According to Jeff Stein of the WaPo: "Trump said the Biden administration has been “horrible” for manufacturing. Manufacturing employment is higher than it was under Trump, and the U.S. had as of August added more than 765,000 manufacturing jobs since January 2021."
Anyone know, offhand, how that compares to the EU?
Harris came across as hopeful and looked like the change candidate . Trump just looks bitter and with nothing positive to say. His closing statement was terrible.
If I was Harris I’d find a way to not agree another debate . She did very well tonight and perhaps take the win . If she’s determined to do another debate then make sure it’s open mics .
If I was Harris I’d find a way to not agree another debate . She did very well tonight and perhaps take the win . If she’s determined to do another debate then make sure it’s open mics .
She won't need to. Trump's people won't let him do another. Unless they want to risk losing the Senate as well as the Presidency.
If I was Harris I’d find a way to not agree another debate . She did very well tonight and perhaps take the win . If she’s determined to do another debate then make sure it’s open mics .
She won't need to. Trump's people won't let him do another. Unless they want to risk losing the Senate as well as the Presidency.
Let’s hope he decides to then ! If they do another debate then it has to be open mics and Harris should insist on that .
but debate watchers very similar partisan breakdown to overall US.
I doubt it will have much impact on the race.
This debate was just a test of Harris's credibility as a candidate, all the more important since Biden's catastrophic performance last time, which she passed.
A key point missing in a lot of post debate analysis is that Trump’s claim about immigrants eating pets almost perfectly syncs up to the piano in the Peanuts theme song. https://x.com/NoahGarfinkel/status/1833708370974695574
Was Trump better or worse in this debate than Biden was in the first?
Based purely on what I’ve seen on Sky news at 6am, trump was a lot better. I’m not following it closely, but I’m getting that familiar feeling of the British media projecting their wishes on to events.
That was a failure by the moderators. They needed to turn off his mic - and cut off his old, white-guy entitlement.
Surprised to see Wokespeak from you.
How should we describe Trump's "old white-guy entitlement"?
Is Trump old?
Well, yes. And it appears to be increasingly showing.
Is he a white-guy?
Sometimes more orange, perhaps. But I'd call that a yes.
Does he show entitlement?
Hell, yes.
Is there a subset of old white-guys who seem to suffer from a feeling of entitlement?
Again, yes. That's not all old white-guys; but most of us probably know one or two.
Is Trump in that subset?
Yes.
The truth is not 'woke'. The evil is done when people try to hide the truth.
But casino makes a valid point - why use language that is going to needlessly alienate old white guys (and those close to them) who buy into the feeling that they are being attacked just for being old white guys.
Better to point out that Trump is, and always has been, a whiny bigot who was born into wealth and constantly falsely plays the victim. He can keep the whiny racist billionaire vote - they're not going to vote Harris anyway.
Was Trump better or worse in this debate than Biden was in the first?
Based purely on what I’ve seen on Sky news at 6am, trump was a lot better. I’m not following it closely, but I’m getting that familiar feeling of the British media projecting their wishes on to events.
The truth is, though, I don't think this debate changes much. Everyone already voting for Trump knows he's a liar, a criminal, a forger, a rapist and a failure, and either doesn't care or is wilfully blind to it. Everyone else was already voting either for Harris or not voting at all anyway.
The trick for Harris is turnout. This may help a little with that. After all, if even Fox News thinks Donald Trump made a mess of it he must have been ranting like Hitler in the bunker.
There is still nearly two months to go and more debates to come.
That was the only scheduled debate between Harris and Trump.
There’s one debate between Walz and Vance still to come.
I thought there was one more in October, at least.
Has that been cancelled?
Would seem absurd that's there's nothing more between them until polling day now.
That's the Veep debate.
Harris would agree to others, but not if they were on Fox.
Trump would only agree to one on Fox moderated by a figure of his choice.
Impasse.
(To be fair, after last night even a partisan mod and a Fox audience wouldn't appear likely to save Trump from embarrassment, so maybe she should u-turn on that.)
There is still nearly two months to go and more debates to come.
That was the only scheduled debate between Harris and Trump.
There’s one debate between Walz and Vance still to come.
I thought there was one more in October, at least.
Has that been cancelled?
Would seem absurd that's there's nothing more between them until polling day now.
1st October is Walz and Vance.
I suspect that there will be one more debate scheduled, as some in the Harris team have suggested tonight. It wasn’t the total car crash it could have been for them, and Trump likes the debate format. They’ll likely spend a week arguing about the details, and then agree to something mid-October.
Traditionally there’s always been more than one debate, the last couple of elections have each had three debates between the Presidential candidates.
CNN said that IF there is another Trump v Harris debate it will likely be on NBC.
I very much doubt if Trump would agree to that. First it would look like desperation and second, he will kid himself it was the fault of the mods and the audience and he really won, so why try again?
That was a failure by the moderators. They needed to turn off his mic - and cut off his old, white-guy entitlement.
Surprised to see Wokespeak from you.
How should we describe Trump's "old white-guy entitlement"?
Is Trump old?
Well, yes. And it appears to be increasingly showing.
Is he a white-guy?
Sometimes more orange, perhaps. But I'd call that a yes.
Does he show entitlement?
Hell, yes.
Is there a subset of old white-guys who seem to suffer from a feeling of entitlement?
Again, yes. That's not all old white-guys; but most of us probably know one or two.
Is Trump in that subset?
Yes.
The truth is not 'woke'. The evil is done when people try to hide the truth.
But casino makes a valid point - why use language that is going to needlessly alienate old white guys (and those close to them) who buy into the feeling that they are being attacked just for being old white guys.
Better to point out that Trump is, and always has been, a whiny bigot who was born into wealth and constantly falsely plays the victim. He can keep the whiny racist billionaire vote - they're not going to vote Harris anyway.
That is a valid point; but these guys exist, enough to be a trope in many TV shows and films. But MM did not accuse all old white guys of entitlement; just that he shows an entitlement that can be found in some old white guys.
I don't have a problem with the term "old white-guy entitlement". But that also means that I shouldn't have a problem with similar terms used about other groupings. And that's where a problem lies: many people on left and right are happy to throw around grouping terms for people they don't like, but unhappy when one is used that might apply to them.
You also said: "whiny racist billionaire vote", which has exactly the same problem as "old white-guy entitlement"; most billionaires are not whiny or racist.
If there was a pot of gold at the bottom of every rainbow, would that pose an inflationary problem?
Yes. Your hypothetical is actually pretty much an actual because Spain's ransacking of South America C16-17 was equivalent to finding and excavating the pots.
If there was a pot of gold at the bottom of every rainbow, would that pose an inflationary problem?
Yes. Your hypothetical is actually pretty much an actual because Spain's ransacking of South America C16-17 was equivalent to finding and excavating the pots.
Harris came across as hopeful and looked like the change candidate . Trump just looks bitter and with nothing positive to say. His closing statement was terrible.
Trump doesn't just look bitter and with nothing positive to say.
If there was a pot of gold at the bottom of every rainbow, would that pose an inflationary problem?
Yes. Your hypothetical is actually pretty much an actual because Spain's ransacking of South America C16-17 was equivalent to finding and excavating the pots.
"Rachel Reeves claimed £4,400 of taxpayer cash towards her energy bills before axing winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners.
In the past five years alone, she has claimed £3,700, Telegraph analysis reveals.
The Chancellor and other Labour MPs spent more than £400,000 of taxpayer money heating their own homes over the past five years, with some claiming thousands a year more than a typical household spends."
Never mind the debate, this is hilarious and it's a puzzle why it's hidden away in the torygraph money pages. One rule for the little people, ...
If there was a pot of gold at the bottom of every rainbow, would that pose an inflationary problem?
Yes. Your hypothetical is actually pretty much an actual because Spain's ransacking of South America C16-17 was equivalent to finding and excavating the pots.
Or to half-remember a PJ O'Rourke line, it was like robbing a bank, stealing all the little pens and nothing else.
All the interesting new things there, and they took the uninteresting thing they understood.
People have always been people.
I think that's a bit like archaeology in the past: they took all the shiny baubles because they looked interesting and valuable, where archaeologically they were not of as much interest as the stuff they threw on the rubbish tip.
I didn't stay up for this debate, or the last one, early start for work so couldn't.
Much better news to be reading this time than last time it seems.
Kamala has completely turned the page on Biden's failure last time and Trump is now left as the bitter loser he always was without having the chance of winning by default.
If there was a pot of gold at the bottom of every rainbow, would that pose an inflationary problem?
Yes. Your hypothetical is actually pretty much an actual because Spain's ransacking of South America C16-17 was equivalent to finding and excavating the pots.
Or to half-remember a PJ O'Rourke line, it was like robbing a bank, stealing all the little pens and nothing else.
All the interesting new things there, and they took the uninteresting thing they understood.
People have always been people.
I think that's a bit like archaeology in the past: they took all the shiny baubles because they looked interesting and valuable, where archaeologically they were not of as much interest as the stuff they threw on the rubbish tip.
"In the past" - if only. UK archaeologists I know are unanimous that more damage is still being done in the middle east by shit archaeologists than by out and out robbery.
If there was a pot of gold at the bottom of every rainbow, would that pose an inflationary problem?
Only if we only just managed to defeat the leprechauns to seize it.
We may now see this in action in Ireland. An election is due within six months. Everyone and their mother will promise to spend the pot of gold (€14bn) that's fallen into the Irish government's lap after losing the Apple tax case. Probably promise to spend it twice over. And the economy is already growing at capacity.
Was Trump better or worse in this debate than Biden was in the first?
Based purely on what I’ve seen on Sky news at 6am, trump was a lot better. I’m not following it closely, but I’m getting that familiar feeling of the British media projecting their wishes on to events.
If Fox News think Kamala won the debate then there can't be any doubt about it. " ... the vice president appeared to gain renewed confidence as she saw Trump faltering under relentless questioning"
If there was a pot of gold at the bottom of every rainbow, would that pose an inflationary problem?
Yes. Your hypothetical is actually pretty much an actual because Spain's ransacking of South America C16-17 was equivalent to finding and excavating the pots.
Or to half-remember a PJ O'Rourke line, it was like robbing a bank, stealing all the little pens and nothing else.
All the interesting new things there, and they took the uninteresting thing they understood.
People have always been people.
I think that's a bit like archaeology in the past: they took all the shiny baubles because they looked interesting and valuable, where archaeologically they were not of as much interest as the stuff they threw on the rubbish tip.
"In the past" - if only. UK archaeologists I know are unanimous that more damage is still being done in the middle east by shit archaeologists than by out and out robbery.
Mrs J has occasionally said that she wished that Turkey had a Time Team-style program so people might appreciate their country's massively rich archeological wealth.
Her mum was from the south of the country, near Tarsus, and when she was a kid would occasionally find Roman coins, including gold ones, whilst digging in the garden. Which would promptly be sold, because everyone was poor.
(Her uncle also taught her to fish using explosives...)
Right. I have cashed out into the bounce for £270 profit vs potential win of £670. Bounce has time to fade, trump won't agree another debate, wish casting clouding my judgement and a slight consolation in event of a trump win.
If there was a pot of gold at the bottom of every rainbow, would that pose an inflationary problem?
Yes. Your hypothetical is actually pretty much an actual because Spain's ransacking of South America C16-17 was equivalent to finding and excavating the pots.
Or to half-remember a PJ O'Rourke line, it was like robbing a bank, stealing all the little pens and nothing else.
All the interesting new things there, and they took the uninteresting thing they understood.
People have always been people.
I think that's a bit like archaeology in the past: they took all the shiny baubles because they looked interesting and valuable, where archaeologically they were not of as much interest as the stuff they threw on the rubbish tip.
"In the past" - if only. UK archaeologists I know are unanimous that more damage is still being done in the middle east by shit archaeologists than by out and out robbery.
Mrs J has occasionally said that she wished that Turkey had a Time Team-style program so people might appreciate their country's massively rich archeological wealth.
Her mum was from the south of the country, near Tarsus, and when she was a kid would occasionally find Roman coins, including gold ones, whilst digging in the garden. Which would promptly be sold, because everyone was poor.
(Her uncle also taught her to fish using explosives...)
Turks are rightly very proud of their heritage. A key phrase for the traveller is çok eski - very old.
but debate watchers very similar partisan breakdown to overall US.
I doubt it will have much impact on the race.
This debate was just a test of Harris's credibility as a candidate, all the more important since Biden's catastrophic performance last time, which she passed.
It's nothing more than that.
Broadly true, but there's also a point about the more swing voters see the crazy side of Trump up close, the worse he does. He's never been more popular in this cycle than when he was mostly off the airwaves and the focus was on the Dems' failings.
When he shuts up, it's possible to create a mythical version of him in your head that's not all that bad really, and cling on to the more conventionally GOP stuff you might support. When there's an old man rambling like a loony about eating dogs and threatening coups it really isn't.
So any time Donald Trump spends being challenged on camera in front of a major audience is good for Harris.
It was the arguably the same in 2020 - when Trump threw away an election he should have won with his incoherent babblings and ill-advised interventions, allowing Biden to pitch as the sane option who'd stop the madness.
If there was a pot of gold at the bottom of every rainbow, would that pose an inflationary problem?
Yes. Your hypothetical is actually pretty much an actual because Spain's ransacking of South America C16-17 was equivalent to finding and excavating the pots.
Or to half-remember a PJ O'Rourke line, it was like robbing a bank, stealing all the little pens and nothing else.
All the interesting new things there, and they took the uninteresting thing they understood.
People have always been people.
I think that's a bit like archaeology in the past: they took all the shiny baubles because they looked interesting and valuable, where archaeologically they were not of as much interest as the stuff they threw on the rubbish tip.
"In the past" - if only. UK archaeologists I know are unanimous that more damage is still being done in the middle east by shit archaeologists than by out and out robbery.
Mrs J has occasionally said that she wished that Turkey had a Time Team-style program so people might appreciate their country's massively rich archeological wealth.
Her mum was from the south of the country, near Tarsus, and when she was a kid would occasionally find Roman coins, including gold ones, whilst digging in the garden. Which would promptly be sold, because everyone was poor.
(Her uncle also taught her to fish using explosives...)
Turks are rightly very proud of their heritage. A key phrase for the traveller is çok eski - very old.
Indeed, but heritage != archaeology. The Victorians who dumped bones in piles whilst looking for baubles were also very proud of their heritage,
FPT - in my view this sees Jenrick and Cleverly into the final two.
I'd have thought Stride's vote would mainly go to Tugendhat and Cleverly - and if it splits evenly, Kemi's out next round. More likely (in my view) is that Stride's vote goes something like 2/2/7/5 to J/B/C/T, putting Tugendhat out and Cleverly through - then Tugendhat's votes transfer mainly to Cleverly, giving the members a choice of Jenrick or Cleverly.
That's my guess too (and hope!).
Given your expressed views on Jenrick, then presumably you think Cleverly wins this?
That was a failure by the moderators. They needed to turn off his mic - and cut off his old, white-guy entitlement.
Surprised to see Wokespeak from you.
How should we describe Trump's "old white-guy entitlement"?
Is Trump old?
Well, yes. And it appears to be increasingly showing.
Is he a white-guy?
Sometimes more orange, perhaps. But I'd call that a yes.
Does he show entitlement?
Hell, yes.
Is there a subset of old white-guys who seem to suffer from a feeling of entitlement?
Again, yes. That's not all old white-guys; but most of us probably know one or two.
Is Trump in that subset?
Yes.
The truth is not 'woke'. The evil is done when people try to hide the truth.
But casino makes a valid point - why use language that is going to needlessly alienate old white guys (and those close to them) who buy into the feeling that they are being attacked just for being old white guys.
Better to point out that Trump is, and always has been, a whiny bigot who was born into wealth and constantly falsely plays the victim. He can keep the whiny racist billionaire vote - they're not going to vote Harris anyway.
That is a valid point; but these guys exist, enough to be a trope in many TV shows and films. But MM did not accuse all old white guys of entitlement; just that he shows an entitlement that can be found in some old white guys.
I don't have a problem with the term "old white-guy entitlement". But that also means that I shouldn't have a problem with similar terms used about other groupings. And that's where a problem lies: many people on left and right are happy to throw around grouping terms for people they don't like, but unhappy when one is used that might apply to them.
You also said: "whiny racist billionaire vote", which has exactly the same problem as "old white-guy entitlement"; most billionaires are not whiny or racist.
I don't think it is exactly the same problem at all.
Firstly, and most importantly, Harris can easily win without a single vote from whiny racist billionaires (and like I said they aren't voting for her anyway). She's not going to win without any votes from old white guys.
Secondly, you would have a bit of a point if "billionaire racism" was an established thing. There's an idea that old white guys are likely to be "entitled". I've not heard the idea that billionaires are especially likely to be racists. So when I talk about whiny racist billionaires isn't it clear that I'm talking specifically about individuals like Trump who fit the description?
Thirdly "whiny racist billionaires" is obviously intended as a humorous demographic label.
The truth is, though, I don't think this debate changes much. Everyone already voting for Trump knows he's a liar, a criminal, a forger, a rapist and a failure, and either doesn't care or is wilfully blind to it. Everyone else was already voting either for Harris or not voting at all anyway.
The trick for Harris is turnout. This may help a little with that. After all, if even Fox News thinks Donald Trump made a mess of it he must have been ranting like Hitler in the bunker.
Everyone already voting for Trump doesn’t know he’s a liar/criminal/rapist/failure. There are lots of Republican voters living in a right-wing media bubble who simply don’t hear half the stories about Trump and are told the other half are lies.
The closet Trumpistas come over as utterly deflated. That will do.
Indeed. Anybody who's genuinely anti Trump would have enjoyed that debate.
That would pretty much be 95% of the posters here.
Having read up on the debate on Twitter, from more impartial observers, it does indeed seem that Trump had a nightmare. Harris did okay but was not subject to too much scrutiny. She mugged him off effectively.
Remains to be seen what impact this has on the race.
Hopefully if Harris wins it is a clear and decisive win rather than a close one.
Comments
Night night
Whether the sane can retake the party anytime soon is not easy to answer.
Their commentator pulling out Trump’s allegation that people are stealing pets to eat them as a stand out loony comment.
Watching on CNN they stayed with ABC - Trump walked off on his side of stage first and then Harris exited her side.
There were plenty of other whoppers from the pair of them, on which better to focus.
Citation required.
Trump came across as a grotesque from an episode of The Simpsons. Ironic, given that Trump brought up Springfield...
He will not look at her it is amazing. He is seething. I’ve never seen anything like it.
https://x.com/Timodc/status/1833690565675823439
Suggests an exit poll is out somewhere.
https://x.com/Angry_Staffer/status/1833700086549012701
Trump out to 2.12 on Betfair
False claims in debate:
Harris 1
Trump 33
"There were plenty of other whoppers from the pair of them, on which better to focus."
Trump 37
Harris 63
but debate watchers very similar partisan breakdown to overall US.
Trump 50
Harris 50
Trump 39 (pre debate 41)
Harris 45 (pre debate 39)
Harris and Trump both Yes 54, No 46
But when split Yes into a lot / some - more had a lot for Trump
Harris 42
Trump 33
This debate was just a test of Harris's credibility as a candidate, all the more important since Biden's catastrophic performance last time, which she passed.
It's nothing more than that.
A hint to the right-wingers - prefixing 'woke' around anything you don't like doesn't improve your point.
https://x.com/NoahGarfinkel/status/1833708370974695574
Well, yes. And it appears to be increasingly showing.
Is he a white-guy?
Sometimes more orange, perhaps. But I'd call that a yes.
Does he show entitlement?
Hell, yes.
Is there a subset of old white-guys who seem to suffer from a feeling of entitlement?
Again, yes. That's not all old white-guys; but most of us probably know one or two.
Is Trump in that subset?
Yes.
The truth is not 'woke'. The evil is done when people try to hide the truth.
Was Trump better or worse in this debate than Biden was in the first?
Who understands problems facing you:
Harris 44 (before debate 39)
Trump 40 (before debate 43)
Harris 35 (before debate 37)
Trump 55 (before debate 53)
So Economy is by far Trump's strongest area.
Otherwise you are casting aspersions on an entire group of people - all old white men - which is identity politics and fuels polarisation.
Harris supporters:
Change mind 2
Reconsider 10
No effect 88
Trump supporters:
Change mind 6
Reconsider 17
No effect 78
So a very good result for Harris.
There is still nearly two months to go and more debates to come.
There’s one debate between Walz and Vance still to come.
Better to point out that Trump is, and always has been, a whiny bigot who was born into wealth and constantly falsely plays the victim. He can keep the whiny racist billionaire vote - they're not going to vote Harris anyway.
The trick for Harris is turnout. This may help a little with that. After all, if even Fox News thinks Donald Trump made a mess of it he must have been ranting like Hitler in the bunker.
Has that been cancelled?
Would seem absurd that's there's nothing more between them until polling day now.
Harris would agree to others, but not if they were on Fox.
Trump would only agree to one on Fox moderated by a figure of his choice.
Impasse.
(To be fair, after last night even a partisan mod and a Fox audience wouldn't appear likely to save Trump from embarrassment, so maybe she should u-turn on that.)
I suspect that there will be one more debate scheduled, as some in the Harris team have suggested tonight. It wasn’t the total car crash it could have been for them, and Trump likes the debate format. They’ll likely spend a week arguing about the details, and then agree to something mid-October.
Traditionally there’s always been more than one debate, the last couple of elections have each had three debates between the Presidential candidates.
CNN said that IF there is another Trump v Harris debate it will likely be on NBC.
If you have and are worried about this problem, I'll take it for you.
I don't have a problem with the term "old white-guy entitlement". But that also means that I shouldn't have a problem with similar terms used about other groupings. And that's where a problem lies: many people on left and right are happy to throw around grouping terms for people they don't like, but unhappy when one is used that might apply to them.
You also said: "whiny racist billionaire vote", which has exactly the same problem as "old white-guy entitlement"; most billionaires are not whiny or racist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_revolution
All the interesting new things there, and they took the uninteresting thing they understood.
People have always been people.
"Rachel Reeves claimed £4,400 of taxpayer cash towards her energy bills before axing winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners.
In the past five years alone, she has claimed £3,700, Telegraph analysis reveals.
The Chancellor and other Labour MPs spent more than £400,000 of taxpayer money heating their own homes over the past five years, with some claiming thousands a year more than a typical household spends."
Never mind the debate, this is hilarious and it's a puzzle why it's hidden away in the torygraph money pages. One rule for the little people, ...
The closet Trumpistas come over as utterly deflated. That will do.
Much better news to be reading this time than last time it seems.
Kamala has completely turned the page on Biden's failure last time and Trump is now left as the bitter loser he always was without having the chance of winning by default.
We may now see this in action in Ireland. An election is due within six months. Everyone and their mother will promise to spend the pot of gold (€14bn) that's fallen into the Irish government's lap after losing the Apple tax case. Probably promise to spend it twice over. And the economy is already growing at capacity.
" ... the vice president appeared to gain renewed confidence as she saw Trump faltering under relentless questioning"
Her mum was from the south of the country, near Tarsus, and when she was a kid would occasionally find Roman coins, including gold ones, whilst digging in the garden. Which would promptly be sold, because everyone was poor.
(Her uncle also taught her to fish using explosives...)
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/style/mel-b-leads-campaign-against-afro-hair-discrimination/ar-AA1qk4vU?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=3967b9ab31a54a789b9258d80fe57879&ei=11
Couldn’t have been a better night for the Dems really.
When he shuts up, it's possible to create a mythical version of him in your head that's not all that bad really, and cling on to the more conventionally GOP stuff you might support. When there's an old man rambling like a loony about eating dogs and threatening coups it really isn't.
So any time Donald Trump spends being challenged on camera in front of a major audience is good for Harris.
It was the arguably the same in 2020 - when Trump threw away an election he should have won with his incoherent babblings and ill-advised interventions, allowing Biden to pitch as the sane option who'd stop the madness.
I hope this is enough to restart Harris’s stalled momentum. It’s certainly a major hurdle overcome.
Though they are getting better at times.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cats-ducks-haitians-springfield/ says pet eating story is nonsense.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77l28myezko says pet eating story is nonsense.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/baseless-claim-haiti-immigrants-cats-springfield-ohio/ says pet eating story is nosense.
Sandpit: “that could be stood up in the coming days.”
Firstly, and most importantly, Harris can easily win without a single vote from whiny racist billionaires (and like I said they aren't voting for her anyway). She's not going to win without any votes from old white guys.
Secondly, you would have a bit of a point if "billionaire racism" was an established thing. There's an idea that old white guys are likely to be "entitled". I've not heard the idea that billionaires are especially likely to be racists. So when I talk about whiny racist billionaires isn't it clear that I'm talking specifically about individuals like Trump who fit the description?
Thirdly "whiny racist billionaires" is obviously intended as a humorous demographic label.
It works with the audience though. The lie is round the world before the truth has its boots on.
Having read up on the debate on Twitter, from more impartial observers, it does indeed seem that Trump had a nightmare. Harris did okay but was not subject to too much scrutiny. She mugged him off effectively.
Remains to be seen what impact this has on the race.
Hopefully if Harris wins it is a clear and decisive win rather than a close one.
NEW THREAD
I want her to beat Trump but let’s not go overboard.
That’s wrong. He’s a dangerous manipulative arsehole. That’s why he behaves like this
Lady is all class.
And Musk’s subsequent offer to impregnate her just put all that into relief.
Nothing has changed my view that the 5th of November will be a blowout for Harris.