Personally, I think you’ll see a shift after the first debate, and then barring no October surprise, that’s where it’s gonna be until Election Day.
Yeah it is the debate more so than the timing. It's the debate and the polling afterward that forced Joe's hand. Next week is fucking enormous.
i just hope she pushes back against him. he is going to try to attack, attack, attack and steamroll her on the border etc. she doesn't have to stuff him in a locker, but i just want her to fight back and show strength and leadership. biden couldn't do it due to the volume of whopper lies told. hopefully harris can.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Personally, I think you’ll see a shift after the first debate, and then barring no October surprise, that’s where it’s gonna be until Election Day.
Yeah it is the debate more so than the timing. It's the debate and the polling afterward that forced Joe's hand. Next week is fucking enormous.
i just hope she pushes back against him. he is going to try to attack, attack, attack and steamroll her on the border etc. she doesn't have to stuff him in a locker, but i just want her to fight back and show strength and leadership. biden couldn't do it due to the volume of whopper lies told. hopefully harris can.
trick will be to address just a handful of the lies and not get lost in trying rebut all of them while ALSO laying out her positions. ..
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I have confidence in her ability to do that Mick.....much more so than I had with Biden and Hillary.
This will be Trump's toughest debater in his political career.
my concern is she is 4 yrs removed from that prosecutor style she deftly used as senator and before as litigator. am sure is just refreshing that muscle memory. I'll be listening in as I drive for work.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
She just needs to call the lies, lies and then provoke him by saying he’s weird for making stuff like that up. No need to rebut. All she needs to say it’s the medias responsibility to point out untruthfulness and publish the facts.
Kamala will not argue her PoV well enough for some people, but generally be solid. Trump will ramble and get flustered. Tell lies that the mods won’t push back on. she will be seen as the winner but not enough to really change much.
What do I want to happen? For her to curb stomp him (metaphorically) ending all these mealy minded “independent “ dweebs dancing around “well he makes good points” with Trump, realizing he’s flaccid as a candidate and essentially ending this campaign a month and half early so we can get on with our lives earlier.
Kamala will not argue her PoV well enough for some people, but generally be solid. Trump will ramble and get flustered. Tell lies that the mods won’t push back on. she will be seen as the winner but not enough to really change much.
the bar for trump is basically laying on the ground, so if he does anything of note, like answering a single question, it could be considered a win for him. i know the media is looking for ways to not necessarily boost him, but looking for ways to hurt her. they need a horserace.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
I don't understand. Who is she talking about, exactly?
Twitter/X
So that seems weird that she would be saying that about Twitter/X in 2019, when asked about whether Donald Trump should lose his Twitter account for threatening a witness (Colonel Vinman) and obstructing justice. I guess next time I commit a crime on Twitter, I will be pleased that Donald Trump cleared the way for me to do so. Until then, I'm not too concerned. But it also appears you don't exactly know what that clip was about.
HARRIS: -- that he has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. The bottom line is that you can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.
TAPPER: He is the president of the United States, and I would -- you know, you might argue, first of all, he doesn't --
HARRIS: He does not have a right to commit a crime because he is president of the United States. He does not have the right to threaten witnesses and threaten their safety because he is president of the United States.
In fact, that's the very problem with Donald Trump. He thinks he's above the law, and we cannot keep reinforcing that. And anyone who wants to say, well, this is a matter of free speech, you are not free to threaten the life of a witness. That is a crime.
I don't understand. Who is she talking about, exactly?
Twitter/X
So that seems weird that she would be saying that about Twitter/X in 2019, when asked about whether Donald Trump should lose his Twitter account for threatening a witness (Colonel Vinman) and obstructing justice. I guess next time I commit a crime on Twitter, I will be pleased that Donald Trump cleared the way for me to do so. Until then, I'm not too concerned. But it also appears you don't exactly know what that clip was about.
HARRIS: -- that he has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. The bottom line is that you can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.
TAPPER: He is the president of the United States, and I would -- you know, you might argue, first of all, he doesn't --
HARRIS: He does not have a right to commit a crime because he is president of the United States. He does not have the right to threaten witnesses and threaten their safety because he is president of the United States.
In fact, that's the very problem with Donald Trump. He thinks he's above the law, and we cannot keep reinforcing that. And anyone who wants to say, well, this is a matter of free speech, you are not free to threaten the life of a witness. That is a crime.
It's about the idea of there needing to be regulation of social media sites. If he commits a crime on one, charge him with a crime. It's not Twitter's fault.
I don't understand. Who is she talking about, exactly?
Twitter/X
So that seems weird that she would be saying that about Twitter/X in 2019, when asked about whether Donald Trump should lose his Twitter account for threatening a witness (Colonel Vinman) and obstructing justice. I guess next time I commit a crime on Twitter, I will be pleased that Donald Trump cleared the way for me to do so. Until then, I'm not too concerned. But it also appears you don't exactly know what that clip was about.
HARRIS: -- that he has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. The bottom line is that you can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.
TAPPER: He is the president of the United States, and I would -- you know, you might argue, first of all, he doesn't --
HARRIS: He does not have a right to commit a crime because he is president of the United States. He does not have the right to threaten witnesses and threaten their safety because he is president of the United States.
In fact, that's the very problem with Donald Trump. He thinks he's above the law, and we cannot keep reinforcing that. And anyone who wants to say, well, this is a matter of free speech, you are not free to threaten the life of a witness. That is a crime.
It's about the idea of there needing to be regulation of social media sites. If he commits a crime on one, charge him with a crime. It's not Twitter's fault.
So if a person commits multiple crimes and in the process of committing crimes, it's more important that the social media retain a 1A right that doesn't exist in the actual world, rather than suspending an account? It's suspending an account, and you are taking the side of the criminal. Keep dying on that hill. You know damn well the point you just pivoted to is not even close to being the point of the clip; that if you're committing a crime, it's not X's fault.
You know the FCC has been regulating public speech for about 70 years, right?
I don't understand. Who is she talking about, exactly?
Twitter/X
So that seems weird that she would be saying that about Twitter/X in 2019, when asked about whether Donald Trump should lose his Twitter account for threatening a witness (Colonel Vinman) and obstructing justice. I guess next time I commit a crime on Twitter, I will be pleased that Donald Trump cleared the way for me to do so. Until then, I'm not too concerned. But it also appears you don't exactly know what that clip was about.
HARRIS: -- that he has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. The bottom line is that you can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.
TAPPER: He is the president of the United States, and I would -- you know, you might argue, first of all, he doesn't --
HARRIS: He does not have a right to commit a crime because he is president of the United States. He does not have the right to threaten witnesses and threaten their safety because he is president of the United States.
In fact, that's the very problem with Donald Trump. He thinks he's above the law, and we cannot keep reinforcing that. And anyone who wants to say, well, this is a matter of free speech, you are not free to threaten the life of a witness. That is a crime.
It's about the idea of there needing to be regulation of social media sites. If he commits a crime on one, charge him with a crime. It's not Twitter's fault.
So if a person commits multiple crimes and in the process of committing crimes, it's more important that the social media retain a 1A right that doesn't exist in the actual world, rather than suspending an account? It's suspending an account, and you are taking the side of the criminal. Keep dying on that hill. You know damn well the point you just pivoted to is not even close to being the point of the clip; that if you're committing a crime, it's not X's fault.
You know the FCC has been regulating public speech for about 70 years, right?
The FCC regulates public airwaves. Social media sites are private companies.
I don't understand. Who is she talking about, exactly?
Twitter/X
So that seems weird that she would be saying that about Twitter/X in 2019, when asked about whether Donald Trump should lose his Twitter account for threatening a witness (Colonel Vinman) and obstructing justice. I guess next time I commit a crime on Twitter, I will be pleased that Donald Trump cleared the way for me to do so. Until then, I'm not too concerned. But it also appears you don't exactly know what that clip was about.
HARRIS: -- that he has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. The bottom line is that you can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.
TAPPER: He is the president of the United States, and I would -- you know, you might argue, first of all, he doesn't --
HARRIS: He does not have a right to commit a crime because he is president of the United States. He does not have the right to threaten witnesses and threaten their safety because he is president of the United States.
In fact, that's the very problem with Donald Trump. He thinks he's above the law, and we cannot keep reinforcing that. And anyone who wants to say, well, this is a matter of free speech, you are not free to threaten the life of a witness. That is a crime.
It's about the idea of there needing to be regulation of social media sites. If he commits a crime on one, charge him with a crime. It's not Twitter's fault.
So if a person commits multiple crimes and in the process of committing crimes, it's more important that the social media retain a 1A right that doesn't exist in the actual world, rather than suspending an account? It's suspending an account, and you are taking the side of the criminal. Keep dying on that hill. You know damn well the point you just pivoted to is not even close to being the point of the clip; that if you're committing a crime, it's not X's fault.
You know the FCC has been regulating public speech for about 70 years, right?
The FCC regulates public airwaves. Social media sites are private companies.
That's because that's what the current law allows them to regulate. From a principles standpoint, there is no difference. When the FCC was formed, they had regulatory control on all public speech from private companies (NBC, CBS, ABC, etc). The only difference is the current span of control under law. That can always change. There's zero actual difference between Twitter and NBC, from a speech standpoint. If Conan went on teh street every Friday and a girl showed her boobs every week, NBC would be fined and eventually lose their broadcast license. It wasn't their fault. They didn't do anything wrong, just like Twitter didn't. Pointing to THIS truncated clip and saying this is about censorship on X is absurd. It's about DJT and the actual shit he was saying.
Certain types of speech are never protected, including obscene, threatening, or harassing speech. The SCOTUS has already ruled that there are limits to speech. So expanding the FCC's authority (or even the DOJ) to ensure that social media companies do not host criminal activity doesn't exactly run counter the Constitution. Nowhere did I say that the FCC has the current authority to regulate social media. You should stop misreading and misunderstanding so easily. And this is so far afield from Harris's 30 second discussion on the topic, based on a question from Tapper, that your post omitted the full context, deliberately. And for you to hyperventilate from that 2019 clip, as if that has some parlay into Durov's arrest, is silliness.
How about Trump just stop breaking the law so often, like a fucking mob boss? That seems to be an easier solution.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
What do I want to happen? For her to curb stomp him (metaphorically) ending all these mealy minded “independent “ dweebs dancing around “well he makes good points” with Trump, realizing he’s flaccid as a candidate and essentially ending this campaign a month and half early so we can get on with our lives earlier.
I am SO looking forward to that.
As for independents saying, "well he makes some good points", and as for people still on the fence (what happened there? 20 pounds of super glue?), these are people with a serious inability to even approximate critical thinking. And that's sad, really.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Comments
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
This will be Trump's toughest debater in his political career.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
my concern is she is 4 yrs removed from that prosecutor style she deftly used as senator and before as litigator. am sure is just refreshing that muscle memory. I'll be listening in as I drive for work.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Sweet! Thanks for the heads up!
Trump will ramble and get flustered. Tell lies that the mods won’t push back on.
she will be seen as the winner but not enough to really change much.
https://x.com/YALiberty/status/1831050781761683703
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
And at the very beginning she's referring to Trump's account.
HARRIS: -- that he has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. The bottom line is that you can't say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power. They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.
TAPPER: He is the president of the United States, and I would -- you know, you might argue, first of all, he doesn't --
HARRIS: He does not have a right to commit a crime because he is president of the United States. He does not have the right to threaten witnesses and threaten their safety because he is president of the United States.
In fact, that's the very problem with Donald Trump. He thinks he's above the law, and we cannot keep reinforcing that. And anyone who wants to say, well, this is a matter of free speech, you are not free to threaten the life of a witness. That is a crime.
You know the FCC has been regulating public speech for about 70 years, right?
Wow no. But it sounds like you have all the evidence there in a public post?
"Regulate Twitter!"
What?
How about Trump just stop breaking the law so often, like a fucking mob boss? That seems to be an easier solution.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14