What's new
By:

Kamala Harris for Pres

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Red said:
Kamala was great. She’s basically through with Fox News BS….






I do think the cultural climate described in the article I posted above(comment #2647) would point to a big Harris victory. But a close win by Harris might be overturned by team Trump, as Neal Katyal described yesterday. I think we are going to need a solid victory by Trump, since Trump will without any doubt whatsoever, try to steal this election if he loses. I’m not even sure Trump has a cutoff point for electoral college votes where he would decide “not worth trying”. I doubt there is such a cutoff number. He’ll challenge a Harris landslide. But, as Katyal describes, a close loss by Trump could, and likely will, lead to a constitutional crisis.

www.msnbc.com

Neal Katyal: We are looking at a very possible constitutional crisis in November

MSNBC Legal analyst Neal Katyal discusses his latest NYT column 'In Case of an Election Crisis, This Is What You Need to Know'.
www.msnbc.com www.msnbc.com
Click to expand...


In the most important moment of the interview she handled the "enemy within" question great. Total BS of FOX showing The Rapist trying to shift the conversation but Kamala brought it back to his threat and included the Join Chief of Staff categorizing Trump as a threat to America. Not sure she could have handled that better.
 
Eminence said:
I identify as a dude (he/him).

Thriller, I am well aware you don't like Donald.

I (perhaps wrongly) assumed my views were also well enough known - but anywho, as a communist married to a trans man (indicators of a few primary reasons I might not like Don), I'm also not Donald's biggest fan.

I even agree with the basic description of Donalds supporters currently as either ignorant or self centered. But I don't believe we can get the country/world to being all it can be with your current level of animosity or by trying to leave that big a percentage of the population behind. We need to reach these people and convince them to change their ways, and I tend for a gentler approach than you do. I only hope one of the approaches works, I'm happy enough if it's yours, but I'll stick with mine.
Click to expand...
No, I was in the wrong. I lost my cool and unnecessarily lashed out at you. I made assumptions that weren’t warranted. I apologize.
 
fishonjazz said:
Dude. Nothing he/she posted was toxic or insulting or unreasonable etc.

You became quite a dick to him/her quite quickly and should probably apologize.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You’re absolutely correct. Thank you for calling me out.
 
Bucknutz said:
No comment about his Candidates atrocious basic interview; the questions were not even hard and she couldn’t answer them without “Trump”.

But Thriller has to do whataboutism immediately, but he doesn’t know that Trump does interviews with people on the left.
Click to expand...
To me, the most interesting thing about the Bret Baier - Kamala Harris interview wasn't in the questions asked or answers given. It was in the stage managing. Kamala clearly only has limited number of memorized talking points, and if you are already a Kamala supporter, the answers are fine. Kamala showed up 30 minutes late and informed Fox News the interview had to be cut short, which forced Bret to trim the number of questions thereby cutting the chances Bret would ask her something out of left field she was unprepared to answer.

That weird room they are in with a hard back wall reflected sound which allowed you to hear the people standing behind the camera. When Bret would ask a pointed question and Kamala would start to get angry, you could hear the rustling of her handlers, and finally at the end they put a stop to the interview. The people who know Kamala best, her campaign staff, knows there isn't anything behind the false front and they worked hard to keep that hidden. Part of me believes the Fox crew knew exactly what they were doing when they set the venue up that way.

Now contrast that with Trump in the Bloomberg interview, the NABJ interview, or any of his hostile interviews. There were no handlers seeking to contain Trump, no limits set by Trump on the amount of time, and no limits on questions. Trump walks out and Trump handles it how he sees fit. Some may detest the substance and other revere the substance, but everyone can see there is substance there. That is clearly not the case with Kamala.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
To me, the most interesting thing about the Bret Baier - Kamala Harris interview wasn't in the questions asked or answers given. It was in the stage managing. Kamala clearly only has limited number of memorized talking points, and if you are already a Kamala supporter, the answers are fine. Kamala showed up 30 minutes late and informed Fox News the interview had to be cut short, which forced Bret to trim the number of questions thereby cutting the chances Bret would ask her something out of left field she was unprepared to answer.

That weird room they are in with a hard back wall reflected sound which allowed you to hear the people standing behind the camera. When Bret would ask a pointed question and Kamala would start to get angry, you could hear the rustling of her handlers, and finally at the end they put a stop to the interview. The people who know Kamala best, her campaign staff, knows there isn't anything behind the false front and they worked hard to keep that hidden. Part of me believes the Fox crew knew exactly what they were doing when they set the venue up that way.

Now contrast that with Trump in the Bloomberg interview, the NABJ interview, or any of his hostile interviews. There were no handlers seeking to contain Trump, no limits set by Trump on the amount of time, and no limits on questions. Trump walks out and Trump handles it how he sees fit. Some may detest the substance and other revere the substance, but everyone can see there is substance there. That is clearly not the case with Kamala.
Click to expand...

No limits to Trump's idiocy too. Substance and Trump do not belong in the same sentence. Are you on drugs?
 
It was funny reading so much praise all over for Kamala's interview. And then come here and see the usual suspects rushing to inform us just how terrible it was. The damage control order came down fast on that one.
 
Bawse Dawg said:
It was funny reading so much praise all over for Kamala's interview.
Click to expand...
You do realize that isn't a comment on how good or bad Kamala's interview was, right? The coverage on the internet runs the full range. If you only took in one point of view everywhere you looked, that speaks to being in a silo. At least JF can provide some balance to your info diet, so that is good.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
You do realize that isn't a comment on how good or bad Kamala's interview was, right? The coverage on the internet runs the full range. If you only took in one point of view everywhere you looked, that speaks to being in a silo. At least JF can provide some balance to your info diet, so that is good.
Click to expand...
I've seen the interview. If someone grilled Trump half that hard or unfairly in an interview he'd flip a table, walk out, and bitch about it on Not Twitter.

Yet people here would have you believe Trump is constantly taking on tough interviews.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Quick interviews with a plan to cover a wide range of topics aren't a format that allows a deep dive into details. Even if Trump could give a detailed explanation on how those policies would work, and I don't think he could, that doesn't mean the details aren't available. The reason making tips free from taxes won't explode the deficit is because those paying tips contribute almost nothing to the federal budget. The bottom 50% of income earners make up only 2.3% of tax revenues. Generally speaking, those paying tips and those making overtime aren't the top 1%. They are the working men and women. A tax cut to overtime and tips would make a big difference to those in the bottom 50% of income earners while having almost no impact at all on the amount of tax revenue coming in to the federal coffers.

As for tariffs, use Trump's first term as an example of how they'd work. Most of the time they never become reality. He only uses them as a threat to get better terms in a deal. In the instances where he does impose them, everyone sees the wisdom in it as exemplified by his tariffs on Chinese electric cars which the Biden administration kept in place.
Click to expand...
So tips and overtime do make a difference in government income. Just a small amount. He at the same time wants to cut taxes for everyone including the large amount of tax revenues. So cut tax on the large tax revenue and the small tax revenue. Your post didn't do anything to alleviate the concern of what cutting taxing on everyone all over the place would do to tax revenue.

As for tariffs, trumps first term and current tariffs used by the biden admin are a poor example of how they would work since those tariffs are just a drop in the bucket for what trump is saying he will do in a second term tariff wise. I guess you could say trump is simply lying about all this stuff and that would make complete sense. It would not however explain how his lies, if actually enacted, would not explode the deficit and increase inflation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top