Personally, and reviewing this clip several times, I though that Walz did say “prosecutor” and did not say “prostitutor,” but your opinion may differ.

However, this article also includes a bonus clip, from back in the day, in 1995, of a much younger, and quite pretty Harris, accompanying Willie Brown, it looks like at some sort of party, and being asked by someone if–given the great age difference between them–she is Brown’s daughter, to which Harris replies, no.*

* See https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2024/09/12/yes-tim-walz-just-called-kamala-harris-a-prostitute-sort-of-n2644711

Karmi:

Watch the video.

I watched the Debate to avoid biased reviews from either the Left or Right – also rarely watch a video, and couldn’t get past 1-minute of this one…too right wing.

Anyway, the Debate was moving much too fast for me to keep up with and write a Live Review at the same time. I was focused on what Harris & Trump were saying, so wasn’t counting Fact Checking being done by moderators.

This morning I have read Ally of Clintons: ABC Must Probe Whether Debate Rigged

Mark Penn, a pollster and senior adviser for the Clintons from 1995-2008 and co-chair of the Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll, told the “John Solomon Reports” podcast Thursday that “suspicion is really quite high” and a review of internal texts and emails should be done by an independent party to find out whether there was an effort to rig the debate’s outcome.

Results of something along those lines might change my mind. However, I listened carefully to much of what Harris & Trump were saying – both were lying at times, but I didn’t count those either.

Was surprised at how well Harris was doing – so well in fact that I find it hard to believe she was in on any ‘Cheating’ done by ABC moderators. Trump pushed for the Debate knowing that ABC would have a biased slant towards Harris, now he whines about it. Another indicator of his bad decision making—and M.O. of underestimating people.

To appease the squeaking wheel – ABC should add some grease by doing ‘a review of internal texts and emails should be done by an independent party to find out whether there was an effort to rig the debate’s outcome,’ IMHO, but that’s up to them, and I seriously doubt any amount of grease can stop a squeak that has gone on almost 24/7 for 4-years or so…

Well, linked below is an article which points out that, just so far this year–and for the first time ever–the U.S. government has payed out $1Trillion dollars in interest on the Federal debt, and the year is not even over. *

At some point, our public debt, and the interest payments on that debt, may get so high that default on interest payments or even repudiation of our national debt may be possibilities.

* See https://www.breitbart.com/economy/2024/09/12/interest-on-u-s-debt-tops-1-trillion-for-the-first-time/

A Kamala who spoke through her nose with fake emotion.

And “moderator” Linsey Davis was so nasal I had trouble understanding her words. Pathetic.

Why is that?

Because that’s what it took to get them to notice the policy. Prior to his bringing up the pet thing people had no idea Springfield had 20,000 recent immigrants. And that’s just number anyway. But pets. Pets are a tangible thing that people care about.

She literally laughed at the idea of people’s pets being eaten. She looked souless and evil in that moment.

We may think that’s stupid. But people aren’t believing it isn’t happening. Because they no longer believe anything the press says about anything.

Politicians have been arguing about whose responsible for the price of gas as long as I’ve been alive, but eating pets? Who does that and why is it happening? Now people are paying attention. If he goes to Springfield now, everyone will be watching to see if it’s true and, more importantly, what he’d do about it. And since he fixed the price of gas, back when he was prezzy the first time, well, maybe he’ll save the pets too.

No body ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average voter.

The smart ones already picked a side.

“I’d settle for unpolished and not stupid. . . . That wouldn’t have been hard or smarmy for Trump. I’ll bet such an approach was exactly what his advisors were advising.”

As I commented only yesterday,

“Does Trump listen to anyone other than Trump? About anything?”

https://www.thenewneo.com/2024/09/11/on-presidential-debates/#comment-2761037

Just Lily:

Is that the only choice? I’d settle for unpolished and not stupid.

Trump didn’t have to be Romney. He just had to avoid babbling off the top of his head about illegals eating pets and that sort of thing.

Keep the spotlight on Harris to explain her positions. Policy is her weakness. Baiting Trump to say outlandish things was her strength. Review the way she smiled when Trump went off on a tangent.

That wouldn’t have been hard or smarmy for Trump. I’ll bet such an approach was exactly what his advisors were advising.

If polished and prepared was what voters wanted, Romney would have been a 2 term president.

People want someone who sees the current situation for the disaster that it is and is willing to fight all comers to make it better. Trump even cares about pets, and he’s not a pet owner. He doesn’t scoff at the slightest concern. It wasn’t Candy Crowley who took Romney down, it was his smarmy fakeness. As his subsequent behavior has shown.

Trump clearly cares and is an authentic non-politician and is willing to show his emotions on stage for all to see.

If Kamala and all her prep could have been slightly authentic, she might have persuaded more undecideds. But she can’t tell the LIVs what the values she “hasn’t changed” really are or she’s doomed. But even Bernie Sanders knows she’s lying. He’s a commie so he’s fine with it but most people aren’t.

I still say Trump was sloppy and overconfident. If he managed to get more people in the middle, great.

I saw a lot of unforced errors. I still say he could have done better and maybe even got more people in the middle.

You go to war with the Trump you’ve got and not the Trump you would prefer.