I doubt I would have watched the debate last night between Kamala Harris and the F-f-f-f-f-former president who let "Ab Dool" into Camp David if I weren't living with such political people. But like most normal (not weird) folks, I can't stand this bozo and a chance to see him punted like a ball at the upcoming Steelers/Broncos game is not to be missed. I think that game will also include a lot of field goals too but no touchdowns. A game that might almost make FOOTball sound like the right name for the sport in which all the important stuff is done with hands. But HANDball was already taken too.
At any rate, I watched. And as someone who has enjoyed a debate or two (and am quite adept at getting under the skin of my opponents) I might have done things differently than Kamala. At the outset of the debate I thought she missed a really great opportunity to be aggressive. When he was making claims to privileged information that the Harris campaign has plans to abort all babies no matter how far along the mother, in fact even execute babies after birth, I would have calmly pointed out that, yes, killing babies after birth IS execution, not abortion, and it's called that because that is when the kid becomes a living human being. A child. That's when the political issue changes from abortion to childcare. Do you have any plans or "numbers" for that yet?
Instead we had to settle for the female moderator reminding Trump that there are no states in which killing a child after birth is legal. I wish she had said something like, "I believe that is called murder. Are you alleging that Kamala Harris plans to murder babies?" Or maybe Kamala should have said that. I certainly would have.When Trump's lie hole was secreting the verbal pus about how the Biden administration's dealings with Iran have made it a rich country and how horrible lifting sanctions on them was, well, let's just refer back to the previous story. ZTE was a Chinese company being sanctioned due to their disregard for sanctions against Iran. I also might have mentioned that less than a week earlier, Donny Flip-Flop had suggested this.
When Project 2025 was mentioned Trump did his usual "Huh? Who? Wha?" mentioning he hadn't read it, but in the same breath saying there were some good ideas and some bad. I am inclined to believe he hasn't read it because that's not one of his things - reading. But he knows what is in it and was the inspiration for most if not all of it. That is why his narcissism would not allow him to refrain from at least saying, "I guess there were some good ideas and some bad." Missed that part? Watch this. THIS is when I would have brought up Charlottesville. "Some good, some bad" there too. Well, F-f-f-f-f-f-former president, we all recognize that this is the very rhetoric a person uses when it is dangerous to reveal publicly which are which. Which people are good and which are bad? Which ideas are good and which are bad. We all know, who do you think you're fooling?
I was happy to hear Kamala bring up the fact that Trump squashed a tough immigration bill she had helped draft only to bitch about her and Biden letting in bad immigrants who kill people. I referenced it in my OTHER blog. Even the moderator asked Trump to field that one and he blatantly dodged the question. I was waiting for the mod or Kamala Harris to persist in getting an answer but neither did. I would have gone into an imitation of Will Farrell doing an imitation of Harry Caray, "Answer the question. Why? It's an easy question, why? A baby could answer it. Why?" Lol, I love that impression. I guess Trump doesn't want the border watched TOO closely. He likes illegal immigrants when he can hire them and then STIFF them because they're in the country illegally anyway. Check it out, he quietly paid 1.4 million to make THAT story go away. I wonder if that even began to cover what he owed them...
The line of the debate was, "I have concepts of a plan," which was in response to the direct question of whether or not he had a health care plan to replace Obamacare (which is now being called Obamacare again). I would have beaten that horse to death. "Do you have plans on how to lower inflation or concepts of plans? Do you have any plans on how to stimulate the economy or just concepts of plans? And so on."
And then there were the immigrants eating pets in Ohio. I have a friend in Ohio who marked herself safe from pet eating today on Facebook. lol Now he's alleging that Kamala Harris is killing puppies! Was that his plan for the debate? Tell everyone she kills puppies and babies? I bet it was. This is prima facie evidence of the volatility and gullibility Trump represents. I would have brought up the radio broadcast "The War of the Worlds" that convinced a lot of listeners that there was an ongoing alien invasion. What if the then sitting president had been so witlessly suggestible? The US needs a smarter person at the helm. Or something like that.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard panels such as these three ladies
singing Kamala's praises and using the terms, "pushed his buttons," "triggered him," or "got under his skin," but if it were ME on that stage in Kamala's place, I would have had Trump doing his best to run across the stage and physically attack me. She could have pressed his buttons, gotten under his skin, and triggered him better in my opinion.
However. One of the people I was watching with, Roman, brought up an interesting point. Kamala is a woman. Aside from her wardrobe and appearance being scrutinized that much more closely, aside from being the candidate with so much more to lose in the debate, (I'm sure Trump would tell you he could have shot Kamala and eaten her on that stage like the late great Hannibal Lecter and still not lost any of his voter base) she had the added challenge of not appearing to be a bitch. A uniquely female challenge. Trump could be, and arguably WAS, bitchy. Kamala wasn't. Maybe if she had pursued the avenues I'm suggesting here it might have come off as "bitchy" to the main target of the proceedings: the undecided voters.
Yes, let's talk about the undecided American voter. You know their slogan, "We can't decide on a slogan." There is actually the mentality that Trump is a known quantity and since Kamala is not, I'll vote for Trump. Even though that "quantity" is shyte? I don't think those are the targets. They're idiots. The "undecided" voters that matter are not idiots. They're actually the smart Americans who are sick of voting because the people they vote for never give them what they promise. Kamala's main purpose last night was to try to convince those people that she REALLY will be able to do the things that so many have promised and not delivered. That's a fucking difficult thing to accomplish. FAR more difficult than not appearing bitchy, but at the same time, looking like a bitch just arguing with the other candidate would most likely be contrary to that purpose. Vindictive mud slinging between candidates is often what distracts from the fact that they're not doing what was promised.
So, bearing that in mind, and with the caveat that I STILL am far from convinced that Kamala Harris is any different from the past presidents who broke so many campaign promises, I think she did well in the debate and I hope she won over some of the "undecided" or non-voters. I really would like to see if she DOES keep her promises and does all the things the American people have wanted since any of us have been alive and their government - Republican or Democrat - has not given them.
I don't think it's just Republican politicians, or even just politicians against whom she will have to "fight" to deliver on her promises, but she says when she fights she wins. I am more and more interested in seeing if that is indeed the case.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment