I've been doing a little thinking about the kind of questions that need to be asked at the upcoming debates. If you happen to be moderating one of them, you should really ask these:
--Mr. President, you've been accused of rape and sexual abuse dozens of times. @ejeancarroll has asked for your DNA. If you too the 30 seconds necessary to provide it, it could exonerate you. Why don't you take the test?
--The NY Times and others have made a compelling case that you have been lying about your wealth and guilty of tax fraud. Releasing your tax returns would immediately prove you were not. Why don't you release your tax returns?
--The Washington Post has reported that you have lied over 20,000 times since taking office. Why do you lie so often? Since each of these lies has been carefully documented, why should people trust anything you say?
--Bob Woodward reports that you knew how dangerous COVID was as early as January & yet you repeatedly & publicly dismissed the threat, resisted testing, suppressed data, promoted quack cures & undermined scientists. 200,000 are dead. Isn't your willful negligence a crime?
--You repeatedly say voting by mail leads to voter fraud. Yet there is not one single piece of evidence that supports that assertion. Can you give us any evidence to support your claim?
--For three years you have said you were about to reveal your health care plan. Yet you never offer any details. Your opponent has been clear about his plan. What's yours? Go on--name one detail from it.
--You have been reported by multiple sources as having repeatedly denigrated our troops. How can you credibly expect voters to believe you are an appropriate choice to be commander in chief when that is the case? How can they believe your denials when you're a proven liar?
--You said in Helsinki that you believed Russian intelligence sources rather than the unanimous conclusions of the FBI or the US intelligence community. Why? Why do you regularly take Russia's side, going as far as not punishing them for a putting a bounty on US soldiers?
--Have you or your organization ever received any funding from a Russian organization? From the Saudis? Be specific. Do you believe voters should support you if you did and then lied about it?
--You repeatedly say Mueller exonerated you. He did nothing of the sort. It indicated multiple instances of obstruction of justice by you and that it could not proceed with the conspiracy case because your administration refused to cooperate with it. Why do you lie about this?
--You have said you don't believe science knows the truth about climate change. You have said similar things about COVID. Why should voters believe you know better than scientists who devote their lives to the objective study of these issues?
--Will you release your academic grades? Did you get someone to take your SAT tests for you?
--Why won't you release records related to your health?
--Do you know what the emoluments clause to the Constitution is? You have repeatedly violated it. Isn't that corrupt?
--What do you mean Democrats will destroy the suburbs? Isn't this part of a long pattern of racism that has included your support for white supremacists? There are multiple reported instances of you using racist slurs. Do you believe a proven racist like you should be president?
--What did you mean when you said that if you didn't count deaths in blue states, the COVID death toll would be acceptable? Why wouldn't you count deaths in blue states? Are the deaths of those who oppose you politically somehow more acceptable?
--Do you know what the 22d amendment to the Constitution says? Do you know it limits you to two terms? Do you know you can't negotiate a third term? Why do you repeatedly say you will?
--If you serially violate the law, how can you be trusted to be the chief magistrate of the nation?
--Do you believe members of your administration owe their first loyalty to you or to the Constitution?
--Do you believe in the First Amendment? Why then is it ok to turn federal forces against peaceful protestors?
--Your administration has produced more indictments against its members and those associated with it than any other. Shouldn't this disqualify you from another term?
--Your family has profited from its high offices--including those gained inappropriately via nepotism. Isn't that corrupt?
--You said you wouldn't play golf. You have spent a third of your presidency at Trump properties & played more golf than any POTUS ever. How's that ok?
--Polls show America's standing in the world has plummeted to its lowest levels ever. You are ranked around the world as the worst leader of a major country. Historians regularly rank you as the worst president in our history. Isn't it about time to pack it in?
These may seem over-the-top, contentious. But not asking them, not confronting him about these egregious problems with his presidency gives him a pass, normalizes him by implicitly saying we're over them, they don't matter any more. It is not a journalist's place to do that.
Journalists must raise these questions because they are about the defining issues of this presidency. Anything less than that is malpractice.
And should they ask the toughest questions they can think to @JoeBiden? Of course.
But you see Biden isn't a corrupt, traitor, serial sex abuser, racist, unfit, incompetent, science-denying, pathological liar, narcissist, threat to our democracy.
And it is the role of these debates to make that distinction as clear as possible.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Every single time you engage in the delusion that Trump has a "policy position" on traditional issues you normalize him. Trump has no beliefs, no traditional policy views. For him, policies are like his blue suit & dumb long red ties, a costume he wears to hide who he really is.
He is a terrorist calling himself a freedom fighter. This election is not about his tax policy versus that of Kamala Harris, even if he has proposals in that area. It is about the fact that he is a criminal, a traitor, a fraudster, a liar, the worst president in our history...
...a terrible human being who seeks to reward himself & his friends at the expense of everyone else. Everything he does is first and foremost about what is in it for him and occasionally for his supporters (because he needs to pay them off to get what he wants for himself.)
Given the number of ways that a candidate can communicate directly with voters--the relevance and wisdom of doing so through intermediaries who will filter the news and who often will bend it to suit other agendas has diminished. That seems reasonable to me.
The argument that the press is the objective presenter of facts has been weakened as virtually all media seek to adjust their presentation of content to suit business or political objectives. There are fewer and fewer journalists who can be relied upon to seek objective truth.
Too many are compromised not only by the agenda of their company's owners but by their own history of access journalism or sensationalism or focusing on the trending rather than the important story. They howl at being ignored or bypassed. But they share some of the blame.
The argument that Harris is somehow not speaking enough to the press is ridiculous on several levels: 1.) She actually does speak to the press, 2.) She has been visible constantly since she became the candidate, 3.) She has been clear and detailed about all her policy goals.
4.) She has been readily available to the press for four years. There are few questions about her that have not already been asked and answered. 5.) The goal of the campaign is for her to communicate with voters. So far, they seem to have responded well to what she has said.
6.) Her opponent is actually not campaigning, is primarily speaking to patsies in the press when he does speak to the media, and lies constantly so it doesn't matter what he is asked because he won't answer truthfully.
Folks, if you want a US policy toward Israel and Gaza that is more focused on relieving the suffering the people of Gaza and achieving a lasting, just peace, disrupting the campaign of the one person most likely to deliver that is a bad idea. Especially when...
...she has indicated a willingness to meet with groups that share your views. She may not agree with all of your ideas and suggestions. But she is by far your best and only legitimate hope of change and weakening her is a crazily self-destructive process.
You may not like this reality. But you would like the alternatives--Trump or the status quo--much much much less. You may not feel you can wait for our political processes to work out...but frankly, there is no alternative choice that is available or possible.
To all the geniuses who feel Harris should have picked Shapiro to "win Pennsylvania" I ask, um, when was the last time that was the reason a VP was picked? (Hint: It is seldom if ever the reason a VP candidate was picked.)
Here, let me do some quick math for you. Biden certainly didn't pick Harris to win a contested state. Trump picked neither Vance nor Pence to win contested states. HRC picked Tim Kaine to help in Va., that's true, and he helped. It was an outlier.
Do you think McCain picked Palin to win Alaska? Edwards did not help Kerry win North Carolina. Did Cheney get picked to help Bush in Montana? No. How about Lieberman to help Gore in Connecticut. No. Clinton did win Al Gore's home state of Tennessee...
The recent discussion about Biden has gone through phases. The first was about the debate performance. The second was about whether that was a signal of potential problems to come. But we are now in a third phase which turns more fears about the state of the campaign.
These concerns are largely from political professionals (not commentators). They turn not just on setbacks since the debate but on the fact that the campaign was seemingly spinning its wheels even beforehand. I sense a bunch of it is from worried folks down the ballot.
These conversations seem to be continuing despite Biden's repeated statements that he is definitely running and in it for the long haul and have not been helped by recent polling data, the Cook Report downgrade of Dem battleground prospects, etc.