his every jab. Prepare the most pointed questions for her and the most soft ball for him, and bring it home with unapologetically biased moderators who will let Trump run rampant.
Unless you have the authority and charisma to completely command the entire room, I only see it ending in disaster.
Fox has kinda started to turn on Trump, so it might not be the worst idea ever.
Have they? Do you have any examples? I'd love to see them talk shit about him
Bernie did great with the fox town halls
Bernie and Pete go on there all the time...
It's not impossible
It would be impossible to have an unbiased moderator there.
Great post. I truly hope I'm wrong, but I've been trying to temper people's expectations when they seem to be expecting Harris to annihilate Trump in a debate.
She has grown incredibly as a public speaker compared to only a few years ago, so maybe she is getting coaching and is better now.
But like you say, her experience comes from attacking out of a position of authority in a setting that strictly enforces decorum. She has none of that in a debate, and we can expect the moderators to do their usual worst. Trump will give her no respect, will talk (shout, more likely) over her and pay no heed to truth - comfortable with knowing live fact-checking won't happen.
Her only path to victory is to stare him down and put him in his place on merit and out of a display of personal authority. It's a very different prospect than being a courtroom prosecutor.