• thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    2 months ago

    with Harris’ team unsuccessfully pushing for both candidates’ microphones to stay on even when it was not their turn to answer.

    Wait a minute, Harris’ team was the one pushing for always-on mics? That’s actually such a flex lol.

    • pingveno@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not really. It was always her tactic to make him go nuts. Provoking him into shouting over her would have gone along with that and just made him look bad.

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it would have been a smart choice. The rationale behind muting was trying to force both parties to having a nice, civil discussion, to force decorum upon the proceedings that formerly was just a given, but generally not respected by Trump, by his nature.

      However one part of the first debate was that the muting might have saved Trump from his own worst impulses. To be sure, Biden made his own problems that were far far worse, but part of Trump looking relatively reasonable in his conduct that night was being forced only to speak in turn.

      Slam dunk is if you let him put his unhinged nature and unreasonable behavior on full display, while also managing to manage him so that you are still heard.

      I would not be surprised if a career in the courtroom dealing with all manner of hard to deal with people is the best prep anyone could ask for to deal with a personality like Trump.