Kamala Harris

[mackenzie]

And that is a fair question. It was almost by fluke. Biden shit the bed too late in it, primaries and wotnot gone. So the VP got the nod by a combo of default or necessity.

Just hope she manages to best Trump. If she does the machinations of government will abide. If that dangerous prick wins, anything could happen

For what its worth, I think he will get back in

I think it will be close.
Either way, whoever wins, I'm not going to look forward to the future.
I think Trump is a nutter, and I think Harris wouldn't even be in the race under normal circumstances.

 

[moomba]

Perhaps because, by me at least, I see any Democrat runner (in this particular race) being the more serious nominee by default. Maybe that's why I expect more from their runner.

I wonder if your expectations are reasonable? CNN, 60 minutes, Stern, Colbert, numerous podcasts, Fox on Wednesday.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Perhaps because, by me at least, I see any Democrat runner (in this particular race) being the more serious nominee by default. Maybe that's why I expect more from their runner.

I see both Trump and Harris as (very) serious nominees, which is why I want Harris to win.

And why I think expecting more of her because she is actually sane, not an extremist demagogue, and infinitely more competent than Trump, is an unfair and dangerous stance to take.

 

[mackenzie]

I wonder if your expectations are reasonable? CNN, 60 minutes, Stern, Colbert, numerous podcasts, Fox on Wednesday.

You see? This is the problem.

Too many try and cite posters views as being somehow "less worthy" by an assumption of what they have seen, heard or watched

Or what they haven't, in my case.

It's lazy, patronising and (in my case) wide of the mark.

 

[SebastianBlue]

You see? This is the problem.

Too many try and cite posters views as being somehow "less worthy" by an assumption of what they have seen, heard or watched

Or what they haven't, in my case.

It's lazy, patronising and (in my case) wide of the mark.

To be fair, you’ve only presented a portion of the 60 minutes interview (originally from a Daily Mail article about an analysis by a mega-MAGA account on X of all places) as reason for why you don’t like Harris.

So it’s reasonable to assume that your stance is based on very limited—perhaps cherrypicked—exposure and information, perhaps with a certain ideological skew.

We’re obviously happy to be disabused of this perception, though, if you want to help us better understand why you dislike her (particularly in the context of your expectations for her versus Trump).

 

[mackenzie]

I see both Trump and Harris as (very) serious nominees, which is why I want Harris to win.

And why I think expecting more of her because she is actually sane, not an extremist demagogue, and infinitely more competent than Trump, is an unfair and dangerous stance to take.

Then we can agree to differ SB.
I see Harris' nomination as a desperate last chance saloon throw of the dice by the Democrats. And it shows.
She isn't up to it, and I suspect she knows it.

However, I understand why they had to go with her.

 

[mackenzie]

To be fair, you’ve only presented a portion of the 60 minutes interview (originally from a Daily Mail article about an analysis by a mega-MAGA account on X of all places) as reason for why you don’t like Harris.

So it’s reasonable to assume that your stance is based on very limited—perhaps cherrypicked—exposure and information, perhaps with a certain ideological skew.

Isn't it news over there? The edited and unedited CBS thing?

 

[SebastianBlue]

Isn't it news over there? The edited and unedited CBS thing?

It’s news in the MAGA world, who just want a scandal, conspiracy, and something to beat Harris with.

It’s not really news for anyone else outside of that because it is basically how all interviews like that work, including literally every sit down interview Trump gives.

So either we have to start going scandal and conspiracy crazy on nearly every sit down interview that any politician has ever given, or recognise that this is yet more disingenuousness and hypocrisy from a desperate and deranged Trump and his MAGA zealots.

 

[mackenzie]

To be fair, you’ve only presented a portion of the 60 minutes interview (originally from a Daily Mail article about an analysis by a mega-MAGA account on X of all places) as reason for why you don’t like Harris.

So it’s reasonable to assume that your stance is based on very limited—perhaps cherrypicked—exposure and information, perhaps with a certain ideological skew.

We’re obviously happy to be disabused of this perception, though, if you want to help us better understand why you dislike her (particularly in the context of your expectations for her versus Trump).

That last paragraph smacks quite heavily of speaking down to me but I'll nevertheless oblige ;-);
Harris , to me, sounds like she doesn't believe in what she is saying. Not that she says a lot to begin with; no real policies, no conviction, nothing.....

That's not my fault, it's just the way she comes across.

 

[moomba]

As for her qualifications for the job, I'm not sure what the perfect CV is but I would think you could do worse than hers. District Attorney, Attorney General, Senator (watch some of her select committee work, there are some great ones for those that think shes stupid), Vice President.

The Trump campaign is trying to get all these messages out about Harris. But it doesn't mean that they have any basis in fact.