Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are veering sharply in how they gear up for Tuesday’s presidential debate, setting up a showdown that reflects not just two separate visions for the country but two politicians who approach big moments very differently.
The vice president is cloistered in a historic hotel in downtown Pittsburgh where she can focus on honing crisp two-minute answers, per the debate’s rules. She’s been working with aides since Thursday and chose a venue that allows the Democratic nominee the option of mingling with swing-state voters.
Trump, the Republican nominee, publicly dismisses the value of studying for the debate. The former president is choosing instead to fill his days with campaign-related events on the premise that he’ll know what he needs to do once he steps on the debate stage at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.
“You can go in with all the strategy you want but you have to sort of feel it out as the debate’s taking place,” he said during a town hall with Fox News host Sean Hannity.
Trump then quoted former boxing great Mike Tyson, who said, “Everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face.”
Let me give you a scenario. What if balloons could sneeze? What then?!?
Yeah so basically you don’t give a shit because Mexico isn’t more powerful than the US.
You’re privileged (feel a little weird saying this about America) to live in the world’s most powerful country. But things change. Look how quickly China has changed. Just in my lifetime they’ve gone from the equivalent of the poorer parts of Africa to having a pretty decent standard of living.
You can’t just isolate yourself and say fuck you, you’re on your own Ukraine, when they get invaded by Russia. I mean you can. But as I say, it won’t stop there. It didn’t stop with Crimea. Appeasement failed.
Your balloons comment just indicates you actually have no credible argument. You know that I’m right. Just admit at least that you’re selfish and care only about yourself.
That Russia can invade the whole of Europe if they want to do, kill as many people as they want, just so long as they don’t attack the US.
That’s basically your argument isn’t it? At least be honest about it and we can just conclude that you’re not a very good person but at least you’re honest.
My balloons comment was meant to demonstrate that your hypothetical bore no relation to reality. You can construct an entirely different scenario where such and such action is justified, but if it diverges too much from reality it’s meaningless. You are asking me to imagine a world where Mexico is more powerful than the US, before even getting into the conflict, that world diverges so much from ours that I’d have to completely reevaluate tons of stuff.
Russia has no intention of invading the whole of Europe. The question is whether US interventionist policy does more good or ill. And I have completely soured on it following the whole, “20 year long war of aggression that achieved nothing” thing. It’s not about “America first,” it’s about containing the damage that we do to the rest of the world.