2020 Presidential Election 4: How Much Longer?

[nausicaa]

5 minutes ago, Alisamer said:

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that all the "patriotic" "pro-America" gung ho stuff is not about freedom or patriotism at all.

They only want freedoms for themselves. They are only "pro America" and "patriotic" if that means white, straight, "Christian" (quotes because they would rabidly oppose Jesus if He was here right now), middle class and up, America. They are anti-abortion (for other people, not necessarily themselves and definitely not for whoever Trump knocks up out of wedlock), anti-poor (despite many of them being poor themselves), anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-anyone who doesn't pay lip service to Christianity, and anti-people of color. They support social security (for themselves only) but not any sort of safety net for OTHER people. The majority of them despise and make fun of the wealthy (except Trump, for some reason), yet long to be wealthy themselves. They make fun of "elites" (read "intelligent, educated, successful people), yet believe that they themselves are super intelligent. 

These are people who make exceptions for EVERYTHING. Welfare is the worst thing ever, but if they need it suddenly it becomes just a temporary help. Black people are *insert horrible denigrating description here*, except the ones they actually know in person, they're "not like the others". Immigrants are lazy leeches on society, except the ones they know in person, they're hard workers just trying to do the best for their families. Christianity is the only religion, yet I'd bet half of them rarely if ever go to church, and couldn't quote a verse past John 3:16 if you put a gun to their heads. Speaking of, they are pro gun ownership "for protection", but refuse to wear a mask to protect other people in public. I'd be willing to bet a big percentage of them who claim to be "pro-life" would have their own teenage daughter at an abortion clinic in a hearbeat if she turned up pregnant.

I know I'm preaching to the crowd here, but damn. The hypocrisy is amazing, isn't it?

...You forgot they are pro-2A to protect their households, except cops rightfully killed Breonna Taylor because her boyfriend tried to defend them and their home with a legally-owned handgun. 

I completely agree that a lot of this is deep insecurity. I don't know what to do about that, and frankly have little patience hand holding grown adults who believe it's all right to treat me like shit and call me a libtard when they can barely compose a grammatically correct sentence. If you are going to be the party of personal responsibility, that has to extend to yourself. And libraries are free. 

I feel the need to point out that my cousin who posted the Trump criticism is a registered Republican who has become deeply disaffected with the GOP since 2015. She has also done very well for herself in life. She is an engineer with a Masters degree; her husband is a CPA. They have a very nice house all Pottery Barned out and she is a pretty blonde who has aged very well with two cute, bright children. One of the Trump supporters most vociferously defending Trump in her comments is her SIL who has no education, no career, her husband has a TBI and PTSD from Iraq, and they have to move their kids every couple months when he loses yet another job and her latest buy in to a pyramid scheme doesn't pay off. Her FB photo is photoshopped within an inch of its life. She has also asked, and been given, financial help from my cousin. The other detractor is a barely literate guy who it seems didn't finish college. 

I don't even think these people have the self-awareness to realize they are insecure. I mean, they don't seem aware that their functionally illiterate ramblings do not make them appear intelligent. So where do we go from here?

[nausicaa]

BTW, this is cousin's SIL's profile photo. I left the duck face in for you guys. I promise you this is not satire. 

Spoiler

 

 

Edited September 25, 2020 by nausicaa

[GreyhoundFan]

14 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

...You forgot they are pro-2A to protect their households, except cops rightfully killed Breonna Taylor because her boyfriend tried to defend them and their home with a legally-owned handgun. 

The rabidly pro-2A people are only pro-2A for white Christians.

14 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

I don't even think these people have the self-awareness to realize they are insecure. I mean, they don't seem aware that their functionally illiterate ramblings do not make them appear intelligent. So where do we go from here?

I agree with you that at least some of the BT crap is from insecurity. I think that they are worried because whites are soon not going to be the majority in the US. For many, it was not so bad when ebil people of color were mostly in the cities, but as their small towns have more people of color and immigrants, they feel like they are not going to be in charge anymore.

The small city where I attended college was over 90% white when I was there 35 years ago. Now it is under 70%. I was just there a few weeks ago and there are lots of Latino and Asian markets and restaurants, which is a major change. A few people I know from the old days are very unhappy to see all the changes, they want all the newcomers to suck it up and go to older (white) stores and restaurants. None of them would even consider shopping at one of the new stores or eating in any "foreign" restaurant. It's actually quite sad. 

A side note: one of the people I still am in contact with from that small city voted for Drumpf and Mother's Boy because, and I quote, "Pence looks like my grandpa." I was appalled. Yeah, let's vote based on something stupid, not policies or values. /sarcasm What do you with with people like that?

[nausicaa]

17 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

The rabidly pro-2A people are only pro-2A for white Christians.

I agree with you that at least some of the BT crap is from insecurity. I think that they are worried because whites are soon not going to be the majority in the US. For many, it was not so bad when ebil people of color were mostly in the cities, but as their small towns have more people of color and immigrants, they feel like they are not going to be in charge anymore.

I agree that racism is a big part of this. I'm not one of those people just shouting "economic insecurity!" 

However, I do think moving to a service economy has left a lot of, we'll call them "less academic", people behind. And racism is a convenient balm that helps explain their problems and gives them a group to direct their anger at other than themselves. The jobs didn't move away, the immigrants "took" them! Trump not only stokes that, he allows them to laugh at those "out of touch" intellectual elites who are doing so much better in a 21st century service economy. 

In 2012, the OECD found half of Americans cannot read a book written at the eighth grade level. Is some of that the result of poor schools? Quite possibly. Better education and more civics education certainly won't hurt. But I also think we need to have the uncomfortable conversation that not all brains are equal. There are a certain number of people in any society who are frankly not very bright and cannot get by on a job based purely off of one's mental capabilities. 

And the days of a safe, well paid union job in a steel plant or car factory for a guy who can barely graduate high school are over. There are more of those people that I think a lot of us care to admit, or because of intellectual self-segregation, may not even be aware exist. So what do we do? They exist. They vote. They are angry. 

A lot of this boils down to...what do we do about stupid people in our society? It's an uncomfortable question, and something a politician can't dare to touch on, but it's a conversation that needs to be had. I don't have any answers. 

[fraurosena]

38 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

A lot of this boils down to...what do we do about stupid people in our society? It's an uncomfortable question, and something a politician can't dare to touch on, but it's a conversation that needs to be had. I don't have any answers. 

Although I'm not a fan of the phrase 'stupid', I do get what you mean. Not everybody has the same intellectual capabilities. That fact in itself should not matter to one's worth though. Everyone as a human being has just as much worth as the other, no matter the state of their intellectual prowess.

I think much of the problem in western societies stems from the fact that intellect is highly rewarded, even revered; less intellect is actually looked down upon -- or even reviled. No matter how capable you may be at doing boring, menial jobs, no matter how much these jobs are necessary, society will still deem you as 'less than'. It's this attitude that is at the basis of the disaffection of many. How would you feel, working your ass off, earning next to nothing, simply because your intellectual capabilities aren't as high as that of others? It's not like you can work hard and suddenly become more intelligent. You are born with it, and although you may hone your intellectual skills, you can't make them greater. It's almost the same as looking down upon someone for having a different shade of skin.

The sad thing is, there are politicians who like to manipulate the disaffection, the anger, the feeling of being victims; all they have to do is validate you, pander to your angst, fan the flames of your fury, and of course they will follow. They don't have the discernment or critical thinking skills to think things through. And so they follow. They follow politicians with bad intentions... but they would be equally willing to follow politicians with good intentions. As long as they feel validated.

Of course, this is only one aspect of the whole problem. It's much more complicated than the matter of intellect alone. But I do believe that validating people for their contribution to society, instead of only focussing on intelligence, will go a long way to preventing BT's arising. 

How to get this veritable paradigm shift going though... that's the crux of the matter.

 

ETA: I realise that some of my wording may seem to be directed at you personally @nausicaa, but the 'you' is meant in general. I don't want to give you the wrong impression! 

Edited September 25, 2020 by fraurosena

[Alisamer]

17 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

They exist. They vote. They are angry. 

A lot of this boils down to...what do we do about stupid people in our society? It's an uncomfortable question, and something a politician can't dare to touch on, but it's a conversation that needs to be had. I don't have any answers. 

I think there is a lot to this. And the fact that back when the country was founded those people DIDN'T vote means that our constitution and system are not set up to handle that sort of thing. If I remember correctly it was only white male landholders who were voting, in the very early days, which usually meant the ones with more money and often a better education. The poor likely didn't qualify to vote, and those who had lower intelligence (and/or less education) were often poor - while those who were lower intelligence and wealthy were often kept hidden away and would have been discouraged from voting. Add in the fact that early engagement and stimulation are required to help infants and toddlers develop their potential intelligence, and the poor and disenfranchised had (and have) less time, energy, and knowledge to do that, and it becomes self perpetuating.

I don't know that there is a real answer to this other than improving education as much as possible, however. In the primary I voted for a man running for a smaller local office because he was the only one outside campaigning, and he explained to me that his primary focus would be increasing opportunities such as trade schools and other programs for those people "not cut out for college". I think that the more opportunities people have regardless of their raw intelligence, the better off everyone as a society would be. This is also a place where a guaranteed basic living wage would be helpful.

Unfortunately the people the less intelligent people are voting for are benefiting from the fact their supporters (and president) have lower intelligence, and thus have no incentive to help them educate or improve themselves and their children.

I do, however, think there needs to be some minimal testing and requirements to run for president. Nothing major, just a psychological screening (for major disorders that might affect the office, like Trump being a psychopath), background check, drug test, and the ability to pass a basic test of government knowledge. Maybe require them to pass either the citizenship test or the test given to prospective military recruits - doesn't it seem stupid that the commander in chief of the military DOESN'T have to take the test literally everyone below him/her has had to pass? Isn't it ridiculous that the president automatically gets the highest level of national security clearance, without the scrutiny everyone below has had to go through?

I can live with stupid people voting, but I'm having a hard time with the fact that there are more requirements to get most entry-level jobs than to run for president.

[Emma]

My request:

Questions from the citizenship test, administered during the debates, so we can all see how well, or poorly, the candidate understands our government and constitution.

FBI doing a security clearance on all candidates before the primaries, and letting us know if they are qualified for top secret clearance (which Trump certainly is not). Drug use, questionable friends, financial entanglements, mental health problems can disqualify someone from clearance.

These things have not been an issue in the past because every other presidential candidate has come through a political or military path, and those things would already be known.
 

[Ozlsn]

2 hours ago, nausicaa said:

And the days of a safe, well paid union job in a steel plant or car factory for a guy who can barely graduate high school are over

And this is part of the problem. A group of people who cannot find secure employment that would allow them to support themselves, let alone a family are going to get angry. Add in strict ingrained gender roles where some men will not even consider "women's work" kind of jobs, even when they might be quite suited to them, but still believe that they "should" be able to get a traditional job. When you have a large group of angry people you have the ground for demagogues to be successful - the Nazis, fascists, communists all got a start because people were angry, economically insecure and looking for answers. When people are in secure work, not stressed about paying bills or healthcare and looking at a holiday they are much less receptive - even if they still are uncomfortable with migrants, or people who don't look like them. 

2 hours ago, Alisamer said:

I think that the more opportunities people have regardless of their raw intelligence, the better off everyone as a society would be. This is also a place where a guaranteed basic living wage would be helpful.

Totally agree. Everyone deserves to be able to live, and to find meaningful work that they are capable of doing. Personally I'd rather have the safe, well paid, boring-as-hell-to-me factory/"menial"-type jobs be on a liveable (actually better) income for those doing them, with good working conditions including paid leave - not least because I am glad that someone is doing them, and that it's not me. Some people are great at customer service, some people enjoy a lot of repetition in their work, some people apparently enjoy cleaning. Everyone deserves at least basic respect, no matter what their work (until they prove themselves to be an arsehole, then bets are off.)

2 hours ago, Alisamer said:

I'm having a hard time with the fact that there are more requirements to get most entry-level jobs than to run for president.

I'm still amused that I didn't realise there was a minimum age requirement. That and natural born are about it, is that right?

[GreyhoundFan]

4 minutes ago, Ozlsn said:

I'm still amused that I didn't realise there was a minimum age requirement. That and natural born are about it, is that right?

From the Library of Congress:

Quote

Legal requirements for presidential candidates have remained the same since the year Washington accepted the presidency. As directed by the Constitution, a presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older. These requirements do not prohibit women or minority candidates from running.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

This is an interesting op-ed: "How to Debate Someone Who Lies"

Spoiler

When Joe Biden debates President Trump on Tuesday, he will have to figure out how to parry with an opponent who habitually lies and doesn’t play by the rules.

As a psychiatrist, I’d like to offer Mr. Biden some advice: Don’t waste your time fact-checking the president. If you attempt to counter every falsehood or distortion that Mr. Trump serves up, you will cede control of the debate. And, by trying to correct him, you will paradoxically strengthen the misinformation rather than undermine it. (Research shows that trying to correct a falsehood with truth can backfire by reinforcing the original lie. )

Instead, Mr. Biden should use more powerful weapons that will put Mr. Trump on the defensive — and also tell the audience that the president is a dishonest narrator.

The first weapon maybe the most effective: humor and ridicule. A derisive joke can defuse tense and outrageous situations. In 2007, for example, protesters dressed as clowns confronted a “white power” march in Charlotte, N.C., holding signs that read “wife power” and throwing white flour in the air. It made the white nationalists look ridiculous and avoided a violent confrontation, which would have served the interests of the racists.

Now, imagine a different kind of high-stakes situation — the presidential debate. Mr. Trump, faced with a pandemic and an economic downturn, tells Americans what a great job he’s done. In response, Mr. Biden should smile and say with a bit of laugh: “And just where have you been living? South Korea? Or Fiji? You cannot be in the United States — except maybe on the golf course. We’ve got about 4 percent of the world’s population and 21 percent of all Covid deaths and the highest unemployment since the Great Depression! You must be living on another planet!”

The retort mocks the president as weak and unaccomplished, which will rattle him. He is apparently so fearful of being the target of a joke that — unlike any president before him — he has skipped the last three roasts at the White House Correspondents Dinner.

Ridicule could also neutralize one of Mr. Trump’s favorite racist tropes: that America is being overtaken by violent thugs. So what should Mr. Biden do when the president starts in? He should say something like, “This is like the bad joke about the arsonist who shows up at the bonfire and started posing as a fireman! The guy who calls himself a stable genius seems to have forgotten that he’s been president during all this violence and that he’s been the instigator in chief with his racist rhetoric. The country’s biggest bully thinks he can fool you by playing sheriff.”

To see why humor could be so effective in dealing with Mr. Trump, you have to understand why he lies. People don’t tell the truth for many reasons, but the president’s lies generally fall into two categories. The first are boastful and self-aggrandizing claims, such as “Only I can fix it. ” This swagger betrays a fragile self-esteem, and while outlandish and amusing, the lies are typically harmless.

The second type of lie aims to deceive others in pursuit of a specific goal. For example, we now know, from a taped interview with Bob Woodward, that Mr. Trump knew in February that the coronavirus was deadly and transmissible by air, but he lied to the public, playing down its severity and discouraging the use of masks — a calculated deception that cost untold lives.

This kind of lie is emblematic of individuals with antisocial traits who have a deficit in moral conscience. But if they also have strong narcissistic traits, they are exquisitely sensitive to criticism and especially to ridicule. Derisive humor threatens to expose them for the loser they secretly believe they are.

Some of the president’s lies are not served by humor; Mr. Biden will have to confront them head-on, like the president’s disastrous handling of the pandemic. In this case, the best strategy would be to say: “The fact is that more than 200,000 American have died — even if the president falsely suggests that the number is lower. But let’s focus on the grim truth: More than 200,000 of our loved ones died from coronavirus, many because of the president’s deception.”

The cognitive scientist George Lakoff, who studies propaganda, calls this a “truth sandwich” — a lie gets sandwiched between true statements. Research shows it effectively corrects a falsehood, because people tend to remember the beginning and end of a statement, rather than what’s in the middle.

Mr. Trump’s resistance to masks is also a target for a derisive truth sandwich: “Wearing a mask is one of the most effective ways to prevent the spread of coronavirus. But you sure wouldn’t know it from the president, who has run around in public without one and mocks people like me who wear them. Is it vanity or that he just doesn’t believe in science? I don’t know, but the science is undisputed: wearing masks saves lives.”

Mr. Biden will have another advantage during the debate: President Trump will not have a live audience to excite him and satisfy his insatiable need for approval and attention, which means he will be even more vulnerable to a takedown. True, no one will be there to laugh at Mr. Biden’s jokes, but it doesn’t matter because the goal is serious: to expose the truth and unnerve Mr. Trump by getting under his skin.

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Another piece about the debates: "Trump readies a debate onslaught — and Biden allies worry"

Spoiler

President Trump is gearing up to launch blistering personal attacks on Joe Biden and his family in the first presidential debate on Tuesday, while Biden is bracing for an onslaught and worried allies are warning the Democratic nominee not to lose his temper and lash out, according to people with knowledge of the strategies in both camps.

Trump has told associates he wants to talk specifically about his opponent’s son Hunter Biden and mused that the debates are when “people will finally realize Biden is just not there,” according to one adviser. The president is so eager to lay into his rival that he has called aides to test out various attacks, focusing on attacks that cast Biden as a longtime Washington insider with a limited record of accomplishment, said another adviser, who like many interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly describe private talks.

Biden and his advisers are anticipating a venomous barrage, according to a person with knowledge of their thinking, and they are preparing to counter with an affirmative case for a Biden presidency. The Democrat wants to stay focused on how he would address the coronavirus pandemic and the country’s economic problems, which he blames Trump for worsening.

The prospect of a cage match between a president for whom no subject is off-limits and a challenger who can be openly emotional is making some Biden advisers nervous. They see a fine line between Biden’s passion and empathy, which can appeal to voters, and the raw anger that sometimes gets him in trouble and could undercut his pitch as a calming alternative to a president who thrives on chaos.

“When you go at his family, he becomes hotter than hell, which is part of the thing I worry about,” said John Morgan, a Florida trial lawyer and major Biden donor. “I think what Biden has to be careful about is not letting his Irish temper blow when that happens.”

Biden’s emotion, especially when it comes to his family, has often been a strong suit. But he has also shown a tendency to lose his composure when his record, and especially his decency, are questioned — such as when he declared in an interview with “The Breakfast Club” that African Americans considering voting for Trump “ain’t black,” or when he snapped, “Why, why, why, why, why?” at a reporter who asked during the primary why he had attacked a rival.

Trump’s deficit in the polls arguably means there is more pressure on him than Biden to score a big win, and his supporters are voicing their own worries. The president’s repeated mocking of Biden as incoherent could make it easy for the challenger to exceed expectations, Trump’s allies say, and they concede the president is always capable of sabotaging his own message.

Trump has shown little interest in studious preparation, but he is expected to meet with advisers this weekend to talk about the debate. “The president’s view is: He’s been president for four years, he’s been in training every day,” one ally said. “He thinks he doesn’t need any prep.”

Still, there are reasons for Democrats’ apprehension about their 77-year-old nominee, who last ran for office in 2012. In recent months, Biden has largely been cloistered away from hostile settings, and some supporters fret that he might be rusty when he confronts what could be some of the most vicious criticism he’s ever faced in person.

“It’s like training for a knife fight and somebody is getting an Uzi,” lamented one Democratic congressional aide.

Biden’s friends and advisers are urging him not to get dragged into ugly exchanges. “There is an old saying in debate circles: When you get down in the mud and wrestle with a pig, the pig has fun and you get covered in mud,” said Sen. Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.), a close Biden confidant. “And the word that is typically used is not ‘mud.’ ”

Biden himself has expressed a similar concern. “I hope I don’t get baited into getting into a brawl with this guy,” he said at a virtual fundraiser this month. He added, “It’s going to be hard, because I predict he’s going to be shouting” and interrupting.

Biden did engage in a series of debates during the primary, sometimes taking hard shots from his rivals, including his now running mate, Sen. Kamala D. Harris (D-Calif.).

Biden will try to speak directly to the voters, the person with knowledge of his team’s thinking said, and will correct Trump when merited. But Biden’s advisers believe strongly that he should not get bogged down in fact-checking the president, leaving that mostly to moderator Chris Wallace.

Biden and his aides are expected to hunker down in preparation for the debate in coming days, according to a person with knowledge of the plans. Former White House counsel Bob Bauer is standing in for Trump, according to a person with knowledge of the situation. Bauer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

For all their emphasis on telling their own story, there is no doubt Trump is squarely on the minds of Biden’s aides and allies. Philippe Reines, who portrayed Trump in Hillary Clinton’s mock debates four years ago, said he recently gave Ron Klain, who is playing a leading role in Biden’s preparation, his “Trump uniform” — the baggy blue suit, cuff links and lift dress shoes he wore to get in character.

“He laughed,” Reines said of Klain’s reaction, adding that Klain told him, “We’ll make good use of it.” (Klain said he was joking and the team is not using the outfit.)

But the lessons from Clinton’s experience four years ago are murky. She was widely considered the winner of all three debates with Trump, yet in the end it was not enough to avoid defeat.

And Trump has shown he considers few tactics off-limits. In one 2016 primary debate, he boasted about the size of his genitalia. In a debate with Clinton, he brought a group of women who had accused her husband of sexual misconduct, though he was not allowed to seat them in the gallery.

Tuesday’s debate — the first of three between Trump and Biden — will culminate weeks of vitriol. Trump has accused Biden of taking performance-enhancing drugs and questioned his mental acuity, without any evidence. Biden has mocked Trump for walking unsteadily down a ramp, flashed visible anger over his opponent reportedly insulting fallen soldiers and argued that Trump’s response to the pandemic disqualifies him from the presidency.

Adding to the tension is a heated battle over the Supreme Court, with Trump moving swiftly to fill the vacancy created by the death of liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The three debates — along with one between Harris and Vice President Pence — will probably unfold at the same time as a ferociously bitter confirmation process that could determine the court’s leaning for decades.

It all kicks off over 90 minutes on Tuesday night on the Health Education Campus of Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic. Trump and Biden will be at podiums a safe distance apart, as specified by health guidelines, according to Frank Fahrenkopf, co-chair of the Commission on Presidential Debates. From the start, the candidates will confront unprecedented decisions, such as how or even whether to greet each other at a time when medical experts are warning Americans not to shake hands.

Biden advisers feel that the presidential race is being driven largely by Trump’s widely criticized response to the pandemic, which has cost more than 200,000 U.S. lives, and that the debate is unlikely to alter that dynamic, according to the person with knowledge of their thinking. With the president trailing, a series of poor debate performances could “put a nail in the coffin” of Trump’s chances, argued one Biden adviser.

Some of Trump’s advisers say he has not been as focused on the debate as they would like. The process at times reminds them of 2016, when they would try to prepare Trump and he would get distracted and tell stories, according to one adviser.

Trump is not undergoing traditional debate preparation with someone playing Biden, according to officials with knowledge of his strategy; rather, he’s relying on a familiar coterie of friends and strategists. Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie has taken on a prominent role in advising Trump on the debate, while senior campaign adviser Jason Miller has watched old clips of Biden and analyzed them.

Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani is also involved, and others involved in the discussions include top advisers Jared Kushner and Hope Hicks, officials said. Trump is likely to focus on attacks about Biden’s handling of China while in office, along with the former vice president’s comments on the coronavirus from the early part of the pandemic. He is likely to accuse Biden of being too beholden to more liberal figures in the Democratic Party, advisers say.

Aides have sought to persuade Trump for weeks to stop lowering expectations for Biden’s performance. “We take Joe Biden very seriously,” said Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh. “He’s had decades in the Senate where all he does is debate.”

Yet Trump routinely seeks to cast the former vice president as frail, ineffective and captive to his party’s left wing. “Biden doesn’t know he’s alive,” the president said this month.

That worries some of the president’s allies. “The bar for Biden is very low. The expectations are low. So he doesn’t have to do much to come out looking good,” said Newsmax Chairman Christopher Ruddy, a close friend of Trump’s. “The president just goes out there and says whatever is on his mind. It could get pretty wild.”

One topic Trump is eager to broach is Hunter Biden. “I think it will be brought up in the debate,” Trump said at a recent rally in Fayetteville, N.C., shouting, “Where is Hunter?”

Hunter Biden has long been a focus of Trump and his allies, because he served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company while his father was coordinating the Obama administration’s Ukraine policy. Neither has been accused of wrongdoing. Trump was impeached for pressuring Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, but the Senate acquitted him.

Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates hit back at the prospect that Trump would go after Hunter Biden during the debate. “For Donald Trump to demonstrate that the only case he can make for himself is to lash out at Joe Biden’s children would be the ultimate admission that his presidency is a weak, pathetic failure,” Bates said.

Few if any topics irk Biden as much as attacks on his family. When a voter in Iowa accused him of sending Hunter to Ukraine and “selling access to the president,” Biden responded sharply: “You’re a damn liar, man. That’s not true.” There was no evidence for the man’s claim.

Biden later challenged the man — who also voiced worries about Biden’s age — to do push-ups with him or take an IQ test, suggesting how he can be knocked off course by attacks that have a personal edge.

On Tuesday, supporters are hoping Biden will appear poised and presidential — an area where many Democrats believe he fell short in the primary debates, awkwardly cutting himself off and memorably botching instructions on how to text his campaign.

“He’s an uneven debate performer,” said veteran Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. “When you think Joe Biden, you don’t think, ‘Well, you know, he’s the king of the kings.’”

In addition to Klain, the preeminent Democratic debate coach, longtime Biden adviser Mike Donilon is also involved in debate preparations, as is senior adviser Anita Dunn, according to people with knowledge of the preparations.

Biden is an experienced debater, and some supporters say he does best in one-on-one meetings, citing his performance in vice-presidential matchups against Sarah Palin in 2008 and Paul D. Ryan in 2012.

But his associates and allies agree that Trump is unlike any opponent he has faced.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who portrayed Ryan in Biden’s 2012 practice debates, said their sessions focused largely on policy, as Ryan had a reputation as a wonk on budget issues.

“That’s a totally different ballgame,” he said.

 

 

[GreyhoundFan]

No, she's not. She is capable of thought.

 Oh, and she doesn't need her spouse to chaperone.

[PsyD2013]

I do worry about Biden in the debates.  Trump will twist what Biden said in a rebuttal, gaslight, lie, go off topic, tell his stories that start with "sir" and" they" without never naming a source.  I've been hate watching his rallies.  He is a master of deceit, deflection, gaslighting, and fear-mongering. 

[fraurosena]

1 hour ago, PsyD2013 said:

I do worry about Biden in the debates.  Trump will twist what Biden said in a rebuttal, gaslight, lie, go off topic, tell his stories that start with "sir" and" they" without never naming a source.  I've been hate watching his rallies.  He is a master of deceit, deflection, gaslighting, and fear-mongering. 

True, but he won't have a live audience cheering him on, which is what he thrives on. Anything he says will be met with silence. And as his inflated ego makes him believe he does not need to prepare for the debates and will be able to wing it, I think he will have a hard time of it. He won't be able to use the lumbering around behind his opponent either; he will have to remain in place the whole time, without the beloved camera's pointed at him. 

I heartily agree with @GreyhoundFan's article above that ridicule and derision will be the best way to tackle Trump. The thing that Biden has to be most wary of, is Trump interrupting him when it's his turn to speak. We know Trump will quite likely do that -- he did it with Hillary -- because he can't stand being corrected, or attacked, and he most certainly can't handle ridicule. Biden should not be goaded into addressing Trump directly; if he's smart about it, he will simply, calmly (!) point out to Wallace that he's being interrupted and is 'claiming his time back', and if at all possible add some derision to his remarks.

"My opponent clearly has no understanding of the rules of debate and keeps rudely interupting me, so I'm claiming my time back."  or "Maybe you could remind my opponent of the proper way of debating, Mr. Wallace, as he's either ignorant of the rules, or he's forgotten them already."

If he does that, Trump will not get the validation he seeks. Biden will ignore him and ridicule him at the same time. I'm really hoping to see something like that happen. Preferably with Trump getting angrier and angrier for not being in control of the situation. Cherry on top would be having Trump storming off stage in a huff.

 

[mamallama]

Who do we talk to to put Fraurosena in charge of debate prep?

 

[formergothardite]

1 hour ago, mamallama said:

Who do we talk to to put Fraurosena in charge of debate prep?

 

My thoughts exactly.  

I'm a bit worried that Biden will let Trump run amuck during this debate. Trump is very good at chaos and sucking the air out of the room. He doesn't debate, he doesn't answer questions, he looks for ways to push buttons and throw people off kilter so he can exploit that. Dealing with him is going to be hard because this isn't going to be a debate, this will be an hour of Trump doing his best to make Biden angry and to make him slip up. 

[nausicaa]

19 minutes ago, formergothardite said:

My thoughts exactly.  

I'm a bit worried that Biden will let Trump run amuck during this debate. Trump is very good at chaos and sucking the air out of the room. He doesn't debate, he doesn't answer questions, he looks for ways to push buttons and throw people off kilter so he can exploit that. Dealing with him is going to be hard because this isn't going to be a debate, this will be an hour of Trump doing his best to make Biden angry and to make him slip up. 

I worry about this too. At the same time, I don't think the debates matter much. Only more politically inclined people watch them, and we've all made up our minds already. HRC beat Trump handily in three of them and she still lost. 

Honestly, I'm more worried that the Left will attack Amy Comey Barrett too much on her personal religious beliefs rather than her actual past rulings and it will come off like an attack on Christians and turn off church-going independents (of which there are a lot). I don't think religious beliefs are above criticism, but a large number of Americans do.

I think the big thing right now is for Biden's camp to just hammer home in swing states how Trump is about to overturn theACA (Supreme Court case is coming up I believe?) and how he's tanked the economy. Remind them of all his false promises to Detroit and West Virginia. How we could be back to business like much of Europe if Trump hadn't bungled the coronavirus response. 

[Maggie Mae]

6 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

I worry about this too. At the same time, I don't think the debates matter much. Only more politically inclined people watch them, and we've all made up our minds already. HRC beat Trump handily in three of them and she still lost.  

The only purpose of the debates anymore is so that media conglomerates can gather quick sound bites.  Kamala definitely played to that in the primary, Trump's been doing it for ages (and he's right about his base not giving a shit about anything he does). 

The more I watch this and read stuff from both/all sides, the more I see the effects of decades worth of anti-intellectualism and cuts to schools. And the effect of our media (movies, tvs, even genre fiction) for decades portraying everyone who is quiet, thoughtful, with passions for intellectual pursuits as "nerdy" or "dorky."  It was a long time coming and going back to the debates - it's just going to be like the RNC/DNC. Echo chamber. Republican bullies will watch Biden and think "who can vote for this person?" Sane people will watch Trump and be horrified/disgusted/traumatized. Ugh I am so over it. I just want to vote and get it over with, I can barely think about anything else.  

[Exchange Atheist]

On 9/25/2020 at 10:50 AM, Ozlsn said:

It's also been a long process to this point - 20 years ago Trump would not even have gotten past round one of the primaries. There were a lot of small steps involved.

True, 20 years ago he withdrew from the race and called Pat Buchanan a Nazi whose company he didn’t want to keep.

I feel so bad for every single one of you in the States. Even watching all the way from Germany, I am so scared. I can hardly imagine what it’s like to actually live in this current climate...

[fraurosena]

Trump is sure to have a conniption when he sees what Twitter did...

 

[nausicaa]

4 hours ago, Maggie Mae said:

The more I watch this and read stuff from both/all sides, the more I see the effects of decades worth of anti-intellectualism...

I absolutely despise the strain of this in our culture and have no idea where it comes from and why it won't go away. 

[GreyhoundFan]

Glad to see this.

[GreyhoundFan]

Interesting advice for the debate. I agree:

 

[formergothardite]

Quote

“That’s a lie, fact check will be on my website momentarily,” the sheer repetition of the phrase could be effective.

This would be extremely effective I think. It would not engage with Trump, which would drive him insane. He can't stand being  ignored. He wants people to argue with him so he can keep up his bluster and put out sound bites. And the repetition of it would drive home exactly how much Trump is lying.

[GreyhoundFan]

A-freaking-men