politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
For those who have not had the pleasure of watching this yet, I strongly recommend doing so.
This interview started by going off the rails even by Trump's standards, and just kept getting worse and worse from there. I will give all the credit in the world to the panelists who started with the tough questions right out of the gate -- questions most interviewers absolutely refuse to ask Trump for a variety of reasons. But at the same time, none of them seem to have had the assertiveness needed to keep Trump in check and I wish they would have picked interviewers who weren't going to let Trump walk all over them at various points.
I'll try to give a synopsis;
He went at the interviewer with both barrels for bringing up his long list of previous racist statements and actions, and implied that because he graced them with his presence, they should have the courtesy to only ask him softball questions. It's important to note here that this entire mindset that Trump asserts right out of the gate is that Trump is above them. Trump is better than them, and these (women? Minorities? Black people in general? All of the above?) had better learn their place. This is an attitude Trump doesn't even bother trying to hide, and this demeanor will end up setting the tone for the entire interview. I will try to point out where it is most noticeable, but the overarching attitude is present through the entire interview to varying degrees.
He claimed to be "better" for black people than any President since Lincoln, including those who have signed legislation such as the Voting Rights act into law.
He claimed that Harris always proclaimed herself as Indian and not Black (she's always promoted herself as both), implying that one person somehow cannot be multiracial.
He refused to answer a question about calling Harris a "DEI hire", and demanding that the interviewer define exactly what DEI means. This entire exchange was extremely uncomfortable to watch as the ladies interviewing him just basically sat there and took it. Another example of why we needed interviewers that were more assertive and able to take Trump's attacks than these women were capable of.
He said that he only showed up because Harris was going to be there and likened the interview to one of the debates he agreed to, claiming Harris was too scared to show up and using it as justification to skip future debates.
He claimed that 17 million + Mexicans are coming across this country to take "black jobs", which he immediately defined as "any job is a black job". Not that this should be a surprise to anybody, but he repeatedly goes back to this drivel at almost every question. Virtually every question was answered the same way: An answer that had little to nothing to do with the question at hand that segues into Trump trying to pit one minority against the other by saying "Mexicans" are taking "black jobs."
He went right back to calling her a "failed border czar", even though that was never under her watch in the first place.
And this literally all happened in the first 5 minutes.
He then went on a rehash of his 2015 escalator speech, claiming Mexicans are rapists, criminals, have mental health issues, etc.
He literally got a softball question that should have been a layup for any competent politician, and still instead went on the attack claiming that the equipment is bad and he only heard parts of her question -- the parts convenient to him, of course, then went on a rambling word salad that may have had something tangentally related to the question only by virtue of him randomly inserting the words "black people" and "the black community" here and there. This was a prime example of respect being a one-way street in Trump world: This woman was doing his bidding and he still attacked her for a perceived slight.
It's important to note that the woman in pink at the far right seems to be more Trump-friendly than the others and was much more willing to defer to Trump than the other two through the course of this interview, possibly because she felt intimidated after being attacked for "equipment problems" she had no control over.
He answered a question about single black moms by going on an anti-climate-change rant that had nothing to do with the question and continued to ignore interviewrs' prompts to move on.
He pointed out someone in the audience, presumably a black woman, and shouted her out in the bog-standard "See? I have a black friend so I'm not racist!" argument racists like him make all the time.
He defended the shooter of Sonya Massey because violent crime in Chicago is bad and the only way to bring that down is to give the police "their respect and dignity back." and suggested that a future Trump administration would step in and interfere on the officer's behalf.
He claims to have "won" the criminal cases against him, and made all of the usual false claims regarding that.
And we're 1/3 of the way through this.
When prompted by an interviewer to try to move on and get back on topic, he immediately snapped at her and refused, saying "you held me up for 35 minutes". Like the other examples above, he probably scored some points among his base here because this came off as him "Putting her in her place", so the racists and mysogonists are probably going to eat it up. Very uncomfortable to watch.
He started to disavow JD Vance's remarks about childless couples, then went on to defend them by saying "I know great families". He then went back to the "Mexican immigrants are mentally disturbed criminals" screed again.
In a rare oddity, he actually defended his pick of JD Vance with an argument that almost sounded coherent and rational. It was still a rambling word salad, but it was a word salad very similar to what every candidate says when they're defending their choice of VP picks. If you watch only this section of the interview, he almost sounds lucid. Almost. At least by Trump standards.
He admits that he believes that the VP pick simply doesn't matter in general.
In a nice zing, one of the interviewers said "JD vance has said things......about divorced people, like yourself" in a way that you could see completely threw Trump off guard. This was a chef's kiss moment.
He went on his usual falsehoods about Democrats demanding abortions during the last days of pregnancy and murdering babies after they're born. The interviewers tried to fact-check him but he talked right over them. At one point, he accused the governor of Virginia of I guess attending a birth (why would the governor be there, of all people? Does he personally welcome every newborn Virginian into the world?), and then "setting the baby aside and deciding what to do with it later", and then having the baby killed. Needless to say, this never, ever, ever happened and Trump really should be sued for slander over such an outrageous claim. Not that I should have to say this, but killing a baby post-birth is called murder, and it's illegal and always has been.
He answered the question of whether or not he'd step down himself if he had a health issue, and responded to that by simply attacking one of the other interviewers (not even the one who asked the question) personally on something completely unrelated just because he felt like it. Then he went back to how the border is bad and everything is bad and it's all Harris' fault.
He claimed Harris -- a former prosecutor in California -- didn't pass the bar.
He likened the January 6 rioters to some vandals who spraypainted a monument, and seemed to forget the fact that spray paint can be (a) easily removed, and/or (b) painted over.
Zing #2: Trump: "If they were innocent, I'd pardon them." Interviewer "They were all convicted, sir."
He claims that "nobody died on January 6th", and that it was the police who were "ushering them in".
In a very interesting closing note, one of the interviewers started asking him about Project 2025 when she was cut off by another interviewer who said "we have to leave it there, per the Trump team.". And while there is the possibility that they were just running short on time, there was a strong implication just by her tone of voice that the Trump team demanded that they avoid the questions about Project 2025 entirely. The interviewer who cut in seemed to be very, very apprehensive about even discussing the topic at all.
And that's how the interview ended. By Trump saying that Mexicans are taking black people's jobs and an interviewer almost shit her pants over the idea of confronting Trump on Project 2025, which just reinforced my wish that they'd have had some interviewers who were more assertive.
With that said, I cannot see how Trump could have possibly gained a single black voter for this interview. It would have been like Hitler campaigning for Jewish support by saying he's offering Jews free housing with some of the best heating systems in the world. I hate jumping on the bandwagon of "If you vote for , you ain't ", but I just can't see how any rational minority voter -- not just black people, but any minority -- could sit and watch that interview and say "Yep, that's the guy for me!"
Yeah I also wish the interviewers didn't let Trump bulldoze them in the responses so much. I guess it's easy for me to say having never been in the same room as him. He does seem to have a way of intimidating people, maybe it's an aura you have to witness in person maybe it's just his loudness I don't know.
The opening question as an example should have been easy to double down on since it was all just factual statements about Trump's own words and actions, but instead of pointing this out she let Trump get away with the whole "nasty question" rant.
Still an incredible thing to witness but given how off balance Trump was here it could have been even more. Though let's face it, he can get away with saying just about anything without losing voters so it probably wouldn't have mattered.
Well my former boss was basically a Trump wannabe. Large, deep voice, intimidating, narcicist, etc. Trump in training. One thing I've learned, and I've seen it with Trump too, is that their egos can be shattered and their entire game plan thrown out the window with even the slightest amount of aggressive pushback. They get so used to just being given what they wanted by shouting down, grinding down, and bullying the other person into submission that they have exactly zero clue what to do when they run up against someone where those tactics are ineffective.
They negotiate from what they think is a position of "strength" when the other person can be easily intimidated. But put them against anyone with even half-decent negotiating skills and an ability to push back, they give in. Ever notice that when he's up against a more seasoned negotiatior, he always seems to somehow basically give the other side everything, come away with nothing, and still tries to say they got the better end of the deal? There's a reason for that. Because the second Trump gets pushback, his game plan entirely collapses and he has no plan B. And any half-decent negotiator is going to be all over that like flies on orange shit.
Go and watch any of the footage of Rep. Jasmine Crockett (Tx). If you put three black women with her skills on that stage with him instead of the 3 women that were there, this would have been a whole different interview. Not just because Crockett is spicy and gives zero fucks. But because there is no way she would have let Trump walk all over her like that, and Trump would have had no idea what to do. That's what they needed on that stage.
I have good news for you then: Kamala Harris is a former prosecutor who eats criminals like trump for breakfast. That's why her campaign clearly doesn't give a fuck.
Biden didn't give a fuck either. That's why he won in 2020 with "Will you shut up man?"
Stop. I can only get so erect.
Trump is also massive both in height and girth. The best person you could get who would be immune to such size is someone like myself, I am five foot five most people are taller than me there is no intimidation just dreams of punching forward and hitting someones nuts.
Excellent write up. I just watched it all in awe.
I did not know if I should cheer for some of the questions finally beiing asked of him on camera.
Or yell at him Beiing let of the hook too easily.
And then his answers, the vitriol and anger he spews. I could only watch with an open mouth.
I worry that not enough Americans see this and that he becomes president of the US. The world will not be a better place.
Trump and his cronies will rob the US blind while allowing all the villains that currently are kept on check by the US hegemony to run roughshod over the rest of the world.
Awesome summary thanks!
Thank you. I did not want to allocate any exclusive attention to the video. Very helpful