Vice President Kamala Harris on Saturday accepted an invitation from CNN to debate former President Donald Trump on October 23, challenging her rival to another engagement on a public stage in the final weeks of the campaign.
I'm actually kind of worried that this will happen. In that vacuum she's going to use the time to bridge the gap between the left and the right. The last thing I really want from her is more talk about supporting fracking, more soft stance on Palestine, and more words about hardline on immigration. I get that she's trying to draw more of the right in politically but I'm also worried that she is dangerously close to having the far left get disenfranchised.
I think the far left (if they're going to vote) aren't likely to be pushed away by more moderation from Harris. They're already far more politically engaged than the vast majority of people. Meanwhile, there are a lot of apolitical people who dislike Trump, but just don't want to vote and feel like they don't know enough about Kamala to feel comfortable voting for her (my Catholic Republican mother, for example). I think that group probably has more people in it than the far left does, and more exposure to Kamala's normalcy relative to Trump is a good thing for swaying them, given the shift in the polls following the last debate. I'll always be disappointed when the Dems pivot right instead of left, but I think the logic is sound in this case.
I actually think that would probably go poorly for Harris. The mistake-tolerance for Harris is tiny because left and left-leaning voters are often hyper-purity idealogues. Trump's supporters are also working on a purity ideology, but they are extremely mistake-tolerant because their purity test is literally supporting Trump. He's basically one, long series of mistakes and it barely moves his numbers.
Harris does not have that luxury by any stretch of the imagination.
Nah he'll be there, his ego won't let him stay away. We'll have to hear it sane washed as his "just stay tuned" showmanship master plan, but we'll know it's just ego.
If he saying he's not going to be there, you know he's 100% going to be there. He's many terrible things, but he's consistent AF when it comes to doing the exact opposite of what comes out of his mouth.
I'll just repeat someone else's idea I saw elsewhere on Lemmy. She and Walz should challenge Trump and Vance to a marksmanship contest down at the gun range. He'd never go for it, but the image is hilarious. Admittedly, it would lose Harris some support from her base, but it would lose Trump a lot more from his to see him being shown up in such a visible way on one of his base's favorite topics. Harris has stated that she is a gun owner, and you know she's the type to take safety and skill training before she ever bought one, while on the other hand, if pansy-ass Trump has ever handled a live firearm in his life I will eat my hat. Both VP candidates have military training, but I'd still expect a pretty big skill gap between a decorated career infantry NCO and a newspaper staffer in a uniform.
I think most left leaning people don't want no guns. We just want responsible gun ownership and issuance, at the bare minimum.
We recognize that guns, like hammers are tools. They have legitimate uses. The problem comes when people start seeing everything as a nail. Or they don't properly secure them. Or they give them to people who lack the discipline to properly handle them.
Or, when people think that having the discipline and cognitive functionality to properly handle a tool that is easily capable of accidental or intentional death.... shouldn't matter.
I don't own a gun. I don't want a gun in my house or anywhere near me. I've had a history of depression and who knows when those thoughts will come back around. Or if my wife will have them. Or my kids. I don't want an exit-button anywhere near me if that ever happens.
But if you want one? Cool for you. Keep it locked up when you aren't using it.
Yeah, I don't think it would lose her a lot, but some. Little enough that it would be a notable net gain in her favor. I was just acknowledging that it's a non-zero amount. I'm voting for her, and it wouldn't bother me any either, as you probably assumed from me suggesting it. I do have opinions on gun control (neither more nor less, just make it better tuned), but I barely consider it when voting because I have much stronger opinions on social safety nets, capital's disproportionate influence, the health of the environment we live in, and so many other issues.
I don’t like this idea so much. Tensions are high after two attempted assassinations of Trump and I don’t think our VP seen firing guns is going to help to quell any additional violence this election cycle. Also I am disgusted by many GOP members who share photos or political ads of them decked out with guns in front of a Christmas tree or shooting at shit and then turning to the camera to make their pitch to the voters.
They changed ownership in 2022 and their ideology and business model was to mimic the tenets of ”journalism” that FOX news uses. Here is a good article on the change and if you’re paying attention you’ll notice their Trump coverage is much friendlier than 4 years ago.
Why billionaire John Malone’s shadow looms over CNN
“I would like to see CNN evolve back to the kind of journalism that it started with, and actually have journalists, which would be unique and refreshing,” he said. Then he suggested a model: “Fox News, in my opinion, has followed an interesting trajectory of trying to have ‘news’ news, I mean some actual journalism, embedded in a program schedule of all opinions.”
Do it Jeopardy style. Goad him in by saying we're going to determine who the smartest candidate is once and for all. Invite Stein to keep it interesting.
I think October 23rd would be an ideal date to organize anyone with a non-disclosure agreement with Trump to break that agreement en masse and share all the details of what he doesn’t want the public to know.
It’s be great fodder for the news cycle leading up to Election Day and I doubt Trump has the resources to legally pursue so many people for NDA breaches at the same time.
Her campaign is going to goad him and his handlers are going to have problems keeping him in line. If he shows up to the debate, he's going to be rigidly locked down and determined to hit her on the economy and immigration, and she's going to do her best to needle him.
What I absolutely loathe are the differing standards: to get people to vote for her, she has to be temperate, reasonable, persuasive, and have detailed plans that people agree with. While he just has to show up, word-salad rascist, and not drool too much.