Overall it was about what everyone expected. Brett Baier was a little rude at times not letting her finish her answer, but what do you expect on Fox News?
Harris is infinitely more presidential than Trump, and Stevie Wonder sent me a text saying he saw that too.
Just saw part of that interview where ole Bret Barely touched on a lot of truths Kamala was calling him out on.
she did rightfully reference the Trump latest “enemy from within” themed commentary that Bret a tempted to omit,
enuff to induce vomit,
cause too tough to swallow , what spit.
Just saw some more and Kamala was smacking Trump and his supporters around the room with accurately depicting a strong leader depiction, as opposed to Trump the whining dereliction
I like what Harris did, which was to spend most of her speaking time bashing Trump's fitness for office.
Its the only issue in this campaign that should be used to choose a winner.
She had a tough time with the border issue. If it were me I would just say this problem goes back decades across every administration, if I am elected I will call a summit meeting of all the parties that can effect a new policy and we will come to an agreement on how to move forward.
Baier got into transgender and other peripheral issues , but Harris brought it all back to Trump and his insanity. I have seen the whole interview and she did fine.
If it were me I would just say this problem goes back decades across every administration, if I am elected I will call a summit meeting of all the parties that can effect a new policy and we will come to an agreement on how to move forward.
Also, they had a way forward and Trump sabotaged it.
I like what Harris did, which was to spend most of her speaking time bashing Trump's fitness for office.
Which, to my mind is a fail on her part. Her ability to trash Trump is not an indication of her ability to be president and independents like myself are sick to death of all the trash talk. She should have spent her time primarily speaking about the policies she intends to pursue and how they will benefit Americans. Instead, she wasted the opportunity by doing just what Trump does. Speak to the far side of her base, who are already convinced.
I think she was targeting those who pay little to no attention to politics and vote based on impressions and selective tidbits they hear.
Trump's profound unfitness for office should be the overriding determiner for this election. On one hand we have Trump who should never be given access to public power —much less the presidency— based on what he had done and what he continues to say. Trump is on the lunatic fringe at this point ... who could possibly trust this scoundrel with the power of the presidency?
On the other hand we have a team that is youthful, energetic, positive, presidential and unlike Trump will actually try to work for the American people rather than abuse the presidency for personal desires.
Harris-Walz are clearly left-leaning so we can expect their policies to reflect that. I will likely disagree with some of what they do but that is a nothing new (for me) regardless of party affiliation. So the choice (for me) is obvious. I refuse to vote for someone like Trump who is so overwhelming unfit for the office; happily the American people could indeed place in the presidency a team that is normal and will be a suitable voice and face for our nation.
This election is entirely about Trump's ethical, moral, psychological , and intellectual unfitness to serve as president or any other elected office. We have to stop pretending that is not the case.
This is where you have a massive blind spot. You don't seem to realize that this is only true for people who think as you do. It would literally not matter to you if AOC was the Dem ticket as the only thing that is relevant to you is "never Trump!" Half your propaganda on this site is complaining media and others aren't doing enough to denounce Trump and the other half is pushing articles trashing Trump.
Both sides are full of shit. Both sides are saying whatever they think will work, true or not. Both sides pander to the extremes of their own side. We are going to lose no matter who gets elected. From my perspective, the choice is between equally crappy policies, what we know of them, by equally untrustworthy tickets.
Maybe if Brett had treated her like the rest of FOX treats Trump they could have gotten past the first question.The net result was that my opinion of Brett changed for the worse.
I happen to agree. This was not an interview. This was a hatchet job. Brett seemed to be channeling Trump, in a way, speaking over her and the rest. In one sense, I get it. He asked a question and Harris obfuscated. It could be argued that Brett was trying to keep her on point, but the way he did so was, to my mind, inexcusable. He should have asked his question, listened for about 30 seconds and then politely try to get her back on point.
However, how Harris chose to respond to the questions was all her. Beginning with the first question about the border, she was in a situation where she had to either defend her dismal performance on the border or justify why she allowed what occurred and then explain what she intended to do going forward. Instead, we get the same old "I'm not Trump" chain of reasoning.
Just once, I'd like to see a debate where the purpose is to hear what a candidate's policies are going to be concerning a list of issues. If they say one thing about their opponent their mic is cut off. All I want to hear is what will their policy is going to be and how they will go about making it work. I heard from someone that Trump said he will not tax overtime pay. Okay. How are you going to achieve that and what impact will that have overall? Nope. Instead, all we get is the same mudslinging we always get.
I just completed my ballot and will put it in the mail today. I of course voted for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.
I was just selected to be an election judge in early voting and on election day and I am excited and proud and looking forward to being a part of the whole process.
This will be my first year as an election judge and I hope to continue in the future.
You just claimed that both Harris-Walz and Trump-Vance are equally bad for the nation. That their policies are equally bad and that both are equally untrustworthy.
That, Drakk, is a major blindspot. It clearly ignores all the outrageous bad about Trump because there is no possible way to find an equal bad on the Harris side.
Do you think that Trump's irrational tariff 'policy' is sensible? Do you recognize how, if implemented, that he would drive inflation and cause harm to the economy? We are part of a global economy and our supply chain is dependent upon imports. Trump is nuts.
But beyond that, do you find this to be a proper position for a PotUS?:
Using the military against domestic fellow Americans?
Trump is not ethically fit. He is a known crook. The president should not be a known crook.
Trump is not morally fit. He is a pathological liar, accused of sexual misconduct by over twenty women , and owes one of those women millions of dollars for defaming her.
Trump is not psychologically fit. He mentions his personal grievances against a wide array of people in just about every single one of his public appearances.
Trump is not intellectually fit. There is absolutely no evidence he has above average intelligence most lately signified by his utterly pathetic debate performance.
As I have told you before I dont give a shit about what you think are my "obsessions".
I am telling the truth and everyone knows it.
Oh, one more thing, he is a traitor. He manifested severe dereliction of duty on and around Jan 6 2021, and tried to steal the 2020 election. I will turn your comments about me around - what is wrong with you ?
Harris is properly appalled at the very idea of using the military against citizens who are politically opposed to her. Trump, in contrast, apparently cannot even comprehend why this notion is antithetical to the principles of our nation.
Any attempt to normalize Trump relative to Harris or, worse, to equate the two is irrational.
Explain, specifically, what role you think Harris had in the re-issuance of this DoD directive? Where do you find Harris speaking of this directive or about using this directive?
I gave you a video of Trump stating his position. Deliver more than innuendo.
This election should not be about "policies" . It should be about putting the most unfit candidate in history into the office.
You are allowed to have your opinion. Mine is that the idea that Trump is so unfit that anything else would be more acceptable is nonsense. Pure emotional reaction. Trump was already president once and, counter to the predictions of people like yourself, the world did not end. In my opinion, you've lost site of the rational and are now so lost in the land of emotion you can't see reality. The fact that you don't think the election should be about policies tells me as much.
Trump was already president once and, counter to the predictions of people like yourself, the world did not end.
Good god man ! - 95% of Trumps term came before he proved himself to be a traitor. And attempted to steal an election. Or was convicted by a juror of his peers of election tampering through paying hush money to a porn star. Or became unhinged due to his personal grievances.
Explain, specifically, what role you think Harris had in the re-issuance of this DoD directive?
It's pretty simple, TiG. Unless the DoD is attempting a coup, such a directive would have to come from the administration.
Where do you find Harris speaking of this directive or about using this directive?
Don't treat me like I'm stupid, TiG. You know as well as I do that if this becomes widely known, as I really, really hope it does, the right is going to have a field day with this. They are going after Trump for what he said in the video, and rightly so, in my opinion, while at the same time eroding the separation created by Posse Comitatus. They have literally begun the process for using the military domestically for which they are excoriating Trump.
5% of Trumps term came before he proved himself to be a traitor.
Democrats were calling him a traitor from day 1. They made up a collusion scandal, remember? They started a "resistance" to sabotage him from within the government.
There's a reason Democrats have no credibility when they start throwing words like traitor around. Apparently, they are unfamiliar with the boy who cried wolf fable.
It's pretty simple, TiG. Unless the DoD is attempting a coup, such a directive would have to come from the administration.
Back it up, Drakk. I find no link between Harris and this directive. The mere fact that she is VP does not cut it.
Don't treat me like I'm stupid, TiG.
Stop with the victim crap, Drakk. I made no insinuation whatsoever that you are stupid.
I asked you to give a tie that links Harris and her intent with this directive in a manner equivalent to the intent that Trump illustrated in his own words per the video clip that I delivered.
Don't just deliver bullshit with an attitude. If you want to make an allegation then back it up.
The fear mongering about this directive exists nowhere that I could find outside of far right and conspiracy sites. I could not find a mainstream article about it.
Back it up, Drakk. I find no link between Harris and this directive. The mere fact that she is VP does not cut it.
Um, yeah. So, what is it that you want? Video of White House meetings where she says something specific? Do you deny that such a directive could have no other source than the White House? Do you think it reasonable that she would not be involved?
As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to bother. Responding to anything you say is always a misake.
As we discussed, there is amongst MAGA this fundamentalist faith in Trump's divine providence that to admit to his reality would necessarily be a crisis of faith, utter personal disillusionment!
The language used in September's reissued DoD Directive 5240.01 could be horrifying and should certainly require judicial review were anyone to act upon it. There is a lot of vague language and I, personally, don't want the military anywhere near domestic law enforcement.
Do you think it reasonable that she would not be involved?
The office of the VP does little to nothing. They certainly aren't involved with Pentagon issues. I agree the directive is troubling. People should know about it and it should be removed. That doesn't mean Harris approves of it, or even knows it was done.
The office of the VP does little to nothing. They certainly aren't involved with Pentagon issues.
Under a normal presidency I would agree. However, this presidency is anything but normal. Biden is an Article 25 case if there ever was one. Do you honestly believe that Harris isn't essentially acting as president at this time? The last thing the Dems are going to want is a senile president screwing up Harris's bid.
It doesn't hurt my feelings. Listing such sites is simply an informal fallacy called poisoning the well. The directive exists, and says what it says, or it does not. That fringe sites cover it is irrelevant.
I've read the September directive change and it says the military could assist domestic law enforcement during an "imminent threat" (whatever that means) and use up to lethal force if necessary. It gives field commanders up to 72 hours of free reign before the Sec of Defense has to be notified in emergency situations. This includes acts of domestic terrorism, which, after listening to Trump talk, could be anyone politicians claim they are.
It does bring up serious legal implications and it should be discussed, but where it came from is clear as mud. I'm certain no one can tie any VP to any particular DoD directive.
There is a lot of vague language and I, personally, don't want the military anywhere near domestic law enforcement.
The way I see it, this directive is equivalent to a gun. I don't mean figuratively. Like any gun use, whether the use was good or evil depends on the wielder. Like any gun, this directive depends upon its wielder and, so, like you, I do not want the military anywhere near domestic law enforcement.
Are you suggesting that Biden is presently competent for the position of president?
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm flat out telling you that neither you nor I have the knowledge to competently make that diagnosis. Thinking one can with what little we have to go on is arrogance.
Thinking one can with what little we have to go on is arrogance.
You're welcome to your opinion. I have a different one. Mine is that if a PhD tells me that men can have babies, I'm perfectly capable of arriving at my own, different conclusion. Hence, if Biden acts senile, it's probably because he is. I take no joy in it. It's just an evident fact, as far as I'm concerned.
This would be hysterical if it wasn't so sad, we get endless comments about Harris experience and on the job training to be president and then when something comes up that the Biden administration has done that may reflect poorly on her, she is suddenly a glorified mouthpiece.
Clearly you have nothing more than conspiracy theory. In contrast, you have Harris expressing (as recently as the Fox interview) the opposite intent and expressing outrage at the very idea of abusing the military to use against people merely because they are the opposition.
Trump said that he would go after people like Adam Schiff. Schiff is merely opposition ... he does not engage in organizing attacks against the nation or anything like that.
It is irrational to try to compare Trump's position on using military against fellow countrymen to the reissuance of an obscure DoD directive where the only tie that you can make to Harris is that this directive was reissued while Harris was VP.
This directive could very well have been part of preparation for civil unrest that is almost predictable should Trump lose the election. That is a far more logical inference than your notion that Harris supports the use of military force against those who are merely political opposition as Trump has clearly stated.
So, you're saying that personnel at the DoD have the unilateral authority
Did I say that? You think VPs write DoD directives? No, DoD writes them and the Chain of Command approves them. The VP is not in the Military Chain of Command.
Look, evilone. You can waste both our time trying to come up with some semi-coherent argument that is little more than sophistry or we can discuss the reality. Up to you. No matter how you attempt to fold, spindle or mutilate the argument, the fact is that this directive could only have been enacted by the Biden/Harris, probably heavy on the Harris, admin.
he fact is that this directive could only have been enacted by the Biden/Harris, probably heavy on the Harris, admin.
No, your claim is that Biden is so feeble that Harris has to do his work. You make the claim without any evidence except your feelings. So unless you have something other than your feelings your wasting our time.
No, your claim is that Biden is so feeble that Harris has to do his work.
It's actually more like Biden is so incapacitated that the Dem party is not going to allow him to do anything to screw Harris's chances.
You make the claim without any evidence except your feelings.
Or possibly that there's very little news of Biden doing anything relevant, recently. Very little news about him at all, really.
In any case, I get the sense we are done here. Fine by me. The major reason I haven't been participating in political debates is that this is all any of them result in. On that note, I'll go back to ignoring political discussions.
It's actually more like Biden is so incapacitated that the Dem party is not going to allow him to do anything to screw Harris's chances.
You continue to make claims without evidence.
Or possibly that there's very little news of Biden doing anything relevant, recently. Very little news about him at all, really.
There can be other explanations for that other than incapacitation. It could be as simple as he's feeling unnecessary now that he's been push out of the nomination. We simply don't know.
On that note, I'll go back to ignoring political discussions.
Speak to the far side of her base, who are already convinced.
Clearly there are better places to go to speak to "her" base. So, that is not her target audience or Brett's for taping the interview. (Albeit, Baier likely had in mind making her look and sound stupid and out of touch in front of the Fox 'family' of channels and generating 'ad' or soundbite clips against her in favor of Crooked Donald.)
Crooked Donald is anything but normal! (Worse, he likes it that way and so do his supporters—obviously.) There is no daylight between a Crooked Donald supporter and Crooked Donald!
The clips I watched so far (have not seen the video above yet) showed a news person desperately flailing around with gesturing and attempting to manhandle the V.P. with his mannerism, tone, and 'neediness' to bring this home for Crooked Donald (as a gift)!
Actually, the problem as I see it is. . .the American people and their damn wishes to want too much of people unequipped to provide them perfection. Of course, politicians can NEVER be all things to all people. . .largely for a simple fact that people are fickle and feckless. And, any politician worth his or her 'salt' can not turn the ship of state to every "tom, dick, harry, or jane" at a moments or even a substantial notice. Politicians have to get the job, first before they can even try to please.
On the otherhand, Crooked Donald is somewhere on the planet right this minute, telling a lie. The collective "you" can bet on this just like me. Crooked Donald's lies are a term a believer will understand: "Legion."
(It's because some conservatives are politically against 'everything' damn near that people like you, us, stand to gain.) They are against "social justice." Whatever is good for us. . .they definitely consider bad for them. Although for the life of me, I can not imagine that large populated cities and heavily populated communities in the country should be (or could even be) managed like small and sparsely populated rural towns and such. Just think about that. Large (world-class) cities conducting themselves like small (insulated) cities and countryside communities. The models simply operate the same!
If they say one thing about their opponent their mic is cut off.
Wow. And there it is. . . the statement of some believers that character is "old-fashioned." And by the way, the quote above belies the conservative mantra that "God can not change" (God can and does change-but is always the purest manifestation of Good), because the quote implies God (now) loves LIARS and Crooks and will support them running the country 'unmolested' by a rule of law!
he statement of some believers that character is "old-fashioned"
30 years ago, Democrats taught the nation character doesn't matter to justify supporting a perjurer accused of rape, sexual harassment etc..
Trump simply follows the path Clinton set out. Probably why they were such good friends before the Clintons' plan to have him nominated because he'd be a layup for Hillary backfired.
While assassination remains explicitly forbidden, the new language
permits the military to take lethal action under urgent circumstances, raising
alarms about potential overreach.
Overview of DoD Directive 5240.01 and Its Recent Updates
DoD Directive 5240.01 outlines the legal framework for intelligence operations
conducted by military components, emphasizing compliance with constitutional
protections for U.S. citizens. Historically, the directive was focused on intelligence
collection, safeguarding civil liberties, and limiting military intervention in
domestic matters.
However, the 2024 revision has introduced new language that expands the scope of DoD support for law enforcement operations , including the
use of lethal force under certain conditions.
This expansion allows for DoD assistance in situations where national security
threats—particularly domestic terrorism—are present, with high-level approval
required for intelligence sharing that could lead to lethal outcomes. The Secretary
of Defense must typically approve such actions, but Component Heads are
authorized to act independently for up to 72 hours in exigent circumstances,
especially when lives are in immediate danger.
The Context Surrounding the Change: Why Now?
The timing of this reissuance is particularly important, coming just ahead of a
highly anticipated and contentious national election.
The United States has been facing heightened political polarization, civil unrest, and an increase in concerns
over domestic terrorism in recent years. These issues have placed national
security at the forefront of governmental priorities, prompting the DoD to
recalibrate its role in protecting both the homeland and its citizens.
The president has a constitutional duty and responsibility to protect this nation from enemies foreign and domestic. This kind of change puts citizens masquerading around as so-called, "patriots' - acting against their fellow countrymen ON NOTICE you NONSENSE will be TOLERATED only up to a point. And, if needed, a different course of activity will ensue..
So yes, in the control of responsible officials this update is harmless. But, fools trying to wrest control of the government through violent means and methodologies will properly reap the whirlwind that is blow through their damn 'forces.'
Nope. "They" are establishing policy that citizens running amok over 'big lies" and waving military-styled weapons at their fellow citizens will incur the wrath of forces equipped to deal with them. (It's something some conservatives should applause. . . that is if they want to keep domestic terrorism under control).
No, your claim is that Biden is so feeble that Harris has to do his work. You make the claim without any evidence except your feelings. So unless you have something other than your feelings your wasting our time.
One last thing. If you think it is only my feelings that leads me to hold the opinion that I do, please tell me why Harris and not Biden is now the Democratic ticket? What prompted that?
It’s not that the democrats aborted him, it’s just that Joe stepped aside because he felt that it was best for the country in a show of great patriotism. And if you believe that then you are gullible enough to believe Harris will be a good president.
Since V.P. Harris, along with any other female, has never been president we have no way of knowing if she would be a relatively GOOD president. But we do have experience with 30,000 lies from the NOT GOOD president I know as Crooked Donald—from 2016 through 2020 alone! We don't need more 'homework' to figure out that he is UNFIT for the country. Begs the question that some conservatives who SAY they want the best for this country in every way, want an UNREPENTANT LIARto lead us.
Bill Clinton 'got away with it.' And Al Gore 'suffered' loss of voting power because of it. (I even did not vote for a democrat post Clinton presidency because of the CIC's affront to the office, the power he held, and the 'wagging finger.') He got away with it.
As you might imagine, that does not give Crooked Donald license to think he can come in and 'bigly' lie and march around in moral turpitude. BTW, a person not inclined to lie will not do it, and certainly would not keep it up-especially when there is no one forcing him or her to do so.
Crooked Donald lies because it is who he thoroughly something he wishes to do. Hell, at this point, I can bet real money on it (and win) that Crooked Donald is somewhere lying his lips off at any given moment!
By the way, Bill Clinton was NOT in a good place when he lied about Monica to the public. And thus he is not the 'excuse' for future presidents to not be in a good place by farther lying .
If you think it is only my feelings that leads me to hold the opinion that I do, please tell me why Harris and not Biden is now the Democratic ticket?
-6 against Trump in the polls and a bad debate performance demoralized the Democratic Party. Interparty polling showed that ANY other dem candidate would energize the base and Harris already had access to all the current funding.
What qualifications does Harris have to be PotUS? You know her resume, compared especially with the resumes of other first-term presidential candidates, do you hold that her educational background and experience are insufficient for her to be PotUS?
Graduated with a law degree JD and passed the difficult California state bar.
Successful prosecutor in San Francisco
District Attorney for San Francisco
Twice elected Attorney General for California
US Senator from California
VP of the USA
None of the above include a reference to her sex or race.
Female is not a job qualification for president. any more than race is.
We all know that more than a few conservatives will vote against Harris because of both. Trump has disparaged her race and Vance has disparaged her sex by raising the point she has no biological children.
What is your criteria for making this statement, what was her conviction rate compared to her predecessor? was her conviction rate higher or lower? did she successfully prosecute more cases than her predecessor? what matrix did you use for this assertion? No complete bullshit about 1 case, because we do know she failed in the prosecution of a cop killer and allowed personal bias to taint her ability to seek justice. and she wrongfully convicted a person who cost the state 13 million. So what criteria do you base your assertion.
And yet it is the democrat party who feels people of color can't compete with whites and thus their continued support for affirmative action, so your comment is unsupported by facts.
Apples are red and since strawberries aren't apples they can't be red. Hahaha!
First the Democratic Party feels that people of color have gotten the shaft for the last 300+ years they deserve a bit of forethought. Right or wrong that's the logic, NOT that they think they can't compete, but that they've been excluded from competition. History bares this out as true. So, yes some liberals may vote simply because they are excited to vote for a woman, or that she's the first black woman running.
Second, what Trump, Vance and other conservatives have said about Harris is supported by factual public record. Ann Coulter is on record for telling Ramaswamy she wouldn't vote for him because he's Indian. Jesse Waters says when a man votes for a women he transitions into a woman. I suppose I could find more, but what's the point?
I asked you what qualifications Harris has to be PotUS and even gave you a list to work from.
Instead of answering the question you run from it and try to trash her performance as a prosecutor ... a prosecutor who rose to become the DA of the city in which she operated as a prosecutor.
Your comment is a perfect example of biased reasoning. Clearly you are not going to give Harris any credit for anything. You refuse to even list the qualifications she has to be PotUS.
Non-sequitur. I won't bother stating the obvious. I will let trumpists take whatever time the collective you need to figure out what my comment at 2.1.73 actually meant.
FYI, Vice-President Harris is not running for her past job or Attorney General of the United States. The provided qualification is background experience. As such it shall remain.
Trumpists have dedicated themselves to a 'kept' man . . . who would be president 'bought and paid for by" - Elon Musk (the richest man in the world today). That's not a qualification to be president. . . and we have recently heard about the mythology created that put washed up Crooked Donald in the big leagues:
'Apprentice' producer alleges appalling secrets about Trump after NDA expires
Writing for Slate , producer Bill Pruitt claimed his non-disclosure agreement (NDA) has expired and he is now free to divulge what he saw behind the scenes while working with Trump and , in some cases, it was shocking.
According to Pruitt, "By carefully misleading viewers about Trump—his wealth, his stature, his character, and his intent—the competition reality show set about an American fraud that would balloon beyond its creators’ wildest imaginations."
Trumpists should give up the fraud and Crooked Donald - the fraudster. Y'all got and continue to be 'played.'
It is not that people of color can't compete with whites, because people of color are competing and succeeding. The problem is that some conservatives won't stop handicapping people of color, secularists, LGBTQ, and non-Christians in a myriad of ways politically and even physically at some points. It seems some conservatives, now trumpists, have dedicated themselves to ruining the lives of those who could care less that they even exist were it not for the constant meddling in their, our, lives!
After serving as Assistant DA the voters of California voted to elect Kamala Harris the District Attorney of San Francisco, the Attorney General of California, as United States Senator from California and Vice President of the United States of America!
The evidence of the one office Trump ever held is being whooped by Biden, not admitting he lost, federal criminal charges of seditious conspiracy and other assorted serious criminal offenses!
voters of California voted to elect Kamala Harris the District Attorney of San Francisco, the Attorney General of California, as United States Senator from California and Vice President of the United States of America!
You do realize that everyone of those things are tantamount to winning a popularity contest in high school and have nothing to do with the actual abilities of the winner right?
Only if it is tantamount to having a tv celebrity 'creation' run for the presidency, win it, and serve for four years. . . is a "high-school popularity contest."
fter serving as Assistant DA the voters of California voted to elect Kamala Harris the District Attorney of San Francisco, the Attorney General of California, as United States Senator from California and Vice President of the United States of America!
And once again, if not for Willie, we would never have heard about a Kamala Harris.
That is a mistake a trumpist is mak-ing (present participle). JR restated the fact relevant to the matter at 2.1.90. I will leave it for a trumpist to figure out what s/he is getting wrong about this inconsequential matter in due time.
I know exactly what you are trying to say, and maybe i articulated it badly, can you tell me the last 2 candidates who ran for attorney General of the US? Since Harris isn't running for the job as you clearly stated, who is?
Willie, we would never have heard about a Kamala Harris.
We're never know, I guess. Because Willie Brown did support Kamala Harris and gave her the lift she needed and it turned out worthwhile. She need not apologize, indeed she should thank Willie Brown for helping her (it would show good upbringing and manners) and so many others in the political sphere.
No George it is not merely a popularity contest like a High School Student Council office.
You actually believe that, for example, the people of California would reelect Harris to the position of Attorney General if they believed she failed in her first term? That they would then elect her to the US Senate if she had failed in both terms of Attorney General?
Surely you recognize that there are competing candidates who will do everything to call out any of her failings to the voters.
It is sickening watching some look at a resume like that of Harris and just dismiss it with feeble bullshit like that of your comments.
That is an absolutely bullshit comment, she won popularity contests in a state where a turd with a D after it could win state wide, FFS she is as worthless.
Possibly. A career is a complex thing and everyone needs support from others to open doors and make introductions. So there is no way of telling.
But point of fact, Harris did leverage whatever help she got and her resume shows that she has been successful.
So what were her qualifications when Biden chose her to be V.P.? Surely you do not think that the only reason she was chosen was because Willie Brown was her boyfriend in the mid 1990s. Surely you recognize that she has qualifications based on her own merits and that she was not chosen merely because of her sex and ethnicity.
Right?
So what are her qualifications to hold a high political office such as VP or PotUS? Do you know?
In which case, you should have proceeding on to interpretingor discernment that : Ms. Harris is not "running" for a cabinet-position, George. But, in that case would be 'seeking' a nomination. at 2.1.100 the comment opens with "I know exactly what you are trying to say. . . ." And yet this persistence in ignoring that it was known (by you), by insisting on having it dragged out of me.
It is not so hard to help stuff make sense if it can. Humans, we, do this all the time using our god-given power of commonsense.
So you think Trump was more qualified and had a better resume than Hillary did? or did he simply win a popularity contest against a more dislikeable person?
A bad debate performance. Right. I'm not sure what is worse; that you think I would find that a valid description or that you actually believe that is all it was. As for the rest of it, same thing. No one, no campaign that I can think of, has ever done something like that because of a "bad debate" or being down in the poles and then selected someone no one likes, even on the Dem side, to replace them. Apparently, though, you are going to stick with your guns, which only demonstrate why all the debate about such things here on NT is pointless. Everyone is going to craft their "truth" and stick to it no matter what evidence to the contrary is brought to bear.
You aren't defending the truth, evilone. You're defending your narrative.
I happen to agree. This was not an interview. This was a hatchet job. Brett seemed to be channeling Trump, in a way, speaking over her and the rest. In one sense, I get it. He asked a question and Harris obfuscated. It could be argued that Brett was trying to keep her on point, but the way he did so was, to my mind, inexcusable. He should have asked his question, listened for about 30 seconds and then politely try to get her back on point.
Thank you.
It's always a pleasant surprise when someone else besides the wife validates my opinion.
Not sure how this 'went' to Hillary. But, my perspective on Hillary versus Crooked Donald is this. Crooked Donald lost me in 2016 when he came down the escalator and called immigrants: rapists, criminals, and 'not the best' . . . . I knew that was a stereotypical lie even as it poured out of his lips, even as he hesitantly remarked that he 'supposed' some immigrants from south of the border states are "good people." But, that is an old 'saw' that we don't need to cut with anymore. Back to relevancy-this election cycle.
It is an attempt to hold my feet to the (word) fire. I, for my part, get George's point now. Also, I get that commonsense usually kicks in to correct what is not plain in a statement.
I don't suspect that anybody should grovel before anybody on this. The lesson for all here, and by expansion the country, is mature elderly people will have age-appropriate 'off days' which are likely an indicator/sign such leaders should choose to 'stand-down' from high-powered leadership roles. . .specifically involving governing the lives of hundreds of millions of citizens.
As you implied, this is a 'first' and a learning experience for 'us'. . .and the country about mature elderly people in leadership roles. Looks like the nation 'won' on it as Biden voluntarily stepped aside. Yay! Love of country won out!
I never voted for Trump and really don’t care why you didn’t, my question was simple, is there any reason why trump won other than it was simply a popularity contest like any other election? Was Fetterman more qualified than Doctor Oz or just more popular? Elections are no more than popularity contests to 90% of the electorate, this fact is sad but true.
The question as asked is 'unanswerable.' People have varying reasons, acceptances, and understandings about how to use and 'deploy' their individual vote. Of course, there is the likability factor (whom would you like to sit and have a beer?) and there is the 'cause' voter, and the strategic (long-term outcome) voters. It is a popularity contest. . . but it is much, much, more. Because lives will be impacted by the president of the United States—nationally and internationally.
Dr. Oz was 'caught' pandering to red-states and Crooked Donald. It did not serve him well—and 'defeated' his bonafides and so his credibility 'waffled' when he needed it to stand up for him against Fetterman.
As for Crooked Donald, I still don't see what the attraction is to repeat elect a man so easy to tell a lie that the lies became a running 'joke' upwards and beyond 30,000 in a four year presidency (I am pretty sure he is somewhere on the planet lying right this moment). Yet, here we are.
Was Fetterman more qualified than Doctor Oz or just more popular?
Fetterman was more qualified, Oz was much more popular but PA voters especially southeast PA are much smarter than you apparently give them credit for.
Elections are no more than popularity contests to 90% of the electorate, this fact is sad but true.
Federal elections for President are not determined by popular vote.
Sad but true, the FF didn't trust popularism so they invented the Electoral college system
which has awarded several recent presidents the office without the popular vote.
Trump is promoting it. Harris friendly outlets will ignore it or attack Baier. MSNBC already playing the racism card.
Right wing sites can't publish enough clips of it. The dismissal of the mother talking about her daughter's rape, the "What are you talking about?"moment. Almost too much fodder for those critical of Harris it was so bad.
She did fine. Baier wanted her to talk about things that are Republican talking points and she talked about Trump.
Considering that the questions were basically either leading or hostile, along the "when did you stop beating your wife?" type, she handled it pretty well.
When will Trump go on with George Stephanopolous?
As far as Trump promoting it, WGAF? Means nothing to anyone but MAGA.
Whatever number of reasonable people there are watching Fox News may have given her a second look, but I think the main reason she did it was to say she did.
One of the highlights is when he asked her why Trump is still a contender and she responded that Trump has called Americans "the enemy within" etc in recent days . Baier then showed a bullshit clip from today where another Fox news host let him try and walk that back. Harris correctly told Baier she was not going to let him get away with that and Baier had to sit there and take it.
This election is all about Trump. He is unstable and mentally ill, and we see it every day.
Kamala shoved those words down his weasly looking snout, and he was deservedly dissed and definitely pissed, and most definitely, far from fair and balanced
Isn't the idea for Harris to actually convince people to vote for her?
Not from what I saw. She is going from the Biden playbook of "I am not Trump". Of course all the Trump haters keep screaming that is all this election should be about but I have to question how many people bought into it based on yesterdays performance. Alot of people on the fence sure would like to hear about her actual policies and how far left she would take the country. Those questions still remain unanswered.
Alot of people on the fence sure would like to hear about her actual policies and how far left she would take the country. Those questions still remain unanswered.
Apparently, there are 100 plus GOP personages and officials who don't consider her as intolerable for her views. . . since they are supporting her over Crooked Donald who ls somewhere on the planet LYING right this minute. Yep, it's true. It's true.
If by fine she sat upright and used words until her handlers literally threw in the towel to save her? She didn't answer a single question.
ints and she talked about Trump
That's all she could do. It's like watching a slow child try to follow instructions. Hers were obviously, just say "Trump is bad" no matter what the question is. She's can't handle anything more complicated than that.
BRET: “More than 70% of Americans feel the country is going badly.”
KAMALA: “Donald Trump has been running for office”
B: “But you've been the person holding the office”
K: “You and I both know what I’m talking about (laughs for some reason)”
B: “I actually don’t. What are you talking about?
Those are the answers of an idiot who can't put together a coherent response to a simple question. The behind the scenes stories from the Harris campaign are going to amazing once Democrats are free to talk about her.
As far as Trump promoting it, WGAF?
Isn't the idea for Harris to actually convince people to vote for her?
en will Trump go on with George Stephanopolous?
he just gave a sit down to Bloomberg yesterday and actually answered questions.
Because only the psychopathic voices on the left care about that.
No, only real patriotic Americans care about the attempted insurrection at the direction of a narcissistic sore loser. Anyone who dismisses January 6th as a nothingburger should not consider themselves patriotic or even American. Confederate? Rebel? Traitor? Yes, all those titles fit such folk, but patriot is certainly not a noun they could use to describe themselves.
until her handlers literally threw in the towel to save her
Literally? You saw a towel? WTF are you talking about? Please explain in specific detail this moment you saw where someone handling Harris threw in a towel to “save her” from this interview.
In his post-interview analysis, Baier also revealed that he had hoped to ask more questions, but several Harris campaign staffers were frantically signaling to him off-camera to end the interview because his time was up.
“I’m talking, like, four people waving their hands like it’s got to stop,” he said. “I had to dismount there at the end.”
And on the interview itself that you can watch "“Madam Vice President, they’re wrapping me very hard here,” Baier interjected a little more than 20 minutes into the tough questioning, adding that there still were “a lot of things that people want to learn about you and your policies.”
Baier also revealed that he had hoped to ask more questions
Amazing! That never happens. In a proper interview, it doesn’t end until the journalist is entirely satisfied that he has asked every question he wanted to ask. You’re on to something!
You can tell she knew she only had to get through less than 30 minutes and the more she filibustered the less questions Baier would be able to get out. Also, bringing up Trump when the questions were all about her and her past/ future was an obvious tactic her handlers told her to do.
bringing up Trump when the questions were all about her and her past/ future was an obvious tactic her handlers told her to do.
Yet there are those who won't or will refuse to see it.................blatantly obvious. The whole strategy was built on two words.........."but Trump"
Yet there are those who won't or will refuse to see it.................blatantly obvious.
Do they actually refuse to see, or are they contrasting the flaws of both candidates? I'm certainly no supporter of Harris herself. She's been full of trite left wing populism of late, which doesn't endear her to most independents. That said she certainly preferable to any other candidate on the ballot when comparing flaws.
"“Madam Vice President, they’re wrapping me very hard here,” Baier interjected a little more than 20 minutes into the tough questioning, adding that there still were “a lot of things that people want to learn about you and your policies.”
V. P. Harris has a job to do. She has places to be and no journalist can have the over-indulgence of her fixed schedule. It is a common refrain I hear from people who watch new accounts involving translation (where the (foreigner's) lips are moving but are not in-synch with the words being uttered. The 'voice-over' translation is heard and invariably some 'slow' or 'critical' person nearby will shout: "See! They are putting words in that guy's/gal's mouth." I have to tell the 'slow-crowd'. . . it's a translator doing the proper job they are paid to do: TRANSLATING.
Well, I am pretty sure Baier was told when the V.P. sat for the interview what her time constraint would be. That he may have chosen to push the 'envelope' in order to remark as he did. . . is, well, a well-worn tactic by some interviewers looking for an 'angle.'
Scandalous! Diabolical! Such a move is OBVIOUSLY engineered on purpose to prevent the interviewer - and by extension, the American people - from getting truthful answers to the most urgent questions. Unquestionably, Bret Baier was prevented from asking the most important question on his list due to this egregious tactic. Starting late is how Kamala Harris will bring down America. /s/s/s/s/s/s
I mean you cannot be serious with this whiny bullshit. Rather than address anything she said, you’re mad because they started late? Who gives a fuck? Is it your position that every Trump interview starts and stops exactly when scheduled? Even if it did, the master of “the weave” wastes time like no one else. Is it your position that Baier was saving the tough questions for later? Maybe your beef should be with him.
I wonder sometimes if there is reasoning with people, but then I remember this is the same crowd that was scandalized when President Obama wore a brown suit FFS.
and keep her actual policies a secret
Any policy in particular? Why do you suppose Baier didn’t ask about that one? And by “secret” do you mean like Trump’s secret health care policy? Or his policy to get Mexico to pay for the wall? Or how he’ll make tariffs work when no one else has? Or what he meant about sending the US military against the American people? (He was asked about that the morning of this interview and answered with rambling bullshit). I could go on, if you like.
You think "they started late" has value, so maybe you're not the best judge of value.
You think it has no value even though it is obvious they wanted a short interview, so maybe you are not the most impartial one to determine what is of value.
There is nothing of ‘value’ to be gleaned at this point of the game. Not a single mind is going to be swayed. Nothing will bring us to anything resembling a consensus.
That being said, let us at least attempt to be civil…for as ugly as the dialogue is today, the day after the election promises to be a test of our resolve in maintaining everything we should all hold dear, regardless of the outcome.
Perhaps a forlorn hope, but a hope we can all be better in the future, our collective future. And if we cannot do that in one’s individual malaise, perhaps we can honor those of the past who gave us the opportunity and can give those to follow an appropriate example to emulate.
Appreciate your value, Tacos, and this was tagged on your comment in knowing it would be taken for what it is worth, even if a bit off topic.
Do you think about all these conspiracy theories you keep coming up with? If they were so worried about the interview, they didn't have to have one at all.
Once again, we see the goalposts move.
"She won't do interviews" - she does interviews.
"She won't interview on Fox" - she interviews on Fox
"She didn't interview long enough on Fox"
How long would you like the interview to have been? Have you even thought about it? You're so certain the interview was improperly short, but you haven't said how long it needed to be or why. What's the perfect number of minutes, hours, days, etc.? Why?
How long would you like the interview to have been?
Long enough for people to hear answers they wanted to hear. At least on a few issues. Do you believe anything useful came out of the interview with regards to he position on anything other than Orange Man bad?
Harris handled that interview well. Of course Trump supporters will never admit it, but she was informed, poised, presidential and politely assertive. The gotchas did not work.
Seems to me she can handle herself well. She should keep doing interviews ... especially on Fox ... and attempt to reach those who are not cult-minded but who get far too much of their 'information' from Fox.
You are the one whose credibility is sinking like molten lava through cardboard.
Harris IS vague on some issues. That is because she doesnt have all her policies lined up. What president does? They are politicians who want to appeal to a spectrum of people.
You claim she sounded like an idiot. That is absurd.
I dont think any of us are really objective, but the Trump supporters are the biggest reality deniers of anyone.
Implying that she did not handle that interview well illustrates a total lack of objectivity.
Interesting. I was thinking saying that she did handle that interview well illustrates a total lack of objectivity. Of course it will be interesting to hear what independents who are still undecided think about her performance compared to what they wanted to hear and not people that support her or Trump.
Of course. It doesn't show the objectivity of the Harris supporters and Trump haters that wouldn't know objectivity if it fell from the sky and hit them on the head.
My point being if anyone is that over the top supportive of one candidate they lose credibility trying to say they are objective with regards to either candidate.
Not saying that is good or bad, just that it is what it is no matter how much anyone tries to convince one of something else.
My point being if anyone is that over the top supportive of one candidate they lose credibility trying to say they are objective with regards to either candidate.
Being objective does not mean that one cannot come to a conclusion and be highly confident in their analysis.
For example, one can be 'over the top supportive' of moving towards clean renewable energy. It is abundantly clear that strategically moving to energy with less pollution that does not depend on waning natural resources is superior to stubbornly sticking with the diminishing fossil fuel resources.
And for those who are not blind to political reality, Trump is the most unfit nominee for president in any of our lifetimes and arguably in the history of our nation. One can easily come to the objective conclusion that such a profoundly unfit candidate should be rejected in favor of someone who is normal, presidential, intelligent, positive, youthful ... and fit.
I would compare her "performance" to Bidens horrible debate with Trump which Trump almost lost but for the fog Biden seemed to be in ( or the shock that Trump could lie and exaggerate so glibly )
Out of the three people, four if you consider any of Vance's slick but truthless rallies, I would place her first among the candidates for reality and fervor.
Brett was forced to admit the Fox did air the wrong clip about "the enemy within" which ramped up the intensity between Baier & Harris and he admitted he did a poor job .
Objectivity is questionable for someone that feels so strongly for one candidate or against one candidate. Of course everyone would like to think they are objective but it is obvious by things they are willing to overlook or say "there is nothing to see here" or nit pick the other candidate and find fault with everything they do that it is not the case.
A platitude declaration in lieu of actually defending your point.
Objectivity is questionable for someone that feels so strongly for one candidate or against one candidate.
You are just repeating yourself. Trump is obviously unfit to hold the office and Harris is clearly fit — being as normal a candidate as any other who became PotUS (outside of Trump). They are on opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of the most important factor for electing a PotUS: fitness to serve.
Given such an extreme, it is not at all unusual for an objective, critical analysis in terms of fitness to conclude that Trump should never be elected.
Trump is obviously unfit to hold the office and Harris is clearly fit — being as normal a candidate as any other who became PotUS (outside of Trump).
You keep repeating your opinion as if it were fact.
Objective non partisan critical analysis flies out the window when feeling become the most important thing although those doing it rarely can see it. But to outside observers it is obvious it is subjective analysis, sort of like if you were watching Fox or MSNBC
By the criteria set as standard for Presidential fitness, Donald Trump does not meet the minimum of decorum or veracity and the most disqualifying of all, respect for the Constitution.
What? I can't hear you, I am laughing to loudly at your commentary, vainly trying to pretend, yes, pretend, that Donald Trump is any kind of fit for the presidency.
That list, in and of itself, completely disqualifies him. Someone who gets no respect from dozens of his former aides is not fit for office. Not in this country.
One would think that his Vice President not endorsing him would have some affect until one listens to what they thought of him on January 6th.
Trump lies. Trump lost the 2020 election. Listen to him today and he is still promoting the fantasy that he was robbed. He has dragged half of the country along with him on a phantasmagorical trip in which he somehow "won" in 2020. What a fucking crock of shit he is.
attempt to those not cult minded, and show which candidate is competent, smart on her feat, an adult, and not wanting a cult, is what I saw.
And yes, a few more Fox Hunts, and she’ll be killing it, cause all of them won’t be in lock step with the rights special interpretation of what Fox is told to point, cause she made some powerful, most accurate statements about Trump
Harris supporters must have a really low bar. Then again pretty much all she did was bash trump (which is all Harris supporters want her to do) and tell people to go to her web site to learn about any policies. Maybe the viewers actually wanted more.
That is not the case, the case is that Trump supporters have settled into a cult-like mindset and thus it really does not matter how well Harris does, they will always conclude that she failed.
Of course it is. Many Trump haters (Harris supporters) can't see beyond that hate and support anything Harris has to say.
As far as making a case for her policies telling people to go to her web site was a complete failure on her part. People (other than the aforementioned Trump haters) wanted to hear about her policies from her, not just a redirect while looking for sound bytes of the liberal "news" shows
She handled an aggressive gotcha interview very well. Your complaint is that she did not spend enough time talking about her policies in the short interview.
That just shows that no matter what, Trump supporters will always find something to whine about.
not spend enough time talking about her policies in the short interview.
It wasn't FOX that set the timer..............I think they planned it that way so that the questioning had to be quick before she started tripping over her tongue
I think they planned it that way so that the questioning had to be quick before she started tripping over her tongue
I think they went there thinking Trump bashing, getting a few soundbites for liberal "news" so they could say she did well and avoid any questions of substance would take 20 minutes. Any more than that and she just would have stared blankly and told us about her middle class upbringing a few times.
Of course not, some are even still trying to claim Trump was the winner in their debate when he was clearly outmatched and fumbling and any objective observer would say she wiped the floor with him.
No, she did not do well, and everyone knows it. The refusing to give a direct answer and immediately deflecting to Trump trick doesn't work anymore, as if it ever did. She's an incompetent fool and phony and headed for the dustbin of history. Not amount of leftwing lipstick can make this pig attractive to a majority of the voters.
He's a journalist. I know it's hard to recognize these days but they are to ask hard-hitting questions.
Are you attempting to tell me Fox and other right leaning sites have asked Trump tough questionxs..?
Cause that would be puree non sense and you know it. The clown Trump is totally unfit for office andf she pointed that out rather fckn well. She schooled Brett in the segment i saw. Not saying she did entire interview, as i didnt see it, but her points were accurate and cannot be, to me, proven wrong unless they have troves of stuff not seen, cause Trump is out to demean what he has demented
I believe she was there for the entire agreed upon time of the interview. Do you have any evidence other than sour grapes Baier claiming he wanted to hit her with more gotcha questions, but her staff told him to wrap it up?
Gotta wonder why and, where did Baier say gotcha questions............well except in your imagination
How exactly is she supposed to answer this "when did you stop beating your wife" question?:
“When did you first notice that President Biden’s mental faculties appeared diminished?” -- Brett Baier
Politically, she cannot trash Biden by agreeing with the premise so no discussion based on this question would be valuable. Further, Biden is not running for PotUS yet Bret was sitting right in front of someone who is running right now.
Amazing that you do not recognize ("gotta wonder why and, where") such obvious gotcha questions rather than questions designed to get Harris to elucidate her positions and how she would operate as PotUS.
Yeah, a journalist should never put a politician in the position of having to explain why they lied to the American people. It’s hard for the poor dear to answer.
It must suck to be Brett Baier right now. Crooked Donald likes the concept of winners around him. Brett's "performance" will likely get net him some criticism:
Bret Baier About to Get Hit by All Sides for Harris Interview
‘INTO THE LION’S DEN’
Fox News’ chief political anchor is the face of the network’s straight-news coverage. His approach and tone have angered all sides—especially in the run-up to grilling Harris.
Who will prevail in the Kamala Harris/Bret Baier face-off tonight on Fox News? Baier has petitioned hard to get Harris on to Fox News . But with his first interview with Harris set, he’s also invited a torrent of critics—on both sides of the aisle—to point their pitchforks and spears in his direction.
. . . .
Baier has tried to preempt GOP attacks on his interview by engaging with his critics directly on X, promising the interview would be aired “as-Live,” would not be edited, and that Harris did not receive the questions in advance. “You can have the transcript too if you want,” he told one user.
That hasn’t stopped Baier’s chief critic—former President Donald Trump—from condemning the anchor over the interview.
“Lyin’ Kamala Harris has wisely chosen Bret Baier, of FoxNews, to do a much needed interview, because he is considered to be “Fair & Balanced,” though often very soft to those on the “cocktail circuit” Left,” Trump wrote on Monday. “I would have preferred seeing a more hard hitting journalist, but Fox has grown so weak and soft on the Democrats, constantly polluting the airwaves with unopposed Kamala Representatives, that it all doesn’t matter anymore.”
One has to wonder if good old Brett 'grilled' or tried to 'bleed' any of Crooked Donald's newly minted "old gang" for failing to call him out when it was clear Crooked Donald is INTENT on selling them out for his new found Best Friend Forever with extreme "benefits" —Elon Musk and that 'fattest' wallet in the world of his. I have news for Fox and trumpists: Crooked Donald is a 'kept' man now. . . Elon Musk owns 'that.' —not the collective "You"!
Elon Musk has found his 'president' and Crooked Donald is a bought man! Whether or not he knows it (yet)!
On the border situation as being put forward by Baier. . ., only a fool would expect PERFECTION/POLICY (100 percent or so) from any administration. For example, people did not blame Crooked Donald for Covid-19 appearing in the world and largely not for it arriving in country. Politicians are not mind-readers or magicians or omniscient.) What got Crooked Donald in trouble over the 2020 pandemic was his callous attitude, conversation, 'flip-flopping' and grandiose pressers on the virus. . . as states were reporting 'disastrous' states in hospital wards and people going in and not able to come out.
Let's remember and not forget that we have no ability to tell a 'loser' or evil-doer beforehand. 'Trotting' out crying people who are hurting won't fix the situation. Furthermore, leaving people out of the immigrant population because of what "if" would have left the pilgrim's and the first settlers out at sea!
United States Deaths Clock
Number of deaths in the United States today so far: 5804 (so far. BTW, the number has increased since I typed 'in.')
Just finished the interview video above. Not so 'bad.' I was amused to see Baier try to get V.P. Harris to bad-mouth her boss in public. He must take her for a fool. Well, 'foolishness' is not what to provide. V.P. Harris was there for a purpose and it not being to entertain. So, she kept that journalist under time-constraint. It is what it is.
I was amused to see Baier try to get V.P. Harris to bad-mouth her boss in public.
Oh they are desperate for that. But here's the funny thing: In any remotely productive working political relationship, that's never going to happen. You never see that. You never see, for example, former rivals in the same party, who maybe ran against each other at some point, turn around and badmouth the other if they're nominated for president.
Except! There is one very notable exception. Donald Trump.
Literally dozens (hundreds? more?) of people who worked with him as president and are still aligned with the Republican party, have gone out of their way to publicly denounce him. It's not even a little minor disagreement. Like, they want Harris to say that maybe they erred on the border, or Biden is slowing down. That's all they dare hope for.
But Trump's previous political relations put out special press releases and make speeches warning the country that he should not be president. They even endorse the Democratic nominee, Harris. I can't remember anything like that ever happening and it's killing Trump supporters. They pray that Harris will say one negative thing about Biden or that any Democrat will say something bad about Harris. But it's not going to happen because she's not a psycho crazy person whose own allies are afraid of her.
Here is another consideration. "Poor" Brett is sitting there suited up and sweating with a sheet full of 'punishing and bruising questions' likely supplied by Rightwing operatives (the 'plan' is for break to tear the V.P. a 'new one." . . . then, he gets the 'wrap' signal and so he announces it to the public. . . "I'm getting a hard wrap. . . . " That last was for "the big guy" and the trumpists to know that. . . Brett was not being weak or choking. . .but, he was not going to be denied further opportunity to rake V.P. Harris over once more.
I don't know. Brett Baier may not be long for Fox News if Crooked Donald turns on him over this!
Hey Brett!! That's no way to make a "grand" living. . . trying to please others by remaining silent as they drop crunchy eggshells under your feet!
What I find so. . .'sorry' is some trumpists simply are mockers and apparently it's a "some conservative" thing. This is their 'go to' when all else fails, or just "go to" (it) anyway!
This no name man made a fool out of himself. We are laughing at the mocker and not at the words and grunts coming from inside him.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Overall it was about what everyone expected. Brett Baier was a little rude at times not letting her finish her answer, but what do you expect on Fox News?
Harris is infinitely more presidential than Trump, and Stevie Wonder sent me a text saying he saw that too.
Just saw part of that interview where ole Bret Barely touched on a lot of truths Kamala was calling him out on.
she did rightfully reference the Trump latest “enemy from within” themed commentary that Bret a tempted to omit,
enuff to induce vomit,
cause too tough to swallow , what spit.
Just saw some more and Kamala was smacking Trump and his supporters around the room with accurately depicting a strong leader depiction, as opposed to Trump the whining dereliction
of more than just a piece of duty
I like what Harris did, which was to spend most of her speaking time bashing Trump's fitness for office.
Its the only issue in this campaign that should be used to choose a winner.
She had a tough time with the border issue. If it were me I would just say this problem goes back decades across every administration, if I am elected I will call a summit meeting of all the parties that can effect a new policy and we will come to an agreement on how to move forward.
Baier got into transgender and other peripheral issues , but Harris brought it all back to Trump and his insanity. I have seen the whole interview and she did fine.
Also, they had a way forward and Trump sabotaged it.
Which, to my mind is a fail on her part. Her ability to trash Trump is not an indication of her ability to be president and independents like myself are sick to death of all the trash talk. She should have spent her time primarily speaking about the policies she intends to pursue and how they will benefit Americans. Instead, she wasted the opportunity by doing just what Trump does. Speak to the far side of her base, who are already convinced.
I think she was targeting those who pay little to no attention to politics and vote based on impressions and selective tidbits they hear.
Trump's profound unfitness for office should be the overriding determiner for this election. On one hand we have Trump who should never be given access to public power —much less the presidency— based on what he had done and what he continues to say. Trump is on the lunatic fringe at this point ... who could possibly trust this scoundrel with the power of the presidency?
On the other hand we have a team that is youthful, energetic, positive, presidential and unlike Trump will actually try to work for the American people rather than abuse the presidency for personal desires.
Harris-Walz are clearly left-leaning so we can expect their policies to reflect that. I will likely disagree with some of what they do but that is a nothing new (for me) regardless of party affiliation. So the choice (for me) is obvious. I refuse to vote for someone like Trump who is so overwhelming unfit for the office; happily the American people could indeed place in the presidency a team that is normal and will be a suitable voice and face for our nation.
This election is entirely about Trump's ethical, moral, psychological , and intellectual unfitness to serve as president or any other elected office.
We have to stop pretending that is not the case.
Maybe if Brett had treated her like the rest of FOX treats Trump they could have gotten past the first question.
The net result was that my opinion of Brett changed for the worse.
This is where you have a massive blind spot. You don't seem to realize that this is only true for people who think as you do. It would literally not matter to you if AOC was the Dem ticket as the only thing that is relevant to you is "never Trump!" Half your propaganda on this site is complaining media and others aren't doing enough to denounce Trump and the other half is pushing articles trashing Trump.
Both sides are full of shit. Both sides are saying whatever they think will work, true or not. Both sides pander to the extremes of their own side. We are going to lose no matter who gets elected. From my perspective, the choice is between equally crappy policies, what we know of them, by equally untrustworthy tickets.
No, we trust the Democrats, not the spineless republicons.
I happen to agree. This was not an interview. This was a hatchet job. Brett seemed to be channeling Trump, in a way, speaking over her and the rest. In one sense, I get it. He asked a question and Harris obfuscated. It could be argued that Brett was trying to keep her on point, but the way he did so was, to my mind, inexcusable. He should have asked his question, listened for about 30 seconds and then politely try to get her back on point.
However, how Harris chose to respond to the questions was all her. Beginning with the first question about the border, she was in a situation where she had to either defend her dismal performance on the border or justify why she allowed what occurred and then explain what she intended to do going forward. Instead, we get the same old "I'm not Trump" chain of reasoning.
Just once, I'd like to see a debate where the purpose is to hear what a candidate's policies are going to be concerning a list of issues. If they say one thing about their opponent their mic is cut off. All I want to hear is what will their policy is going to be and how they will go about making it work. I heard from someone that Trump said he will not tax overtime pay. Okay. How are you going to achieve that and what impact will that have overall? Nope. Instead, all we get is the same mudslinging we always get.
and the former 'president' convicted felon traitor conman rapist is all about the people.
I just completed my ballot and will put it in the mail today. I of course voted for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz.
I was just selected to be an election judge in early voting and on election day and I am excited and proud and looking forward to being a part of the whole process.
This will be my first year as an election judge and I hope to continue in the future.
You just claimed that both Harris-Walz and Trump-Vance are equally bad for the nation. That their policies are equally bad and that both are equally untrustworthy.
That, Drakk, is a major blindspot. It clearly ignores all the outrageous bad about Trump because there is no possible way to find an equal bad on the Harris side.
Do you think that Trump's irrational tariff 'policy' is sensible? Do you recognize how, if implemented, that he would drive inflation and cause harm to the economy? We are part of a global economy and our supply chain is dependent upon imports. Trump is nuts.
But beyond that, do you find this to be a proper position for a PotUS?:
Using the military against domestic fellow Americans?
Trump is not ethically fit. He is a known crook. The president should not be a known crook.
Trump is not morally fit. He is a pathological liar, accused of sexual misconduct by over twenty women , and owes one of those women millions of dollars for defaming her.
Trump is not psychologically fit. He mentions his personal grievances against a wide array of people in just about every single one of his public appearances.
Trump is not intellectually fit. There is absolutely no evidence he has above average intelligence most lately signified by his utterly pathetic debate performance.
As I have told you before I dont give a shit about what you think are my "obsessions".
I am telling the truth and everyone knows it.
Oh, one more thing, he is a traitor. He manifested severe dereliction of duty on and around Jan 6 2021, and tried to steal the 2020 election. I will turn your comments about me around - what is wrong with you ?
'destroying the towns and villages'
'if you have a smart president'
That leaves you out, moron.
About as proper as I find the Biden/Harris admins enactment of DoD Directive
Harris is properly appalled at the very idea of using the military against citizens who are politically opposed to her. Trump, in contrast, apparently cannot even comprehend why this notion is antithetical to the principles of our nation.
Any attempt to normalize Trump relative to Harris or, worse, to equate the two is irrational.
I rest my case.
You dont have a case to rest.
This election should not be about "policies" . It should be about putting the most unfit candidate in history into the office.
Her implementation of DoD Directive 5240.01 would argue against her level of horror.
You are literally saying that character doesnt matter. That is not and has never been the American way.
We dont need one more minute of someone who hates the people of this country and says the US is a third world country, let alone four more years.
We have been torn apart enough by him starting in 2011. Enough is enough for god's sake.
Explain, specifically, what role you think Harris had in the re-issuance of this DoD directive? Where do you find Harris speaking of this directive or about using this directive?
I gave you a video of Trump stating his position. Deliver more than innuendo.
You are allowed to have your opinion. Mine is that the idea that Trump is so unfit that anything else would be more acceptable is nonsense. Pure emotional reaction. Trump was already president once and, counter to the predictions of people like yourself, the world did not end. In my opinion, you've lost site of the rational and are now so lost in the land of emotion you can't see reality. The fact that you don't think the election should be about policies tells me as much.
Good god man ! - 95% of Trumps term came before he proved himself to be a traitor. And attempted to steal an election. Or was convicted by a juror of his peers of election tampering through paying hush money to a porn star. Or became unhinged due to his personal grievances.
I suppose you could find a monster reprehensible enough to qualify for your Sophie's Choice, but Harris is nothing like it!
It's pretty simple, TiG. Unless the DoD is attempting a coup, such a directive would have to come from the administration.
Don't treat me like I'm stupid, TiG. You know as well as I do that if this becomes widely known, as I really, really hope it does, the right is going to have a field day with this. They are going after Trump for what he said in the video, and rightly so, in my opinion, while at the same time eroding the separation created by Posse Comitatus. They have literally begun the process for using the military domestically for which they are excoriating Trump.
No, I'm not saying that. Character does matter. I am saying that I find no real distinction between them, character wise.
Democrats were calling him a traitor from day 1. They made up a collusion scandal, remember? They started a "resistance" to sabotage him from within the government.
There's a reason Democrats have no credibility when they start throwing words like traitor around. Apparently, they are unfamiliar with the boy who cried wolf fable.
Thats your problem. Both sidesism will destroy this country.
All nonsense.
Back it up, Drakk. I find no link between Harris and this directive. The mere fact that she is VP does not cut it.
Stop with the victim crap, Drakk. I made no insinuation whatsoever that you are stupid.
I asked you to give a tie that links Harris and her intent with this directive in a manner equivalent to the intent that Trump illustrated in his own words per the video clip that I delivered.
Don't just deliver bullshit with an attitude. If you want to make an allegation then back it up.
Such agnorance.
The fear mongering about this directive exists nowhere that I could find outside of far right and conspiracy sites. I could not find a mainstream article about it.
Um, yeah. So, what is it that you want? Video of White House meetings where she says something specific? Do you deny that such a directive could have no other source than the White House? Do you think it reasonable that she would not be involved?
As for the rest of your post, I'm not going to bother. Responding to anything you say is always a misake.
As we discussed, there is amongst MAGA this fundamentalist faith in Trump's divine providence that to admit to his reality would necessarily be a crisis of faith, utter personal disillusionment!
The language used in September's reissued DoD Directive 5240.01 could be horrifying and should certainly require judicial review were anyone to act upon it. There is a lot of vague language and I, personally, don't want the military anywhere near domestic law enforcement.
The office of the VP does little to nothing. They certainly aren't involved with Pentagon issues. I agree the directive is troubling. People should know about it and it should be removed. That doesn't mean Harris approves of it, or even knows it was done.
It might hurt someones feelings, but I am going to say it anyway. I did an all public feeds search on Innoreader for "DoD Directive 5240.01".
Here is the list of all the websites with public feeds that are mentioning this subject
The Conspiracy subredditt
Lew Rockwell - longtime white nationalist site
SHTF Plan , a conspiracy site
Net News Network, a bat shit crazy far right site
Paul Craig Roberts . org, another unhinged conspiracy site
David Icke, king of the lizard people conspiracy theory
cryptogon.com
Technocracy News
Natural News.com
These are all whack job and or conspiracy riddled sites.
Under a normal presidency I would agree. However, this presidency is anything but normal. Biden is an Article 25 case if there ever was one. Do you honestly believe that Harris isn't essentially acting as president at this time? The last thing the Dems are going to want is a senile president screwing up Harris's bid.
DoD Directive 5240.01, "DoD Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities and Defense Intelligence Component Assistance to Law Enforcement Agencies and Other Civil Authorities," September 27, 2024 (whs.mil)
It doesn't hurt my feelings. Listing such sites is simply an informal fallacy called poisoning the well. The directive exists, and says what it says, or it does not. That fringe sites cover it is irrelevant.
I've read the September directive change and it says the military could assist domestic law enforcement during an "imminent threat" (whatever that means) and use up to lethal force if necessary. It gives field commanders up to 72 hours of free reign before the Sec of Defense has to be notified in emergency situations. This includes acts of domestic terrorism, which, after listening to Trump talk, could be anyone politicians claim they are.
It does bring up serious legal implications and it should be discussed, but where it came from is clear as mud. I'm certain no one can tie any VP to any particular DoD directive.
So you've met with him and assessed him with your many years of phycological expertise?
The way I see it, this directive is equivalent to a gun. I don't mean figuratively. Like any gun use, whether the use was good or evil depends on the wielder. Like any gun, this directive depends upon its wielder and, so, like you, I do not want the military anywhere near domestic law enforcement.
No. I'm using my common sense based on the many examples of what I think indicate he isn't capable of carrying out his duties as president.
Are you suggesting that Biden is presently competent for the position of president?
If there is a context or explanation , it will not be found on any of the sites that are reporting it.
It is always disconcerting when the only news sources that are covering a story are far right. Always.
Really? What do you think the possible sources could be?
I'm not suggesting anything. I'm flat out telling you that neither you nor I have the knowledge to competently make that diagnosis. Thinking one can with what little we have to go on is arrogance.
There are a lot of people in the Pentagon that have way more control and access of military policy than a glorified mouth piece like the VP.
You're welcome to your opinion. I have a different one. Mine is that if a PhD tells me that men can have babies, I'm perfectly capable of arriving at my own, different conclusion. Hence, if Biden acts senile, it's probably because he is. I take no joy in it. It's just an evident fact, as far as I'm concerned.
So, you're saying that personnel at the DoD have the unilateral authority to change Posse Comitatus?
This would be hysterical if it wasn't so sad, we get endless comments about Harris experience and on the job training to be president and then when something comes up that the Biden administration has done that may reflect poorly on her, she is suddenly a glorified mouthpiece.
Clearly you have nothing more than conspiracy theory. In contrast, you have Harris expressing (as recently as the Fox interview) the opposite intent and expressing outrage at the very idea of abusing the military to use against people merely because they are the opposition.
Trump said that he would go after people like Adam Schiff. Schiff is merely opposition ... he does not engage in organizing attacks against the nation or anything like that.
It is irrational to try to compare Trump's position on using military against fellow countrymen to the reissuance of an obscure DoD directive where the only tie that you can make to Harris is that this directive was reissued while Harris was VP.
This directive could very well have been part of preparation for civil unrest that is almost predictable should Trump lose the election. That is a far more logical inference than your notion that Harris supports the use of military force against those who are merely political opposition as Trump has clearly stated.
You have no argument.
Does that include writing DoD directives? Can you show me anywhere where that's a prerequisite of the VP job? Any other VP write them?
Except I gave no opinion.
Obviously you know more than the people that surrounds him, because you saw him on TV and because you have an opinion, they must be covering for him.
Did I say that? You think VPs write DoD directives? No, DoD writes them and the Chain of Command approves them. The VP is not in the Military Chain of Command.
Look, evilone. You can waste both our time trying to come up with some semi-coherent argument that is little more than sophistry or we can discuss the reality. Up to you. No matter how you attempt to fold, spindle or mutilate the argument, the fact is that this directive could only have been enacted by the Biden/Harris, probably heavy on the Harris, admin.
Deflection fail, it IS part of the job she has been training for the last 4 years, or is she just an empty-headed mouthpiece with zero training.
No, your claim is that Biden is so feeble that Harris has to do his work. You make the claim without any evidence except your feelings. So unless you have something other than your feelings your wasting our time.
Yes, you failed at the deflection.
It's actually more like Biden is so incapacitated that the Dem party is not going to allow him to do anything to screw Harris's chances.
Or possibly that there's very little news of Biden doing anything relevant, recently. Very little news about him at all, really.
In any case, I get the sense we are done here. Fine by me. The major reason I haven't been participating in political debates is that this is all any of them result in. On that note, I'll go back to ignoring political discussions.
You continue to make claims without evidence.
There can be other explanations for that other than incapacitation. It could be as simple as he's feeling unnecessary now that he's been push out of the nomination. We simply don't know.
Okay.
Clearly there are better places to go to speak to "her" base. So, that is not her target audience or Brett's for taping the interview. (Albeit, Baier likely had in mind making her look and sound stupid and out of touch in front of the Fox 'family' of channels and generating 'ad' or soundbite clips against her in favor of Crooked Donald.)
Crooked Donald is anything but normal! (Worse, he likes it that way and so do his supporters—obviously.) There is no daylight between a Crooked Donald supporter and Crooked Donald!
The clips I watched so far (have not seen the video above yet) showed a news person desperately flailing around with gesturing and attempting to manhandle the V.P. with his mannerism, tone, and 'neediness' to bring this home for Crooked Donald (as a gift)!
Actually, the problem as I see it is. . .the American people and their damn wishes to want too much of people unequipped to provide them perfection. Of course, politicians can NEVER be all things to all people. . .largely for a simple fact that people are fickle and feckless. And, any politician worth his or her 'salt' can not turn the ship of state to every "tom, dick, harry, or jane" at a moments or even a substantial notice. Politicians have to get the job, first before they can even try to please.
On the otherhand, Crooked Donald is somewhere on the planet right this minute, telling a lie. The collective "you" can bet on this just like me. Crooked Donald's lies are a term a believer will understand: "Legion."
(It's because some conservatives are politically against 'everything' damn near that people like you, us, stand to gain.) They are against "social justice." Whatever is good for us. . .they definitely consider bad for them. Although for the life of me, I can not imagine that large populated cities and heavily populated communities in the country should be (or could even be) managed like small and sparsely populated rural towns and such. Just think about that. Large (world-class) cities conducting themselves like small (insulated) cities and countryside communities. The models simply operate the same!
Wow. And there it is. . . the statement of some believers that character is "old-fashioned." And by the way, the quote above belies the conservative mantra that "God can not change" (God can and does change-but is always the purest manifestation of Good), because the quote implies God (now) loves LIARS and Crooks and will support them running the country 'unmolested' by a rule of law!
30 years ago, Democrats taught the nation character doesn't matter to justify supporting a perjurer accused of rape, sexual harassment etc..
Trump simply follows the path Clinton set out. Probably why they were such good friends before the Clintons' plan to have him nominated because he'd be a layup for Hillary backfired.
of DoD support for law enforcement operations , including the
The Context Surrounding the Change: Why Now?
The president has a constitutional duty and responsibility to protect this nation from enemies foreign and domestic. This kind of change puts citizens masquerading around as so-called, "patriots' - acting against their fellow countrymen ON NOTICE you NONSENSE will be TOLERATED only up to a point. And, if needed, a different course of activity will ensue..
So yes, in the control of responsible officials this update is harmless. But, fools trying to wrest control of the government through violent means and methodologies will properly reap the whirlwind that is blow through their damn 'forces.'
Nope. "They" are establishing policy that citizens running amok over 'big lies" and waving military-styled weapons at their fellow citizens will incur the wrath of forces equipped to deal with them. (It's something some conservatives should applause. . . that is if they want to keep domestic terrorism under control).
That comment is shameful. It should not be so 'hard' to persuade others of good intentions and actions that point toward good versus harm.
One last thing. If you think it is only my feelings that leads me to hold the opinion that I do, please tell me why Harris and not Biden is now the Democratic ticket? What prompted that?
It’s not that the democrats aborted him, it’s just that Joe stepped aside because he felt that it was best for the country in a show of great patriotism. And if you believe that then you are gullible enough to believe Harris will be a good president.
Since V.P. Harris, along with any other female, has never been president we have no way of knowing if she would be a relatively GOOD president. But we do have experience with 30,000 lies from the NOT GOOD president I know as Crooked Donald—from 2016 through 2020 alone! We don't need more 'homework' to figure out that he is UNFIT for the country. Begs the question that some conservatives who SAY they want the best for this country in every way, want an UNREPENTANT LIAR to lead us.
common sense - lol
Bill Clinton 'got away with it.' And Al Gore 'suffered' loss of voting power because of it. (I even did not vote for a democrat post Clinton presidency because of the CIC's affront to the office, the power he held, and the 'wagging finger.') He got away with it.
As you might imagine, that does not give Crooked Donald license to think he can come in and 'bigly' lie and march around in moral turpitude. BTW, a person not inclined to lie will not do it, and certainly would not keep it up-especially when there is no one forcing him or her to do so.
Crooked Donald lies because it is who he thoroughly something he wishes to do. Hell, at this point, I can bet real money on it (and win) that Crooked Donald is somewhere lying his lips off at any given moment!
By the way, Bill Clinton was NOT in a good place when he lied about Monica to the public. And thus he is not the 'excuse' for future presidents to not be in a good place by farther lying .
-6 against Trump in the polls and a bad debate performance demoralized the Democratic Party. Interparty polling showed that ANY other dem candidate would energize the base and Harris already had access to all the current funding.
Female is not a job qualification for president. any more than race is.
What qualifications does Harris have to be PotUS? You know her resume, compared especially with the resumes of other first-term presidential candidates, do you hold that her educational background and experience are insufficient for her to be PotUS?
None of the above include a reference to her sex or race.
We all know that more than a few conservatives will vote against Harris because of both. Trump has disparaged her race and Vance has disparaged her sex by raising the point she has no biological children.
What is your criteria for making this statement, what was her conviction rate compared to her predecessor? was her conviction rate higher or lower? did she successfully prosecute more cases than her predecessor? what matrix did you use for this assertion? No complete bullshit about 1 case, because we do know she failed in the prosecution of a cop killer and allowed personal bias to taint her ability to seek justice. and she wrongfully convicted a person who cost the state 13 million. So what criteria do you base your assertion.
And yet it is the democrat party who feels people of color can't compete with whites and thus their continued support for affirmative action, so your comment is unsupported by facts.
She also said she went after a Hispanic drug gang that actually has been disbanded years before.
Nice pretzel logic there:
Apples are red and since strawberries aren't apples they can't be red. Hahaha!
First the Democratic Party feels that people of color have gotten the shaft for the last 300+ years they deserve a bit of forethought. Right or wrong that's the logic, NOT that they think they can't compete, but that they've been excluded from competition. History bares this out as true. So, yes some liberals may vote simply because they are excited to vote for a woman, or that she's the first black woman running.
Second, what Trump, Vance and other conservatives have said about Harris is supported by factual public record. Ann Coulter is on record for telling Ramaswamy she wouldn't vote for him because he's Indian. Jesse Waters says when a man votes for a women he transitions into a woman. I suppose I could find more, but what's the point?
Pure deflection.
I asked you what qualifications Harris has to be PotUS and even gave you a list to work from.
Instead of answering the question you run from it and try to trash her performance as a prosecutor ... a prosecutor who rose to become the DA of the city in which she operated as a prosecutor.
Your comment is a perfect example of biased reasoning. Clearly you are not going to give Harris any credit for anything. You refuse to even list the qualifications she has to be PotUS.
Non-sequitur. I won't bother stating the obvious. I will let trumpists take whatever time the collective you need to figure out what my comment at 2.1.73 actually meant.
FYI, Vice-President Harris is not running for her past job or Attorney General of the United States. The provided qualification is background experience. As such it shall remain.
Trumpists have dedicated themselves to a 'kept' man . . . who would be president 'bought and paid for by" - Elon Musk (the richest man in the world today). That's not a qualification to be president. . . and we have recently heard about the mythology created that put washed up Crooked Donald in the big leagues:
Trumpists should give up the fraud and Crooked Donald - the fraudster. Y'all got and continue to be 'played.'
It is not that people of color can't compete with whites, because people of color are competing and succeeding. The problem is that some conservatives won't stop handicapping people of color, secularists, LGBTQ, and non-Christians in a myriad of ways politically and even physically at some points. It seems some conservatives, now trumpists, have dedicated themselves to ruining the lives of those who could care less that they even exist were it not for the constant meddling in their, our, lives!
So you can’t back-up an assertion that you made, I guess we are done
Kamala was never attorney general of the United States.
Just pathetic. Who do you think you are fooling with this blatant deflection and projection?
See 2.1.90.
Thank you, JR!!!
[✘] this [✘] is what CB wrote:
Are we not supposed to respond to what people actually write. plus you did make this assertion.
DO you have any evidence to back up this claim? I provided a couple to prove it wrong.
After serving as Assistant DA the voters of California voted to elect Kamala Harris the District Attorney of San Francisco, the Attorney General of California, as United States Senator from California and Vice President of the United States of America!
The evidence of the one office Trump ever held is being whooped by Biden, not admitting he lost, federal criminal charges of seditious conspiracy and other assorted serious criminal offenses!
You do realize that everyone of those things are tantamount to winning a popularity contest in high school and have nothing to do with the actual abilities of the winner right?
I never claimed she was, I was CB that said she was the AG of the United states,
Only if it is tantamount to having a tv celebrity 'creation' run for the presidency, win it, and serve for four years. . . is a "high-school popularity contest."
And once again, if not for Willie, we would never have heard about a Kamala Harris.
That is a mistake a trumpist is mak-ing (present participle). JR restated the fact relevant to the matter at 2.1.90. I will leave it for a trumpist to figure out what s/he is getting wrong about this inconsequential matter in due time.
I know exactly what you are trying to say, and maybe i articulated it badly, can you tell me the last 2 candidates who ran for attorney General of the US? Since Harris isn't running for the job as you clearly stated, who is?
We're never know, I guess. Because Willie Brown did support Kamala Harris and gave her the lift she needed and it turned out worthwhile. She need not apologize, indeed she should thank Willie Brown for helping her (it would show good upbringing and manners) and so many others in the political sphere.
Nobody runs for cabinet-level appointments, George. So, the answer is - 'Nobody.'
So we can write it off as a typo on your part, or just a poorly worded phrase.
No George it is not merely a popularity contest like a High School Student Council office.
You actually believe that, for example, the people of California would reelect Harris to the position of Attorney General if they believed she failed in her first term? That they would then elect her to the US Senate if she had failed in both terms of Attorney General?
Surely you recognize that there are competing candidates who will do everything to call out any of her failings to the voters.
It is sickening watching some look at a resume like that of Harris and just dismiss it with feeble bullshit like that of your comments.
That is an absolutely bullshit comment, she won popularity contests in a state where a turd with a D after it could win state wide, FFS she is as worthless.
Possibly. A career is a complex thing and everyone needs support from others to open doors and make introductions. So there is no way of telling.
But point of fact, Harris did leverage whatever help she got and her resume shows that she has been successful.
So what were her qualifications when Biden chose her to be V.P.? Surely you do not think that the only reason she was chosen was because Willie Brown was her boyfriend in the mid 1990s. Surely you recognize that she has qualifications based on her own merits and that she was not chosen merely because of her sex and ethnicity.
Right?
So what are her qualifications to hold a high political office such as VP or PotUS? Do you know?
Brilliant rebuttal.
To believe that you would have to believe that she had no competition for office. That is an irrational fantasy IMO.
In which case, you should have proceeding on to interpreting or discernment that : Ms. Harris is not "running" for a cabinet-position, George. But, in that case would be 'seeking' a nomination. at 2.1.100 the comment opens with "I know exactly what you are trying to say. . . ." And yet this persistence in ignoring that it was known (by you), by insisting on having it dragged out of me.
It is not so hard to help stuff make sense if it can. Humans, we, do this all the time using our god-given power of commonsense.
That comment says a lot about partisanship.
So you think Trump was more qualified and had a better resume than Hillary did? or did he simply win a popularity contest against a more dislikeable person?
[Deleted][✘]
A bad debate performance. Right. I'm not sure what is worse; that you think I would find that a valid description or that you actually believe that is all it was. As for the rest of it, same thing. No one, no campaign that I can think of, has ever done something like that because of a "bad debate" or being down in the poles and then selected someone no one likes, even on the Dem side, to replace them. Apparently, though, you are going to stick with your guns, which only demonstrate why all the debate about such things here on NT is pointless. Everyone is going to craft their "truth" and stick to it no matter what evidence to the contrary is brought to bear.
You aren't defending the truth, evilone. You're defending your narrative.
Thank you.
It's always a pleasant surprise when someone else besides the wife validates my opinion.
Yes, I think it's pretty sad that you are so angry you are obviously misreading "of" for "or"
And your assertion that she wasn't, is just your opinion. OK?
Was she impeached during her eight years as the DA? No.
Was she censored or disciplined by the BAR at any time between 1989 and 1998? No.
Said no one here.
Not sure how this 'went' to Hillary. But, my perspective on Hillary versus Crooked Donald is this. Crooked Donald lost me in 2016 when he came down the escalator and called immigrants: rapists, criminals, and 'not the best' . . . . I knew that was a stereotypical lie even as it poured out of his lips, even as he hesitantly remarked that he 'supposed' some immigrants from south of the border states are "good people." But, that is an old 'saw' that we don't need to cut with anymore. Back to relevancy-this election cycle.
Yes, you should.
It is an attempt to hold my feet to the (word) fire.
I, for my part, get George's point now. Also, I get that commonsense usually kicks in to correct what is not plain in a statement. 
I don't suspect that anybody should grovel before anybody on this. The lesson for all here, and by expansion the country, is mature elderly people will have age-appropriate 'off days' which are likely an indicator/sign such leaders should choose to 'stand-down' from high-powered leadership roles. . .specifically involving governing the lives of hundreds of millions of citizens.
As you implied, this is a 'first' and a learning experience for 'us'. . .and the country about mature elderly people in leadership roles. Looks like the nation 'won' on it as Biden voluntarily stepped aside. Yay! Love of country won out!
[Deleted][✘]
Maybe.
I never voted for Trump and really don’t care why you didn’t, my question was simple, is there any reason why trump won other than it was simply a popularity contest like any other election? Was Fetterman more qualified than Doctor Oz or just more popular? Elections are no more than popularity contests to 90% of the electorate, this fact is sad but true.
The question as asked is 'unanswerable.' People have varying reasons, acceptances, and understandings about how to use and 'deploy' their individual vote. Of course, there is the likability factor (whom would you like to sit and have a beer?) and there is the 'cause' voter, and the strategic (long-term outcome) voters. It is a popularity contest. . . but it is much, much, more. Because lives will be impacted by the president of the United States—nationally and internationally.
Dr. Oz was 'caught' pandering to red-states and Crooked Donald. It did not serve him well—and 'defeated' his bonafides and so his credibility 'waffled' when he needed it to stand up for him against Fetterman.
As for Crooked Donald, I still don't see what the attraction is to repeat elect a man so easy to tell a lie that the lies became a running 'joke' upwards and beyond 30,000 in a four year presidency (I am pretty sure he is somewhere on the planet lying right this moment). Yet, here we are.
Fetterman was more qualified, Oz was much more popular but PA voters especially southeast PA are much smarter than you apparently give them credit for.
Federal elections for President are not determined by popular vote.
Sad but true, the FF didn't trust popularism so they invented the Electoral college system
which has awarded several recent presidents the office without the popular vote.
Himself
Trump is promoting it. Harris friendly outlets will ignore it or attack Baier. MSNBC already playing the racism card.
Right wing sites can't publish enough clips of it. The dismissal of the mother talking about her daughter's rape, the "What are you talking about?"moment. Almost too much fodder for those critical of Harris it was so bad.
Tells you all need to know.
She did fine. Baier wanted her to talk about things that are Republican talking points and she talked about Trump.
Considering that the questions were basically either leading or hostile, along the "when did you stop beating your wife?" type, she handled it pretty well.
When will Trump go on with George Stephanopolous?
As far as Trump promoting it, WGAF? Means nothing to anyone but MAGA.
Isn't the idea for Harris to actually convince people to vote for her?
Whatever number of reasonable people there are watching Fox News may have given her a second look, but I think the main reason she did it was to say she did.
One of the highlights is when he asked her why Trump is still a contender and she responded that Trump has called Americans "the enemy within" etc in recent days . Baier then showed a bullshit clip from today where another Fox news host let him try and walk that back. Harris correctly told Baier she was not going to let him get away with that and Baier had to sit there and take it.
This election is all about Trump. He is unstable and mentally ill, and we see it every day.
That is the first part I referenced above.
Kamala shoved those words down his weasly looking snout, and he was deservedly dissed and definitely pissed, and most definitely, far from fair and balanced
Not from what I saw. She is going from the Biden playbook of "I am not Trump". Of course all the Trump haters keep screaming that is all this election should be about but I have to question how many people bought into it based on yesterdays performance. Alot of people on the fence sure would like to hear about her actual policies and how far left she would take the country. Those questions still remain unanswered.
She's awesome! Managed to kick him in his non-existent balls very thoroughly.
Source?
[deleted][✘]
[✘]
Experience teaches us that you can not persuade the Unwilling.
Baier got caught and now everybody will know how UNPROFESSIONAL he can be! So unprofessional.
Apparently, there are 100 plus GOP personages and officials who don't consider her as intolerable for her views. . . since they are supporting her over Crooked Donald who ls somewhere on the planet LYING right this minute. Yep, it's true. It's true.
If by fine she sat upright and used words until her handlers literally threw in the towel to save her? She didn't answer a single question.
That's all she could do. It's like watching a slow child try to follow instructions. Hers were obviously, just say "Trump is bad" no matter what the question is. She's can't handle anything more complicated than that.
BRET: “More than 70% of Americans feel the country is going badly.”
KAMALA: “Donald Trump has been running for office”
B: “But you've been the person holding the office”
K: “You and I both know what I’m talking about (laughs for some reason)”
B: “I actually don’t. What are you talking about?
Those are the answers of an idiot who can't put together a coherent response to a simple question. The behind the scenes stories from the Harris campaign are going to amazing once Democrats are free to talk about her.
Isn't the idea for Harris to actually convince people to vote for her?
en will Trump go on with George Stephanopolous?
he just gave a sit down to Bloomberg yesterday and actually answered questions.
What are you talking about?
1. Never in the entire interview does she sound like an idiot.
2. Never in the entire interview does she sound insane.
3. Never in the interview did she come across as a buffoon.
4. She never slurred her words.
5. She didnt say how much she hates America.
None of that is true of Trump.
George Stephanopolous will ask him about Jan 6th. Trump avoids that topic like it is his kryptonite.
‘George Stephanopolous will ask him about Jan 6th. Trump avoids that topic like it is his kryptonite.’
Because only the psychopathic voices on the left care about that.
What will your thoughts be if Trump wins on Jan 5 and leftists wake up to riot on the streets on Jan 6?
After all, they did the day after Trump win the first time/
No, only real patriotic Americans care about the attempted insurrection at the direction of a narcissistic sore loser. Anyone who dismisses January 6th as a nothingburger should not consider themselves patriotic or even American. Confederate? Rebel? Traitor? Yes, all those titles fit such folk, but patriot is certainly not a noun they could use to describe themselves.
What will he win on Jan 05? Another SCOTUS debacle?
Literally? You saw a towel? WTF are you talking about? Please explain in specific detail this moment you saw where someone handling Harris threw in a towel to “save her” from this interview.
In his post-interview analysis, Baier also revealed that he had hoped to ask more questions, but several Harris campaign staffers were frantically signaling to him off-camera to end the interview because his time was up.
“I’m talking, like, four people waving their hands like it’s got to stop,” he said. “I had to dismount there at the end.”
And on the interview itself that you can watch "“Madam Vice President, they’re wrapping me very hard here,” Baier interjected a little more than 20 minutes into the tough questioning, adding that there still were “a lot of things that people want to learn about you and your policies.”
Amazing! That never happens. In a proper interview, it doesn’t end until the journalist is entirely satisfied that he has asked every question he wanted to ask. You’re on to something!
[deleted][✘]
You can tell she knew she only had to get through less than 30 minutes and the more she filibustered the less questions Baier would be able to get out.
Also, bringing up Trump when the questions were all about her and her past/ future was an obvious tactic her handlers told her to do.
Yet there are those who won't or will refuse to see it.................blatantly obvious. The whole strategy was built on two words.........."but Trump"
The things the Harris supporters will ignore is sad to witness.
The things that some people will ignore is amusing.
Do they actually refuse to see, or are they contrasting the flaws of both candidates? I'm certainly no supporter of Harris herself. She's been full of trite left wing populism of late, which doesn't endear her to most independents. That said she certainly preferable to any other candidate on the ballot when comparing flaws.
You have perfectly described most Trump interviews. Avoid the question and bring up the opposition
or the size of his invisible crowds.
The things that Trump supportes will ignore is sad to witness.
V. P. Harris has a job to do. She has places to be and no journalist can have the over-indulgence of her fixed schedule. It is a common refrain I hear from people who watch new accounts involving translation (where the (foreigner's) lips are moving but are not in-synch with the words being uttered. The 'voice-over' translation is heard and invariably some 'slow' or 'critical' person nearby will shout: "See! They are putting words in that guy's/gal's mouth." I have to tell the 'slow-crowd'. . . it's a translator doing the proper job they are paid to do: TRANSLATING.
Well, I am pretty sure Baier was told when the V.P. sat for the interview what her time constraint would be. That he may have chosen to push the 'envelope' in order to remark as he did. . . is, well, a well-worn tactic by some interviewers looking for an 'angle.'
And they started late. She was obviously there to get a viral moment and keep her actual policies a secret
Scandalous! Diabolical! Such a move is OBVIOUSLY engineered on purpose to prevent the interviewer - and by extension, the American people - from getting truthful answers to the most urgent questions. Unquestionably, Bret Baier was prevented from asking the most important question on his list due to this egregious tactic. Starting late is how Kamala Harris will bring down America. /s/s/s/s/s/s
I mean you cannot be serious with this whiny bullshit. Rather than address anything she said, you’re mad because they started late? Who gives a fuck? Is it your position that every Trump interview starts and stops exactly when scheduled? Even if it did, the master of “the weave” wastes time like no one else. Is it your position that Baier was saving the tough questions for later? Maybe your beef should be with him.
I wonder sometimes if there is reasoning with people, but then I remember this is the same crowd that was scandalized when President Obama wore a brown suit FFS.
Any policy in particular? Why do you suppose Baier didn’t ask about that one? And by “secret” do you mean like Trump’s secret health care policy? Or his policy to get Mexico to pay for the wall? Or how he’ll make tariffs work when no one else has? Or what he meant about sending the US military against the American people? (He was asked about that the morning of this interview and answered with rambling bullshit). I could go on, if you like.
You're so fucking awesome.
By the way - it was a tan suit - and he looked absolutely freaking awesome. So scandalous!
lol
She said nothing of value with regards to her policies. Of course that is what her supporters wanted but maybe not the rest of the world
You think "they started late" has value, so maybe you're not the best judge of value.
You think it has no value even though it is obvious they wanted a short interview, so maybe you are not the most impartial one to determine what is of value.
“…value.”
There is nothing of ‘value’ to be gleaned at this point of the game. Not a single mind is going to be swayed. Nothing will bring us to anything resembling a consensus.
That being said, let us at least attempt to be civil…for as ugly as the dialogue is today, the day after the election promises to be a test of our resolve in maintaining everything we should all hold dear, regardless of the outcome.
Perhaps a forlorn hope, but a hope we can all be better in the future, our collective future. And if we cannot do that in one’s individual malaise, perhaps we can honor those of the past who gave us the opportunity and can give those to follow an appropriate example to emulate.
Appreciate your value, Tacos, and this was tagged on your comment in knowing it would be taken for what it is worth, even if a bit off topic.
Peace to all and please vote.
Do you think about all these conspiracy theories you keep coming up with? If they were so worried about the interview, they didn't have to have one at all.
Once again, we see the goalposts move.
"She won't do interviews" - she does interviews.
"She won't interview on Fox" - she interviews on Fox
"She didn't interview long enough on Fox"
How long would you like the interview to have been? Have you even thought about it? You're so certain the interview was improperly short, but you haven't said how long it needed to be or why. What's the perfect number of minutes, hours, days, etc.? Why?
Long enough for people to hear answers they wanted to hear. At least on a few issues. Do you believe anything useful came out of the interview with regards to he position on anything other than Orange Man bad?
That's not how it works, some of us have been waiting 9 years for Trump's healthcare policy.
We are all disappointed equally it would seem.
I thought he said two weeks - it's been a very, very, very, very, very long two weeks. It always reminded me of the movie The Money Pit and this
Two weeks? Two weeks?
For a little fun - here's an all new edition of 'What was trump asked about?'
That was my favorite. I am sure many people watching shared Brett's confusion.
Hopefully she sticks with that answer.
Interviewer: What is your policy and how will you bring down prices?
Harris: You know how I will do that.
Meanwhile Trump is swaying onstage to the haunting strains of Ave Maria and Gun And Roses. We understand, he gets really tired...
Harris handled that interview well. Of course Trump supporters will never admit it, but she was informed, poised, presidential and politely assertive. The gotchas did not work.
Seems to me she can handle herself well. She should keep doing interviews ... especially on Fox ... and attempt to reach those who are not cult-minded but who get far too much of their 'information' from Fox.
Harris handled that interview well.
This is the new "Biden is sharp as ever and has so much energy the young staff members can't keep up with him."
It's your credibility. Spend it how you wish.
You are the one whose credibility is sinking like molten lava through cardboard.
Harris IS vague on some issues. That is because she doesnt have all her policies lined up. What president does? They are politicians who want to appeal to a spectrum of people.
You claim she sounded like an idiot. That is absurd.
I dont think any of us are really objective, but the Trump supporters are the biggest reality deniers of anyone.
Implying that she did not handle that interview well illustrates a total lack of objectivity.
He's more than implying it.
Baier's entire theme was "why are you and Biden so unpopular"?
It is kind of macro-"gotcha". She stood up to it while still keeping her composure. Only MAGA faithful can say she did not hold up well.
Unpopular to Fox is Harris wins by less than 10,000,000 votes!
Interesting. I was thinking saying that she did handle that interview well illustrates a total lack of objectivity. Of course it will be interesting to hear what independents who are still undecided think about her performance compared to what they wanted to hear and not people that support her or Trump.
The party of projection. Deflection. Denial. Delusion.
Wow.
Another comment illustrating no objectivity.
Of course. It doesn't show the objectivity of the Harris supporters and Trump haters that wouldn't know objectivity if it fell from the sky and hit them on the head.
Meanwhile Trump supporters are revisited by "they're eating the cats and dogs and other pets",
Harris and her ilk "want to ban red meat, "no more cows", "no more windows in homes"
and a real surprise for the UAW, "children can assemble" foreign cars from the boxes of parts that the
manufacturers sent to the states.
At some point it has to become obvious that Trump doesn't have the stamina to campaign
or say rational things anymore.
Grover Norquist once said all a GOP POTUS has to do is have enough digits to hold a pen.
We may be approaching that particular ground zero.
My point being if anyone is that over the top supportive of one candidate they lose credibility trying to say they are objective with regards to either candidate.
Not saying that is good or bad, just that it is what it is no matter how much anyone tries to convince one of something else.
Being objective does not mean that one cannot come to a conclusion and be highly confident in their analysis.
For example, one can be 'over the top supportive' of moving towards clean renewable energy. It is abundantly clear that strategically moving to energy with less pollution that does not depend on waning natural resources is superior to stubbornly sticking with the diminishing fossil fuel resources.
And for those who are not blind to political reality, Trump is the most unfit nominee for president in any of our lifetimes and arguably in the history of our nation. One can easily come to the objective conclusion that such a profoundly unfit candidate should be rejected in favor of someone who is normal, presidential, intelligent, positive, youthful ... and fit.
I would compare her "performance" to Bidens horrible debate with Trump which Trump almost lost but for the fog Biden seemed to be in ( or the shock that Trump could lie and exaggerate so glibly )
Out of the three people, four if you consider any of Vance's slick but truthless rallies, I would place her first among the candidates for reality and fervor.
Brett was forced to admit the Fox did air the wrong clip about "the enemy within" which ramped up the intensity between Baier & Harris and he admitted he did a poor job .
My point about candidate stands.
Objectivity is questionable for someone that feels so strongly for one candidate or against one candidate. Of course everyone would like to think they are objective but it is obvious by things they are willing to overlook or say "there is nothing to see here" or nit pick the other candidate and find fault with everything they do that it is not the case.
A platitude declaration in lieu of actually defending your point.
You are just repeating yourself. Trump is obviously unfit to hold the office and Harris is clearly fit — being as normal a candidate as any other who became PotUS (outside of Trump). They are on opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of the most important factor for electing a PotUS: fitness to serve.
Given such an extreme, it is not at all unusual for an objective, critical analysis in terms of fitness to conclude that Trump should never be elected.
You keep repeating your opinion as if it were fact.
Objective non partisan critical analysis flies out the window when feeling become the most important thing although those doing it rarely can see it. But to outside observers it is obvious it is subjective analysis, sort of like if you were watching Fox or MSNBC
My point about candidates stand.
word salad
To borrow a phrase. A platitude declaration in lieu of actually defending your point.
This platitude is a tacit admission that you cannot defend your point.
No, it is a declaration that my point stands. Your not wanting to except it is a you thing, it doesn't make it any less true.
Trump is fit to be president = untruth
By the criteria set as standard for Presidential fitness, Donald Trump does not meet the minimum of decorum or veracity and the most disqualifying of all, respect for the Constitution.
To wit (Only a Partial list):
That list, in and of itself, completely disqualifies him. Someone who gets no respect from dozens of his former aides is not fit for office. Not in this country.
What, tthat's all you got....?
No, the list goes on. I decided to be nice to "Our Readers"
One would think that his Vice President not endorsing him would have some affect until one listens to what they thought of him on January 6th.
Trump lies. Trump lost the 2020 election. Listen to him today and he is still promoting the fantasy that he was robbed. He has dragged half of the country along with him on a phantasmagorical trip in which he somehow "won" in 2020. What a fucking crock of shit he is.
attempt to those not cult minded, and show which candidate is competent, smart on her feat, an adult, and not wanting a cult, is what I saw.
And yes, a few more Fox Hunts, and she’ll be killing it, cause all of them won’t be in lock step with the rights special interpretation of what Fox is told to point, cause she made some powerful, most accurate statements about Trump
Harris supporters must have a really low bar. Then again pretty much all she did was bash trump (which is all Harris supporters want her to do) and tell people to go to her web site to learn about any policies. Maybe the viewers actually wanted more.
‘and tell people to go to her web site to learn about any policies’
Because there was no way she could articulate them without a teleprompter telling her what to say.
That is not the case, the case is that Trump supporters have settled into a cult-like mindset and thus it really does not matter how well Harris does, they will always conclude that she failed.
Case in point @6.3.1
Of course it is. Many Trump haters (Harris supporters) can't see beyond that hate and support anything Harris has to say.
As far as making a case for her policies telling people to go to her web site was a complete failure on her part. People (other than the aforementioned Trump haters) wanted to hear about her policies from her, not just a redirect while looking for sound bytes of the liberal "news" shows
She handled an aggressive gotcha interview very well. Your complaint is that she did not spend enough time talking about her policies in the short interview.
That just shows that no matter what, Trump supporters will always find something to whine about.
It wasn't FOX that set the timer..............I think they planned it that way so that the questioning had to be quick before she started tripping over her tongue
It is actually called probative questions and interview from an actual journalist to which she never answered and it was obvious.
I think they went there thinking Trump bashing, getting a few soundbites for liberal "news" so they could say she did well and avoid any questions of substance would take 20 minutes. Any more than that and she just would have stared blankly and told us about her middle class upbringing a few times.
Of course not, some are even still trying to claim Trump was the winner in their debate when he was clearly outmatched and fumbling and any objective observer would say she wiped the floor with him.
No, she did not do well, and everyone knows it. The refusing to give a direct answer and immediately deflecting to Trump trick doesn't work anymore, as if it ever did. She's an incompetent fool and phony and headed for the dustbin of history. Not amount of leftwing lipstick can make this pig attractive to a majority of the voters.
As if not giving a direct answer to a gotcha question is disqualifying!
If so, who are gop going to run as replacements candidates this year?
Projection.
I was hoping to find out if she was brought up in a middle class family.
and "I will follow the LAW" another dodge from the imbecile.
Kamala's childhood home was a unit in this middle class building.
And now you know the rest of the story!
Thanks. I guess you needed the S/ on my comment
Unless she is trying to raise money to get rioters out of Jail.
Berkeley International Montessori School?
This is her first as a child.
Your picture is one they moved to in the future.
But I see your point .........................
Harris did just fine and if anyone saw a towel they must have been in the men’s room.
Her staff cut it short....................thus the "towel"
do you believe ole Brett was being fair and balanced, cause he appeared unstable to most any with a horse in this race, or the stable…
He's a journalist. I know it's hard to recognize these days but they are to ask hard-hitting questions.
[deleted][✘]
Are you attempting to tell me Fox and other right leaning sites have asked Trump tough questionxs..?
Cause that would be puree non sense and you know it. The clown Trump is totally unfit for office andf she pointed that out rather fckn well. She schooled Brett in the segment i saw. Not saying she did entire interview, as i didnt see it, but her points were accurate and cannot be, to me, proven wrong unless they have troves of stuff not seen, cause Trump is out to demean what he has demented
[deleted][✘]
Journalist.
The defenders of the indefensible
The party of projection
[deleted][✘]
Yes, and a pretty good one.
I believe she was there for the entire agreed upon time of the interview. Do you have any evidence other than sour grapes Baier claiming he wanted to hit her with more gotcha questions, but her staff told him to wrap it up?
Gotta wonder why and, where did Baier say gotcha questions............well except in your imagination
Explain your position on X... Why did you do Y?
Real gotcha questions...
What "gotcha" questions did he ask? I don't remember her answering any question.
Question for left wing NT'rs
Leaving Trump completely out of the picture, tell us why an undecided voter should vote for Harris?
What does she represent?
Sanity
and Decency and Common Sense
How exactly is she supposed to answer this "when did you stop beating your wife" question?:
Politically, she cannot trash Biden by agreeing with the premise so no discussion based on this question would be valuable. Further, Biden is not running for PotUS yet Bret was sitting right in front of someone who is running right now.
Amazing that you do not recognize ("gotta wonder why and, where") such obvious gotcha questions rather than questions designed to get Harris to elucidate her positions and how she would operate as PotUS.
How exactly is she supposed to answ
Yeah, a journalist should never put a politician in the position of having to explain why they lied to the American people. It’s hard for the poor dear to answer.
An obtuse comment that pretends to not recognize an example of gotcha question.
It must suck to be Brett Baier right now. Crooked Donald likes the concept of winners around him. Brett's "performance" will likely get net him some criticism:
One has to wonder if good old Brett 'grilled' or tried to 'bleed' any of Crooked Donald's newly minted "old gang" for failing to call him out when it was clear Crooked Donald is INTENT on selling them out for his new found Best Friend Forever with extreme "benefits" —Elon Musk and that 'fattest' wallet in the world of his. I have news for Fox and trumpists: Crooked Donald is a 'kept' man now. . . Elon Musk owns 'that.' —not the collective "You"!
Elon Musk has found his 'president' and Crooked Donald is a bought man! Whether or not he knows it (yet)!
On the border situation as being put forward by Baier. . ., only a fool would expect PERFECTION/POLICY (100 percent or so) from any administration. For example, people did not blame Crooked Donald for Covid-19 appearing in the world and largely not for it arriving in country. Politicians are not mind-readers or magicians or omniscient.) What got Crooked Donald in trouble over the 2020 pandemic was his callous attitude, conversation, 'flip-flopping' and grandiose pressers on the virus. . . as states were reporting 'disastrous' states in hospital wards and people going in and not able to come out.
Let's remember and not forget that we have no ability to tell a 'loser' or evil-doer beforehand. 'Trotting' out crying people who are hurting won't fix the situation. Furthermore, leaving people out of the immigrant population because of what "if" would have left the pilgrim's and the first settlers out at sea!
United States Deaths Clock
Number of deaths in the United States today so far: 5804 (so far. BTW, the number has increased since I typed 'in.')
Just finished the interview video above. Not so 'bad.' I was amused to see Baier try to get V.P. Harris to bad-mouth her boss in public. He must take her for a fool. Well, 'foolishness' is not what to provide. V.P. Harris was there for a purpose and it not being to entertain. So, she kept that journalist under time-constraint. It is what it is.
Oh they are desperate for that. But here's the funny thing: In any remotely productive working political relationship, that's never going to happen. You never see that. You never see, for example, former rivals in the same party, who maybe ran against each other at some point, turn around and badmouth the other if they're nominated for president.
Except! There is one very notable exception. Donald Trump.
Literally dozens (hundreds? more?) of people who worked with him as president and are still aligned with the Republican party, have gone out of their way to publicly denounce him. It's not even a little minor disagreement. Like, they want Harris to say that maybe they erred on the border, or Biden is slowing down. That's all they dare hope for.
But Trump's previous political relations put out special press releases and make speeches warning the country that he should not be president. They even endorse the Democratic nominee, Harris. I can't remember anything like that ever happening and it's killing Trump supporters. They pray that Harris will say one negative thing about Biden or that any Democrat will say something bad about Harris. But it's not going to happen because she's not a psycho crazy person whose own allies are afraid of her.
Here is another consideration. "Poor" Brett is sitting there suited up and sweating with a sheet full of 'punishing and bruising questions' likely supplied by Rightwing operatives (the 'plan' is for break to tear the V.P. a 'new one." . . . then, he gets the 'wrap' signal and so he announces it to the public. . . "I'm getting a hard wrap. . . . " That last was for "the big guy" and the trumpists to know that. . . Brett was not being weak or choking. . .but, he was not going to be denied further opportunity to rake V.P. Harris over once more.
I don't know. Brett Baier may not be long for Fox News if Crooked Donald turns on him over this!
Hey Brett!! That's no way to make a "grand" living. . . trying to please others by remaining silent as they drop crunchy eggshells under your feet!
You have to see this to believe it -
brain damaged QAnon weirdo mocks Kamala Harris
turns out he actually is somebody. his family must be so proud
He was a comedian who was somewhat funny in the past. What the fuck was that????????????????
Probably has his three year old rolling on the floor.
What I find so. . .'sorry' is some trumpists simply are mockers and apparently it's a "some conservative" thing. This is their 'go to' when all else fails, or just "go to" (it) anyway!
This no name man made a fool out of himself. We are laughing at the mocker and not at the words and grunts coming from inside him.