Joe-Je suis d’accord. She had him from the face-off. That stalking handshake was what Mike Tyson was referring to with his observation “everyone’s got a plan until you get punched in the mouth”. And continuing the boxing analogy, she rope a doped like Ali did…she let him punch himself silly for the rest of the night.
Those split screen views will show up for the next 60 days to be sure. A woman looking confident, composed, Presidential vs an angry old man shouting “get off my lawn” Could we have asked for more?
I have always liked that Tyson quote. You know, I think that is a big part of what happened. She seized the initiative immediately in a simple but unexpected way. She was a little nervous at first, but he was unnerved.
BTW, I hear that there are already 20 different items selling on Amazon using the quote "I have concepts of a plan."
She didn't have to fact check him with words. She fact checked him in real time with every look, every reaction. He lost decisively on the split screen. You didn't even have to have the sound on.
I was troubled by her militarism and the most “lethal” fighting force. She didn’t have to use the term “lethal” - could have said strongest, and of course her AIPAC comments on Israel’s right to defend itself, which is not what they are doing, lip service to Palestinians etc.
She missed an opportunity to challenge Trump on his pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal which would have reduced the perceived and provoked threat from Iran.
Purely as a psychologist I am troubled by her use of humiliation and modeling humiliation to the public, even using Trump’s exact words - “world leaders are laughing at you.” It reminded me of an article I read in the 80s On Not Becoming What We Hate, by Walter Wink, I think.. According to the Talmud it is a crime to humiliate someone in public. It is associated with violence.
I think it was not required of her to have a strong performance. It was gratifying to watch if you don't like Trump but inciting for those for whom his appeal touches their feelings of humiliation. Could she not have been as effective without that?
The dominance of compulsory mutual disparagement and humiliation in our culture is harmful.
Thank you. I respectfully disagree. I believe we are overly militarized as a nation and that we cannot afford or sustain the historically high levels of spending ($870 billion, heading toward $1 trillion a year). But we will always need to have the best trained, best equipped, most lethal military in the world. We shouldn't kid ourselves about what our military is for. I always told Members that it mattered less what their position was an any particular weapon system or policy as much as it mattered that they looked strong giving it. I think Harris is staking out a position that American's want in their Commander-in-Chief. I hope that she will couple that with a diplomacy-first policy (as I think she and her national security team are inclined to do) and with a plan to reverse the unsustainable growth in the military budget.
Thank you, Phil, for you extensive comments on the president's sole authority over nuclear weapons. I just got off a call with a Senate candidate where we discussed the possibility of getting a President Harris to change this. It is very difficult to kill multi-billion weapons programs but changing obsolete doctrine is in the realm of the possible.
As you know, I'm no expert. My impression is that we'd have to get rid of the land based missiles to change presidential sole authority? Is that about right in your understanding?
Joe-Je suis d’accord. She had him from the face-off. That stalking handshake was what Mike Tyson was referring to with his observation “everyone’s got a plan until you get punched in the mouth”. And continuing the boxing analogy, she rope a doped like Ali did…she let him punch himself silly for the rest of the night.
Those split screen views will show up for the next 60 days to be sure. A woman looking confident, composed, Presidential vs an angry old man shouting “get off my lawn” Could we have asked for more?
Tom
I have always liked that Tyson quote. You know, I think that is a big part of what happened. She seized the initiative immediately in a simple but unexpected way. She was a little nervous at first, but he was unnerved.
BTW, I hear that there are already 20 different items selling on Amazon using the quote "I have concepts of a plan."
20+ PAGES of "I have concepts of a plan" merch! People who got the concept and executed the plan.
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=%22I+have+concepts+of+a+plan%22&crid=3SA9I9ESNSGCJ&sprefix=i+have+concepts+of+a+plan+%2Caps%2C1114&ref=nb_sb_noss
She didn't have to fact check him with words. She fact checked him in real time with every look, every reaction. He lost decisively on the split screen. You didn't even have to have the sound on.
Great piece, Joe
In boxing they call it a TKO, a technical knockout, where your opponent is still standing but unable to defend himself
I was troubled by her militarism and the most “lethal” fighting force. She didn’t have to use the term “lethal” - could have said strongest, and of course her AIPAC comments on Israel’s right to defend itself, which is not what they are doing, lip service to Palestinians etc.
She missed an opportunity to challenge Trump on his pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal which would have reduced the perceived and provoked threat from Iran.
Purely as a psychologist I am troubled by her use of humiliation and modeling humiliation to the public, even using Trump’s exact words - “world leaders are laughing at you.” It reminded me of an article I read in the 80s On Not Becoming What We Hate, by Walter Wink, I think.. According to the Talmud it is a crime to humiliate someone in public. It is associated with violence.
I think it was not required of her to have a strong performance. It was gratifying to watch if you don't like Trump but inciting for those for whom his appeal touches their feelings of humiliation. Could she not have been as effective without that?
The dominance of compulsory mutual disparagement and humiliation in our culture is harmful.
Thank you. I respectfully disagree. I believe we are overly militarized as a nation and that we cannot afford or sustain the historically high levels of spending ($870 billion, heading toward $1 trillion a year). But we will always need to have the best trained, best equipped, most lethal military in the world. We shouldn't kid ourselves about what our military is for. I always told Members that it mattered less what their position was an any particular weapon system or policy as much as it mattered that they looked strong giving it. I think Harris is staking out a position that American's want in their Commander-in-Chief. I hope that she will couple that with a diplomacy-first policy (as I think she and her national security team are inclined to do) and with a plan to reverse the unsustainable growth in the military budget.
I will definitely be voting for Harris, no question about that at all, but....
https://substack.com/@philtanny/note/c-68602840
Thank you, Phil, for you extensive comments on the president's sole authority over nuclear weapons. I just got off a call with a Senate candidate where we discussed the possibility of getting a President Harris to change this. It is very difficult to kill multi-billion weapons programs but changing obsolete doctrine is in the realm of the possible.
Hi Joe!
As you know, I'm no expert. My impression is that we'd have to get rid of the land based missiles to change presidential sole authority? Is that about right in your understanding?