Challenger Kamala Harris Agrees To Debate Incumbent Kamala Harris
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a move geared toward clarifying her positions on important issues, a Kamala Harris campaign spokesperson announced that challenger Kamala Harris had agreed to debate incumbent Kamala Harris.
The debate was agreed upon by both Kamala Harrises after an intense period of negotiation, during which challenger Kamala Harris initially demanded unmuted microphones, a request that incumbent Kamala Harris adamantly refused to grant.
"This is a debate between two debaters," challenger Kamala Harris said in a statement after the debate was announced. "One debater will debate the other, and both of them will debate. In a debate, things will be said. Questions will be asked. Questions will be answered in the context of questions being asked. And those answers to the questions will be answered by the people debating. I look forward to clarifying the changes in my positions and values, which have not changed."
When reached for comment, incumbent Kamala Harris expressed confidence that she would have a strong showing. "I know my opponent well," she said. "We have discussed these issues many times, from both sides. While I am proud of my accomplishments as the incumbent, my challenger has flip-flopped on multiple topics. I look forward to finding out where I stand on these issues now as a challenger and finding out how they have evolved from the positions I currently hold as the incumbent. Even though my values have not changed, I welcome the chance to hear how my values have changed."
At publishing time, incumbent Kamala Harris had raised concerns that challenger Kamala Harris may receive the debate questions beforehand.
Tags
Who is online
405 visitors
Just remember that Harvey Dent was Gotham City's District Attorney before he became Two Face in Batman's rogue gallery. Reality may be mimicking fiction, in this case.
You seriously think this is a batman movie?
Because Harris has talked more like a moderate than she did before, we are supposed to vote for Donald Trump.
This is one of the more lunatic ideas we have ever seen in national politics
No, that's the wrong conclusion. This should encourage us to consider reforming our political system so the two major parties can't pull this shit again.
The reality is that this is the most pointless election we've ever experienced during our lifetimes. The 2024 election is even more pointless than the 1972 race between George McGovern and Richard Nixon. The two major political parties have turned our political system into a Saturday Night Live skit. The two political parties have so cheapened our politics that comedians are now thought provoking political commentators.
Ralph Nader was a more serious Presidential candidate than Kamala Harris. And Ross Perot was a more serious Presidential candidate than Donald Trump. Nader and Perot were not trying to be major party candidates. Jill Stein of the Green Party has a more comprehensive and informative policy platform than either Harris or Trump. But the two major parties want the electorate to focus attention on fluff and nonsense.
The sheer unfitness of Trump to serve in public office cannot be compared to anything else in American history.
Bob Menendez held public office, didn't he? So, did George Santos.
As far as Presidents go, Andrew Jackson is responsible for stealing Cherokee land and forcing the Cherokee to move west on the Trail of Tears. I'm not sure Trump can do anything to top what the first Democratic President, Andrew Jackson, accomplished.
That you think Trump is no worse than Bob Menedez or George Santos says it all.
In terms of negative impact on the country, I rank James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson as the worst.