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.

 

[moomba]

no real policies

Have you looked to see what her policies are?

You might be surprised.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

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.

If you look at qualifications, then it’s disingenuous to say that Harris doesn’t qualify, especially compared to Trump. Probably used as a talking point, but nothing that any intelligent person would succeed to.

What I find strange is how people would take this talk in, and can only think that there are many out there who are so disenfranchised by the established ways, that they will accept anything other than democracy; they actually want a strongman like Putin as the change might benefit them. After all, they see Xi taking ‘their’ position in the world, even if it was Trump who helped it along.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

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.

She was a DA. An AG. A Senator. Vice President.

Her qualifications are based on the jobs and experience she’s previously had.

Shouldn’t most jobs be?

Is she my favo(u)rite? No. I’d have preferred Bullock long ago, or Whitmer, or Buttigieg (maybe — I like him but I’d argue he might be under-qualified) or perhaps others.

But who is she running against? The singularly most unfit man in US political history.

It’s not even a choice.

As to your other question, Seb already discussed how nearly all interviews TV or otherwise are edited, whittled down, questions asked over and over, because the story is always snippets. I will be quoted in a major American newspaper tomorrow — I’d bet one or two sentences — out of a 20 minute Q and A session where I was asked the same question three times because the reporter — who’s a new one to the beat — is clearly trying to get me to feed the narrative they’re writing about. I’ve done lots of long transcript interviews too where I actually get to edit what I said but obviously not the case here.

 

[Dax777]

I think if you do not know much about how interviews work (shock, horror, all of Trump’s sit down interviews with the likes of Fox News and Newsmax are heavily edited) and are already looking for something to beat Harris with, then this will seem like a big topic to discuss.

But anyone that knows how these interviews work, and knows Trump is—for the millionth time—being incredibly disingenuous and hypocritical trying to make this a “scandal”, is not really interested in it, because it is yet another attempt at creating a distraction from the batshite crazy and dangerous things he has been saying and threatening to do (and yet another confession through accusation).

Take that exact sentiment and apply to "January 6th" or the " Who won the 2020 election?' question and you get exactly how non- Bluanons feel.

 

[Dax777]

Stupid.
Gullible.
Uneducated.
Deranged.
Morally-damaged.

You pick it, I’ll play it, kid, as we say.

You may not have heard of that phrase in PA; apologies.

You do that California. Lol

 

[cleavers]

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.

The bigger question is would you want Trump for the benefit of this world ?

I've no time for either of them, but I still want her over that tosser, I don't think he believes half the shit he comes out with, but boy does he come out with some lying shit.

 

[super_city_si]

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

The closer we get the more I agree with you. He is just allowed to lie and lie and people are falling for it.
Worse, she’s agreed to do a Fox News interview. Horrible decision. Absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

The closer we get the more I agree with you. He is just allowed to lie and lie and people are falling for it.
Worse, she’s agreed to do a Fox News interview. Horrible decision. Absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose.

I dont know about that. She certainly wont lose any votes by going on there, its an echo chamber of bollocks for morons. More chance of getting a few votes, but definitely wont lose any. They either come away spitting usual rage and feeling vindicated by it, or the odd semi sensible nutter may think fair play and change of heart. Doubtful like, but she wont harm herself by doing it

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I dont know about that. She certainly wont lose any votes by going on there, it’s an echo chamber of bollocks for morons. More chance of getting a few votes, but definitely wont lose any. They either come away spitting usual rage and feeling vindicated by it, or the odd semi sensible nutter may think fair play and change of heart. Doubtful like, but she wont harm herself by doing it

Maybe Fox is preparing for life without him and a return to normal old traditional news?

Ha ha ha sure.

 

[TonyM]

Harris comes across to ne as genuinely wanting to do a decent job. Just like Obama did.

Democrat presidents have to deal with shit created by the republicans every time because republicans since Bush Snr have been shit presidents. And they have to deal with republicans trying to stop them from accomplishing anything cos republicans are poisonous politicians.

I wonder how the world would have ended up had Gore been elected v Bush Jnr. He was a very good candidate. Again it was smart v stupid... I hope this time stupid loses.