KAMALA HARRIS is Having a Hard Time Readying for the 9-10-2024 Debate with Donald Trump.

originally posted by: KrustyKrab
a reply to: WeMustCare

So at whose discretion would they open the mics? Seems as though that would be very open to interpretation, saying the “network” would do it is pretty ambiguous. It could be a staffer in the control booth trying to control the debate for all we know. This is ridiculous it should be either closed or open mic, period.

Pretty much yah the democrats and Big Media attempting to control the dialogue from their myopic perspective.
They want it to look less like word salad and I’m guessing there may even be other prearrangements between Harris and the network who knows maybe even a secret earpiece so that a candidate may get a promoting from their secret staff … just guessing though

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
I can't speak for others, but the debates have always been just pure pain for me to watch. There are just so many lies, exaggerations and campaign promises which will never be acted upon, it drives me crazy.

On the one hand the debates are too long, but on the other they are not nearly long enough to be informative. It's almost like you have to make them several hours long so each candidate exhausts all their hot air and bull# and is forced to reveal what they are really saying, or planning. It's like you never get through the pre-planned sound bytes and campaign bravado before it's time for the next question. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better to mute the first couple of minutes of each candidate's responses and only air the last couple minutes.

The debates are structed more like reality TV than they are a true debate. In fact, the word "debate" shouldn't even be allowed, IMO. Under the official rules of true "Debate", both candidates would be disqualified and asked to take a seat. Plus, the moderators generally have no real understanding of true debate rules; they're just news media mouthpieces.

The presidential debates are more about who can get the best one-liner and the most zingers on the other guy. No real policy ever gets discussed in detail.

To me, watching the debates is like...dancing with a belt sander.

they should start with each candidate alone in a room being asked questions, then answering, by themselves. Then each one gets to see the others answers, then speak to those answers. Once the election is over, the one who wins, won't have to deal with opposition, (unless it's Trump, then the MSM will oppose him all the way), so we need to see what they would do based on their own thinking, or lack thereof.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: network dude

"He was given the keys to the car, all he has to do is drive it."

And not crash it?

If he can keep his gob shut, he will probably win.

It's a big "if" though.

Thats like asking Liz Truss to say something smart.

UK I had no idea you had such noble ideas about Trump ….

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Voters are smarter than you think.

I think I'll take the 5th on that....

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
I can't speak for others, but the debates have always been just pure pain for me to watch. There are just so many lies, exaggerations and campaign promises which will never be acted upon, it drives me crazy.

On the one hand the debates are too long, but on the other they are not nearly long enough to be informative. It's almost like you have to make them several hours long so each candidate exhausts all their hot air and bull# and is forced to reveal what they are really saying, or planning. It's like you never get through the pre-planned sound bytes and campaign bravado before it's time for the next question. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better to mute the first couple of minutes of each candidate's responses and only air the last couple minutes.

The debates are structed more like reality TV than they are a true debate. In fact, the word "debate" shouldn't even be allowed, IMO. Under the official rules of true "Debate", both candidates would be disqualified and asked to take a seat. Plus, the moderators generally have no real understanding of true debate rules; they're just news media mouthpieces.

The presidential debates are more about who can get the best one-liner and the most zingers on the other guy. No real policy ever gets discussed in detail.

To me, watching the debates is like...dancing with a belt sander.

they should start with each candidate alone in a room being asked questions, then answering, by themselves. Then each one gets to see the others answers, then speak to those answers. Once the election is over, the one who wins, won't have to deal with opposition, (unless it's Trump, then the MSM will oppose him all the way), so we need to see what they would do based on their own thinking, or lack thereof.

You mean something along the lines of the infamous Saddleback Forum ?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: UKTruth
I think Trump supporters are in for a rude awakening on September 10th.
Trump has only ever come out on top in debates by bullying his opponents and if he tries that against Harris, he's going to get panned.
The brief for Harris is quite simple - attack Trump and wind him up.
There is no way Trump will be able to keep his cool.

I think Harris will destroy him.

Does ANYONE think Trump will be able to respond to personal attacks with something like ' These personal attacks are just made up campaign talking points because the Democrats have nothing to offer the American people except open borders, high taxes and high inflation, plus ongoing wars. Their whole campaign is about me precisely because their record is so awful'.

No chance - he's going to blurt out something campaign ending like how she's not black.

I think you are spot on as far as what Trump would have to do to win. But if he tries something totally new and innovative, he can pull this off. The new and innovative thing I speak of, is "being quiet" when needed. Allow her to answer, allow her to speak and tell all of her thoughts. And answer by hilighting the admin's failures then speaking to what he would do different. I know, pipe dream, but one that would work, if he could pull it off. If he says stupid things, and loses to this train wreck, it's on him alone. He was given the keys to the car, all he has to do is drive it.

Yeah - I think it's fairly obvious what he needs to do - but we all know he can not.
He's in a no win situation IMO. He cant win the debate really, only lose it badly.
If he does well it will remain a tight race and then we're into the cold hard place where election fraud swings it for Harris.
If he does badly, the election is well and truly over.

Keep in mind that the week after the Democrats are very likely to get their Orange Jump Suit moment as Trump is processed into jail.

Dont forget he didnt have to do much and won big over biden in that debate.

All he has to do is sit and watch her flail to answer any question, because he has a record she doesnt. she has to excel he just has to not make some big stupid comment that can be twisted into "bullying" a woman.

His base will still vote, the jury is still out on whether she even has a base.

She just needs to have another Drink and let that Mouth Overload her Behind.
See how many times she can Talk BS.
a reply to: WeMustCare

originally posted by: EyeoftheHurricane

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
I can't speak for others, but the debates have always been just pure pain for me to watch. There are just so many lies, exaggerations and campaign promises which will never be acted upon, it drives me crazy.

On the one hand the debates are too long, but on the other they are not nearly long enough to be informative. It's almost like you have to make them several hours long so each candidate exhausts all their hot air and bull# and is forced to reveal what they are really saying, or planning. It's like you never get through the pre-planned sound bytes and campaign bravado before it's time for the next question. I sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better to mute the first couple of minutes of each candidate's responses and only air the last couple minutes.

The debates are structed more like reality TV than they are a true debate. In fact, the word "debate" shouldn't even be allowed, IMO. Under the official rules of true "Debate", both candidates would be disqualified and asked to take a seat. Plus, the moderators generally have no real understanding of true debate rules; they're just news media mouthpieces.

The presidential debates are more about who can get the best one-liner and the most zingers on the other guy. No real policy ever gets discussed in detail.

To me, watching the debates is like...dancing with a belt sander.

they should start with each candidate alone in a room being asked questions, then answering, by themselves. Then each one gets to see the others answers, then speak to those answers. Once the election is over, the one who wins, won't have to deal with opposition, (unless it's Trump, then the MSM will oppose him all the way), so we need to see what they would do based on their own thinking, or lack thereof.

You mean something along the lines of the infamous Saddleback Forum ?

Yes, I had to look that up, but exactly that format. I think it should be done IN ADDITION TO whatever other debates consist of. It's a way to get their unfiltered thoughts on the important topics. they may still lie and say what they think others want to hear, but the authenticity should shine.

a reply to: network dude

Yeah, I've said essentially this for a long time. For the debates to be effective, both candidates need to be isolated from each other, and from any audience. They should be forced to respond, in a pre-determined time frame after which their mic and response will be cut off. Neither candidate can hear the other. This would be "Part 1" of a debate. Then, "Part 2" would be each candidate is given the other's responses to each of the questions, and they are allowed a pre-determined time frame to rebut the other's comments, again after which the mics would be cut off.

"Part 3" of a debate would be a equal period of time for each candidate to say whatever they want. They could cover previous questions/responses, or they could speak about their campaign, BUT they only get a pre-allotted time to do this; how they choose to use this time is on them.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: network dude

Yeah, I've said essentially this for a long time. For the debates to be effective, both candidates need to be isolated from each other, and from any audience. They should be forced to respond, in a pre-determined time frame after which their mic and response will be cut off. Neither candidate can hear the other. This would be "Part 1" of a debate. Then, "Part 2" would be each candidate is given the other's responses to each of the questions, and they are allowed a pre-determined time frame to rebut the other's comments, again after which the mics would be cut off.

"Part 3" of a debate would be a equal period of time for each candidate to say whatever they want. They could cover previous questions/responses, or they could speak about their campaign, BUT they only get a pre-allotted time to do this; how they choose to use this time is on them.

I'd go a lot farther in the entire election process. There is WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much money in this garbage. Any person running for any office should have a format like this, and have them as often as needed to get the information to the people, and NO OTHER CAMPAIGN money should be allowed. Remove the scummy dirty part, and leave us with their words, ideas, and promises, then hold them to account. Give them a monthly scorecard on how well they have done keeping their promises, coupled with how well the world or affected entities have resulted. Then we can have cage matches to the death on pay per view. that money isn't scummy at all.

a reply to: network dude

Cage matches to the death...now I LIKE that idea!!!!

I'd be all over that on PPV!!!!

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: network dude

Cage matches to the death...now I LIKE that idea!!!!

I'd be all over that on PPV!!!!

She is an Idiot they cannot let her on that stage .



Even if she does get on the debate stage they will cheat heavily in some way . They cannot afford for her to bomb the debate .

I've watched her past debate performances . She just talks in circles and circles and circles .

No amount of preparing on her part can get her ready to answer the hard questions . Simply because she cannot answer them .

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

what we really need are deadlines based on time.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

what we really need are deadlines based on time.

A classic Kamala Line

I'm telling you mate I've no idea what that woman is doing this high up in the power structure.

She is not smart and what brains she does have are scrambled the moment she gets on Camera.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
a reply to: WeMustCare

Doesn't Kamala's best friend, Dana Walden, run ABC?
Spoiler Alert: YES.

ABC is owned by Disney.

Same company that ate up sports and then turned it woke with ESPN.

Mickey Mouse is in charge again.

originally posted by: billxam1
a reply to: WeMustCare

It all makes no sense. Comrad Kamala should love the mic mute idea because the "moderators" could mis-quote Trump leading to hilarity. Of course no muted mics would allow for a real word salad shooter cackling festival of epic proportions.

The White House "POOL" reporters from ABC-NBC-CBS-NYTimes-WaPO will be there to back up what the ABC debate moderators say.

Donald Trump's team should be recording the debate, using a microphone/camera over the stage.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

it's fascinating to watch. If she win's, the R's should run Jessie "the body" Ventura, or the Rock. See if we can elect a world leader based on WWE level hype and showmanship. I'd say they run "Hector Macho Camacho", but I don't think he's mentally fit. (if he's still alive)

I can't help but to continue to use idiocracy in my future planning. It's what plants crave.

originally posted by: UKTruth
I think Trump supporters are in for a rude awakening on September 10th.
Trump has only ever come out on top in debates by bullying his opponents and if he tries that against Harris, he's going to get panned.

You're describing a man who has never lost a debate, and you're not understanding Americans. We want evil crushed, no matter the color/sex/ethnicticity. In "soft" countries, people vote based on personality.

originally posted by: CarlLaFong
a reply to: WeMustCare

Doesn't Kamala's best friend, Dana Walden, run ABC?
Spoiler Alert: YES.

Along with kid-glove treatment...Kamala gets the questions and answers ahead of time...along with whatever else she wants.

Kamala gets this question 5 days in advance of the debate...

"What 3 Vice Presidential accomplishments are you most proud of?"

Kamala: "I reduced illegal immigration, reduced the growth of inflation, and cast 3 Senate tie-breakers!"

Boom - She's done. Just like boss Joe.