Therein lies the problem, too many people just believe him without questioning it and Trump assails the media for pointing out facts
I was referring to his 2020 debate with Biden. In all three years he’s run, Trump’s first debate with the opposing nominee has been objectively bad (and, at least in terms of polling, this may have been the least bad of them), and what he does in debates has really been more or less the same every year. That’s what I was noting.
Every one of his debates has been bad (Hillary was a virtual Nostradamus about him as president). This year's with Biden was only in his favor due to the lack of fact checking and Biden's issues.
Trump counts on his foolish supporters to think that tariffs involve China cutting checks to the US, which of course they do not.
That encapsulates his business/ entertainer life to suspend reason and anyone who questions him is met with vitriol and more falsehoods. Harris exposed it like no one else has.
According to the source below the Black/AA population in Springfield is 10,210, so I don't know where you are getting 15,000 Haitians. Besides getting the facts correct, there is a phenomenon called diaspora, wherein an ethic minority of migrants relocate together at one location or region. There is a Somalian diaspora in the metro area of MN and a Mexican diaspora in Ruskin, FL (as examples). The same was true for Scandinavian, German, Polish, Irish, Italian (etc.) people in the past. It shouldn't be surprising that Haitian immigrants joined together in their relocation. Springfield, Ohio Population 2024
It’s funny you say that, I remember similar stuff being lobbed at the Cubans in the 80’s and 90’s, accusing them of ritual sacrifices and such. I vaguely remember some local freak out over animal carcasses (goats?). Or maybe it was that they wanted to have goats for their purposes and the city wouldn’t allow it? Obviously details are fuzzy, I didn’t think much of it.
Probably the most accurate write up of Tuesday Night I have seen, without the complaints about the moderators: But did Harris really accomplish what she needed? This is where the conventional wisdom may be veering off course. There’s a difference between what a candidate or a group wants and what it needs. What Harris and her supporters seemingly wanted was a technically adept evisceration of Trump. This echoes the desires of the highly educated moderate-to-liberal class of voters – which includes a lot of journalists – that most desperately wants Trump to be defeated. Harris delivered for them in spades. It’s no surprise that this class is ecstatic. But what did she need? The pre-debate polls were close and had moved against her in recent days. Frankly, to have received the adulatory media she received over the six weeks after Biden dropped out and yet only be up a point or two in national polling isn’t a great sign. In short, she needed to either convince undecided voters to break her way or to win over some soft Trump supporters. Did anything transpire on the debate stage that might have assisted this? We might start by asking ourselves: What did anyone, undecided or otherwise, learn about Trump last night? That he’s erratic? That he is bombastic and doesn’t always know what he’s talking about? That he can be a real jerk? Did Harris Really Get the Debate She Needed?
The media and Dems keep falling into the same trap with Trump. The debates become more about Trump than they do a contrast of ideas. This in turn elevates Trump, because all eyes are on him and the voters don't get any specifics from the other side. This is where negative campaigning can work against a candidate. People are left thinking "ok she is very good at saying mean things about Trump, but what did she say that makes me feel better about my future under a Harris administration?" She ducked the very first question, that she had to have known was coming. In the end, she looks weak to many voters, because she'd rather say mean things about Trump than talk about her record and her ideas. It was profoundly dumb for Harris to mention Trump's sentencing in NY, which has been delayed twice now. His polling numbers edged upward with every indictment. They think they're going to convince people Trump is a bad person. They end up making him into a martyr-like figure.
IOW - being a blowhard was Trump's nature, but not to his advantage. Kamala was more than content to let him run with it.
There is a Korean diaspora in Annandale, Virginia. My son graduated from Annandale High School in 2006. When he was a student the most common last name in the student directory was Kim. Outside of Los Angeles and NYC, Annandale,VA probably has more Koreans than any other area in America.
That's not what I said, was it? But it sounds like my words hit close to home with you. Negative campaigning can be a useful tool, but it can't be your entire strategy. Not to mention negative campaigning whilst copying and pasting several key policy ideas from the target isn't nearly as effective as negative campaigning with a very distinct and thorough platform of your own. Negative campaigning is also much harder to do with a known quantity candidate than it is a fresh face. We already knew Trump is a jerk. Reminding us ten million times and doing everything possible to avoid talking about your own platform isn't what we want to hear.
This would be a conversation, if Trump actually had "key policy ideas" or an actual platform. FYI, "concepts" don't qualify. But hey, you got the jerk part right. Baby steps
That is exactly what China is doing when they pay the Trump tariffs that Biden-Harris kept in place. That money goes directly to the U.S. Treasury. Do you not understand how tariffs work?
That's your opinion, but I must say the irony runs deep with you, as most of Kamala's very few proposals since she was gifted the nomination have been ideas she stole from guess who.
