The debate was a shit show, as many thought it would be.
Biden looked old and incompetent.
Trump made all sorts of claims about him being "The best in the history of the US", and about his amazing "numbers", without ever actually citing anything specific.
All in all it was pretty much a waste of time.
What was fascinating was watching the post debate news coverage as left wing MSM personalities competed to see who had the most anonymous DFL sources who texted them that Biden should drop out or be replaced. That's the narrative after last night, that Biden needs to go.
Except on Twitter, where you've got the die hard DFL hacks swearing that they'd vote for Biden no matter how incompetent he is, or even if he was in a "coffin".
More than 330 million people in the US, probably 150-200 million of those are nominally eligible to run for president, and we get these two.
6 comments:
The format allowed for only two minutes, followed by one minute for an opponent rebuttal and then one more minute for the first guy. I didn't expect either to get deep in the weeds on any issue when I saw those rules. So, two things were intended:
1. Trump intended to hammer the obvious on Biden's worst policies, especially immigration as he answered almost every question I remained to hear with a shot at that issue.
2. Biden intended to do his best at pronouncing actual words and assembling them into a coherent message.
It was indeed the waste of time we thought it would be, but for the world to see what honest and even mildly intelligent observers have seen and known for his entire presidency just how addled and incompetent he is was the real value of the whole thing.
Sitting with Hannity afterward, I think Lindsay Graham made one of the smartest comments I've ever heard from him, which is that a second debate should not happen. We don't need to embarrass ourselves yet again on the world stage. I could not agree more.
I watched more of what followed than the debate itself. (I think I could only stand half an hour, given they didn't start right at 8:00EST. I gave up at a little past 8:45.) In doing so, I heard way too many people lauding Trump's performance as "spectacular" and other such hyperbolic assessments.
No. "Spectacular" is not how I'd describe it. Again, given the limitations put upon the combatants, he was a bit above adequate. I think he tried to pack too much into his limited time and in doing so he sometimes did a mild Biden impersonation without trying to. I think it would be difficult for anyone to operate effectively under the terms of the contest, and his style is not at all suited for it. But he was calm and otherwise in control of himself and he didn't do his typical personal attacks. I heard only one regarding not knowing what Biden meant and Biden likely not knowing, either. But all in all, he didn't totally embarrass himself.
Each said the other was wrong or lying about what the other said, which is typical in all debates...and really, is necessary more often than we'd like to see. I think more outright fiction was expressed by the nephew of the guy who's uncle was eaten by cannibals, while Trump didn't do much more in that regard than to indulge in his usual self-marketing.
1. Yes.
2. Yes.
I think that Trump did manage to dial back his tendency towards the bellicose and allow Biden's inability to speak extemporaneously shine through.
The notion that only Trump lied being propagated on the MSM, is itself a lie.
trump's repeated references to "numbers" without providing any indication what he was referring to and his repeated claims that he was the best X,Y or Z in US history (again without evidence) didn't help much.
In all, Biden looked too old and decrepit to run for president or be changed with felonies. Trump looked much more in control and tempered than he's ever looked.
I'd say Trump "won", but in reality Biden lost.
I'm amused by everyone contrasting Biden's speech yesterday with his debate performance as if him being able to read from a prompter somehow makes up for his inability to speak extemporaneously.
And he wasn't any more truthful in his speech, insisting he'll continue to always tell us the truth.
Yeah, it wasn't a "win" which should compel and end-zone dance by Trump, and I don't think we're seeing that from him.
I've seen a couple of things detailing the 18 lies Biden told in the debate. Top two were his whopper about no military being killed during his term, and the Border Patrol endorsing him. I'd argue that his lie about Beau dying in combat, which he modified, counts as well.
While I have no doubt that Trump failed to directly answer multiple questions (par for the course), and I have no doubt that Trump probably exaggerated or misstated things, I have yet to see a list of his "lies". I keep hearing people say that he lied for "90 minutes straight" and things like that, but I've yet to see specifics. Obviously his "best X in the history of the US" claims were made with absolutely zero evidence, and therefore may be lies. But I'd like to see actual specifics of what people think the lies were.
I agree that Trump has been much more measured than I've ever seen him, which I think is good. I'd also argue that since the post debate narrative is almost totally about how bad Biden was and how quickly he'll drop out/be replaced, that there's absolutely no reason for Trump to say anything about the debate. The MSM and the DFL are pushing the Biden blew it narrative, Trump just needs to let them keep doing it.
Indeed. More than we've ever seen, Trump seems to be letting the opposition hang themselves, at least specifically as regards this debate. Hope that continues.
In the meantime, I expect little change from Trump as regards the marketing of his performance. Then again, if he truly believes he's "the best", it's more likely he'd continue such marketing. I don't know that he sees it as bragging as much as merely stating what he believes is the truth. Off putting to some, but of no real significance to most.
I agree that he needs to keep letting Biden be Biden.
I'm less interested in what Trump believes, than in what the Truth is. If he has the "numbers" to back up his claims, he should provide them. If he's going to make claims that he purports to be factual, he should probably back those up. If the claims are True, why not demonstrate that instead of making vague claims?
Post a Comment