• Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Trump looked more incoherent this time than in the previous debates, what with the “immigrants are coming to eat your pets” line and other zingers like post-birth abortion nonsense. There were also some weird moments where he said stuff like “Kamala hates Israel,” prompting her to go off on her undying loyalty to Israel.

    Harris was overall more presentable, but had some horrible policy moments, such as repeating debunked claims about sexual assault on October 7th as she restated her undying loyalty to Israel (which could materially cost her Michigan as Muslim voters are turning to Stein and Cornel West over Harris), or stating that Climate Change is an existential threat in one breath and promising to never ban fracking in the next, along with bragging about gas production.

    Overall it’s a clear “win” for Harris over Trump if we are purely measuring debate performance, Harris looked far better and answered more coherently, though her environmental positions, immigration positions, and foreign policy are far to the right of where they should be, especially concerning swing state polling.

    That is, of course, ignoring my personal disdain for liberalism and both candidates in general for being far-right, this is purely an analysis of the debate within the context of the election.

    • WormFood@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      this pretty much sums it up. I thought trump would be incoherent, but some of the stuff out of his mouth was borderline surreal. Harris had completely tuned herself to ‘beat’ trump, and while it worked, it’s painfully clear that she doesn’t have a single original thought - nothing but platitudes, the same canned phrases about working families and small businesses, same tired defence of Israel.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        That pretty much sums them up nicely. Both represent the two sides of dying Empire.

        Trump is a bit of a wrecking ball, his far-right populist rhetoric appeals to rising material frustrations with the Petite Bourgeoisie, ie small business owners and the like, along nationalist lines. Strong aesthetic patriotism, lack of consistency or coherence, promises of restoring grander times and power. General far-right nonsense that sees dying Empire as it is, but blaming it on immigrants and minorities instead of addressing material conditions.

        Harris is plucked straight from the stock-standard Empire maintainers. Her policies are largely Biden’s promises carried over, with firm Imperialist support for Israel and “the most lethal military in the world.” She isn’t attempting to appeal to fascists, but she is trying to appeal to those with vested interest in maintaining Imperial Hegemony. Small concessions and frequent doublespeak - claiming Climate Change is an existential threat in one breath, then boldly taking pride in record gas production and promising to never ban fracking in the next. She’s more coherent, which ironically makes the double-speak stand out clearer.

        It would be funny if it wasn’t tragic.

      • anarcho_blinkenist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        He’s at his best when he’s borderline surreal. Remember when he accused Ted Cruz’ dad of killing JFK? lmfaoo

        Both of these candidates deserve the Hague. But the Netherlands better arm up first! (That bill passed the Senate 75-19, with 30 democrats and 45 republicans in support. Never not a terrible country. Vote Communist and join the PSL)