On Sun, 15 Sep 2024 06:38:14 +0200, Steve Hayes
Post by Steve HayesOn Fri, 13 Sep 2024 09:49:14 -0400, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony CooperOn Fri, 13 Sep 2024 10:42:45 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-BowdenPost by Tony CooperThis forum is usually concerned with what is spoken and written, but I
found this article particularly interesting.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/09/11/body-language-presidential-debate-harris-trump-00178569?nname=
It's about reading the speaker.
I didn't stay up until 3AM to watch the debate live, but I've found a
video on the ABC site and started to watch it this morning. After all I
had read I was extremely disappointed with Kamala Harris at the
beginning. She was asked a straightforward question: do you think
things are better for most Americans than they were four years ago? A
simple question and I could have answered it better than she did. She
made no attempt to answer it, in fact she completely ignored it, but
talked about her upbringing and how wonderful everything will be when
she becomes President.
Was it a question that could have been effectively answered in the two
minutes allocated to replies?
Yes.
It could have been answered with a simple yes or no.
You two seem to be under the illusion that the "Presidential Debate"
format should be similar to the rules of a university debate team in
which each side is assigned a position and expected to expound on
points in support of their position in a logical and effective
progression.
The members of that style of debate format are not even expected to
personally support the position they are assigned. They are "graded"
- for lack of better word - for how effectively they develop and
present their points.
Americans don't expect that. The term "Debate" has clouded your
perception of what is to be expected. What Amercians expect in this
format is for each candidate to present themself as the person they
want in charge of the country in the next four years.
Harris's best route to do this is to present a strategy that will
provide a better future. In her opening statement, she covered an
"opportunity economy", reducing the shortage and affordability of
housing, child care costs, and a tax plan to promote more small
business start-ups. She stated that Trump's tariffs would be, in
effect, a sales tax and that he gives tax cuts to billionaires and big
corporations.
Other than saying she was raised as a "middle-class kid", and brief
reference to a "second mother", everything in that opening statement
related to the economy.
In Trump's opening statement, he denied that tariffs are a sale tax,
stated that his tariffs "took in billions and billions of dollars"
from China, spoke of current inflation figures, stated that "We have
millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails,
from mental institutions and insane asylums", and said that we are at
the highest level of criminality.
Neither person directly answered the question.
If you want to fact-check what I've posted above, see:;
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-trump-presidential-debate-transcript/story?id=113560542
Later in the debate, Harris did make several comments about her
"upbringing" and past history. Not without reason.
A very frequent subject of print and pundit discussion in the run-up
to the debate was that Americans "don't know" Harris. To a majority
of Americans, Harris is a political unknown. Oh, some Californians -
particurlary northern Californians, are familiar with her. Those who
assiduously watch the Sunday morning news shows have seen her, and she
did get some face time as a Senator in some televised hearings, but in
the past 3.5 years she's been in the relatively obscure position of
Vice President; a surrogate ribbon-cutter and meeter of minor foreign
dignataries.
This was an appearance before 60-some million viewers and a chance to
identify who she is to many who had not yet formed opinions about her.
It would have been amiss if she had not used the platform as she did.
Post by Steve HayesIt have been qualified by pointing out the effects of Covid.
It could even have been answered by saying that it was a silly
question -- all of which could have been done in 30 seconds.
Instead Harris ignored the question completely and talked about
something entirely different.
As every politician does at every opportunity.
When Trump was asked about the bipartison border bill with Muir's
question: "...why did you try to kill that bill...", he responded
about having the biggest rallies and that people don't leave his
rallies. He then segued into "In Springfield, they're eating the
dogs. The people who came in. They're eating the cats."
He provided no reason for opposing the border bill.
Post by Steve HayesHer arrogance was a good deal more subtle than Trump's crude version,
but it was arrogance nevertheless, and, coming at the beginning, it
set the tone for the debate.
I think she did set the tone of the debate early-on. She had him
off-balance and ineffectually defensive throughout the debate.
Not exactly kosher in an Oxford Union debate, but very effective in
this context.