Discussion:
[OT] Harris & Walz agree to EDITED interview with CNN
Add Reply
Rhino
2024-08-28 23:39:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
CNN had to agree to two key conditions:

1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired

Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.

Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.

Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
--
Rhino
BTR1701
2024-08-29 02:37:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Yes, this is not an interview. It's a campaign commercial for Democrats
sponsored by CNN. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say this: CNN should
be investigated by the FEC for illegal in-kind contributions to the
Democrat Party.
Post by Rhino
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
shawn
2024-08-29 04:58:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Yes, this is not an interview. It's a campaign commercial for Democrats
sponsored by CNN. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say this: CNN should
be investigated by the FEC for illegal in-kind contributions to the
Democrat Party.
CNN should be investigated. They did an interview with a panel of
supposedly undecided voters after the Harris speech at the DNC. One of
the voters said they had decided they were voting for Trump after
watching Harris's speech. Turns out the social media for the guy was
full of pro Trump posts. Something that says the guy was all in on
Trump before watching the speech. Something that CNN should have, and
likely did know even though they called the guy an undecided voter.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Rhino
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Adam H. Kerman
2024-08-29 05:00:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Yes, this is not an interview. It's a campaign commercial for Democrats
sponsored by CNN. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say this: CNN should
be investigated by the FEC for illegal in-kind contributions to the
Democrat Party.
Anybody may file a complaint. I once caught a political opponent taking
an illegal contribution. It got reported.
Post by BTR1701
Post by Rhino
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
moviePig
2024-08-29 18:23:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful". What would be
disgraceful is *quietly* editing it ...which apparently hasn't happened.
BTR1701
2024-08-29 18:25:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.

If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
moviePig
2024-08-29 20:51:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation. Ask
Trump. The difference from him is, only she will be penalized for it.
BTR1701
2024-08-29 21:33:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
No legal obligation but they have a moral and ethical one to submit
themselves to one if they want the voters to hand them the most powerful
position in the world.

The reason the Founders put so few qualifications on eligibility for the
presidency while at the same time guaranteeing freedom of the press in
the 1st Amendment is because it's the press's job under our system to
vet candidates for the top job. The Founders assumed the press would do
it's job. What they failed to anticipate is that some 200 years later,
the press would voluntarily function as the propaganda wing for one
political party and show little interest in properly vetting its
candidates.
Post by moviePig
Ask Trump.
Trump has conducted multiple unscripted and unedited press conferences
and interviews since Kammie's coronation.
moviePig
2024-08-30 02:26:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
No legal obligation but they have a moral and ethical one to submit
themselves to one if they want the voters to hand them the most powerful
position in the world.
The reason the Founders put so few qualifications on eligibility for the
presidency while at the same time guaranteeing freedom of the press in
the 1st Amendment is because it's the press's job under our system to
vet candidates for the top job. The Founders assumed the press would do
it's job. What they failed to anticipate is that some 200 years later,
the press would voluntarily function as the propaganda wing for one
political party and show little interest in properly vetting its
candidates.
Post by moviePig
Ask Trump.
Trump has conducted multiple unscripted and unedited press conferences
and interviews since Kammie's coronation.
With whom?
BTR1701
2024-08-30 02:37:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
No legal obligation but they have a moral and ethical one to submit
themselves to one if they want the voters to hand them the most powerful
position in the world.
The reason the Founders put so few qualifications on eligibility for the
presidency while at the same time guaranteeing freedom of the press in
the 1st Amendment is because it's the press's job under our system to
vet candidates for the top job. The Founders assumed the press would do
it's job. What they failed to anticipate is that some 200 years later,
the press would voluntarily function as the propaganda wing for one
political party and show little interest in properly vetting its
candidates.
Post by moviePig
Ask Trump.
Trump has conducted multiple unscripted and unedited press conferences
and interviews since Kammie's coronation.
With whom?
Google is just a click away.
trotsky
2024-08-30 09:12:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
No legal obligation but they have a moral and ethical one to submit
themselves to one if they want the voters to hand them the most powerful
position in the world.
The reason the Founders put so few qualifications on eligibility for the
presidency while at the same time guaranteeing freedom of the press in
the 1st Amendment is because it's the press's job under our system to
vet candidates for the top job. The Founders assumed the press would do
it's job. What they failed to anticipate is that some 200 years later,
the press would voluntarily function as the propaganda wing for one
political party and show little interest in properly vetting its
candidates.
Post by moviePig
Ask Trump.
Trump has conducted multiple unscripted and unedited press conferences
and interviews since Kammie's coronation.
With whom?
Google is just a click away.
Isn't the main issue that nobody gives a fuck what Trump has to say
anymore. He's a one trick pony and we've heard enough of his bile
spewing. You must be the only one too fucking stupid to get this.
moviePig
2024-08-30 16:01:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
No legal obligation but they have a moral and ethical one to submit
themselves to one if they want the voters to hand them the most powerful
position in the world.
The reason the Founders put so few qualifications on eligibility for the
presidency while at the same time guaranteeing freedom of the press in
the 1st Amendment is because it's the press's job under our system to
vet candidates for the top job. The Founders assumed the press would do
it's job. What they failed to anticipate is that some 200 years later,
the press would voluntarily function as the propaganda wing for one
political party and show little interest in properly vetting its
candidates.
Post by moviePig
Ask Trump.
Trump has conducted multiple unscripted and unedited press conferences
and interviews since Kammie's coronation.
With whom?
Google is just a click away.
Google won't say which of Trump's encounters your "proof" comprises.
trotsky
2024-08-31 08:17:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
No legal obligation but they have a moral and ethical one to submit
themselves to one if they want the voters to hand them the most powerful
position in the world.
The reason the Founders put so few qualifications on eligibility for the
presidency while at the same time guaranteeing freedom of the press in
the 1st Amendment is because it's the press's job under our system to
vet candidates for the top job. The Founders assumed the press would do
it's job. What they failed to anticipate is that some 200 years later,
the press would voluntarily function as the propaganda wing for one
political party and show little interest in properly vetting its
candidates.
Post by moviePig
Ask Trump.
Trump has conducted multiple unscripted and unedited press conferences
and interviews since Kammie's coronation.
With whom?
Google is just a click away.
What a gutless, dickless, shitweasel response.
super70s
2024-08-29 23:52:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
Ask Trump. The difference from him is, only she will be penalized for
it.
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point. They
have so few as it is.
BTR1701
2024-08-30 01:11:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
Ask Trump. The difference from him is, only she will be penalized for
it.
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point. They
have so few as it is.
https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
moviePig
2024-08-30 02:30:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
Ask Trump. The difference from him is, only she will be penalized for
it.
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point. They
have so few as it is.
https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."

Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
BTR1701
2024-08-30 02:37:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
Ask Trump. The difference from him is, only she will be penalized for
it.
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point. They
have so few as it is.
https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for four year
during Trump's term.
trotsky
2024-08-30 09:10:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
Ask Trump. The difference from him is, only she will be penalized for
it.
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point. They
have so few as it is.
https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for four years
during Trump's term.
Right, the insurrection guy who just desecrated Arlington Cemetery
wasn't give a fair shake. He's too fat to get any kind of shake.
BTR1701
2024-08-30 19:37:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for four
years during Trump's term.
Right, the insurrection guy who just desecrated Arlington Cemetery
wasn't give a fair shake. He's too fat to get any kind of shake.
Says the guy who looks like someone melted Play-Doh all over a beach
ball.
moviePig
2024-08-30 16:06:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
Ask Trump. The difference from him is, only she will be penalized for
it.
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point. They
have so few as it is.
https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for four years
during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
trotsky
2024-09-01 08:56:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
    After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with
the media,
    Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana
Bash on CNN.
    1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
    2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
    Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris,
who is
    famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering
unplanned questions,
    is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover
for her when
    she makes a mistake.
    Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done
several live
    interviews. That means they say what they say and the
audience hears it
    all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous)
benefit of
    having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped
out before
    anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given
the clear and
    massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the
Democrats, who can
    possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might
just as well
    write a script in advance, complete with the questions and
the answers,
    and then tape that.
    Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats
don't hand Dana
    Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones
to stay away
    from - as part of their preparation. They've done that
before in other
    election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep
that secret.
    Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
    Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the
press since
    her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as
disgraceful as CNN
    agreeing to it.
    If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this
country.
    A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open
interrogation.
    Ask Trump.  The difference from him is, only she will be
penalized for
    it.
  They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They
  have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for four years
during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
moviePig
2024-09-01 16:46:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
    After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews
with the media,
    Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana
Bash on CNN.
    1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
    2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
    Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris,
who is
    famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering
unplanned questions,
    is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or
cover for her when
    she makes a mistake.
    Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done
several live
    interviews. That means they say what they say and the
audience hears it
    all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous)
benefit of
    having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped
out before
    anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given
the clear and
    massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the
Democrats, who can
    possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might
just as well
    write a script in advance, complete with the questions and
the answers,
    and then tape that.
    Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats
don't hand Dana
    Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones
to stay away
    from - as part of their preparation. They've done that
before in other
    election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep
that secret.
    Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
    Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the
press since
    her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as
disgraceful as CNN
    agreeing to it.
    If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this
country.
    A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open
interrogation.
    Ask Trump.  The difference from him is, only she will be
penalized for
    it.
  They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They
  have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for four years
during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
BTR1701
2024-09-01 18:00:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.

Or does that only apply to Democrats?
moviePig
2024-09-01 19:40:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap? E.g., nobody diminishes Harris's resistance (so far) to
interviews. And we've each supplied a "comment" on it. Yours is to
speculate/accuse that she's hunkered in fear of journalistic inquiry
...and mine is that her poll numbers are rising, so let them.
BTR1701
2024-09-01 19:51:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.

Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
moviePig
2024-09-01 21:35:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President? (Rhetorical question...)

Relax. I'm sure her public grilling can't be postponed indefinitely, as
*her* supporters are fundamentally vulnerable to reason.
BTR1701
2024-09-01 21:38:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President?
We're going to get one either way.

Oh, and one nitpick deserves another: the word 'president' is only
capitalized when it comes before a proper noun:

"The Gettysburg Address was delivered by President Abraham Lincoln."

"Ladies and gentlemen, the president of the United States."
moviePig
2024-09-01 23:00:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President?
We're going to get one either way.
So maybe pick one who doesn't overturn elections.
Post by BTR1701
Oh, and one nitpick deserves another: the word 'president' is only
"The Gettysburg Address was delivered by President Abraham Lincoln."
"Ladies and gentlemen, the president of the United States."
Yes, when you've mentioned it, I've told you it's a solecism I choose.
BTR1701
2024-09-02 02:03:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive
reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President?
We're going to get one either way.
So maybe pick one who doesn't overturn elections.
Or pick one that doesn't erase our borders.
moviePig
2024-09-02 02:30:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive
reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President?
We're going to get one either way.
So maybe pick one who doesn't overturn elections.
Or pick one that doesn't erase our borders.
One who overturns elections doesn't give me that choice ...or any other.
trotsky
2024-09-02 09:09:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive
reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President?
We're going to get one either way.
So maybe pick one who doesn't overturn elections.
Or pick one that doesn't erase our borders.
Are you afraid of these people? How butthurt have they made you?
trotsky
2024-09-02 08:56:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President?
We're going to get one either way.
So Kamala just lucked out in becoming AG of California, then Senator,
then VP and now the next POTUS? That's all you've got? You sound like
what you are, a loser. But well anonyshitted and shitposted nonetheless.
BTR1701
2024-09-02 21:48:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive
reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President?
We're going to get one either way.
So Kamala just lucked out in becoming AG of California, then Senator,
then VP and now the next POTUS?
Well, when Biden's only criteria for the job was "black" and "woman", and hi
first choice was too communist to sell to middle America (L.A. Mayor Kare
Bass), yeah, she lucked into it by being the only prominent black woma
Democrat they could successfully push on us.
moviePig
2024-09-02 22:10:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive
reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President?
We're going to get one either way.
So Kamala just lucked out in becoming AG of California, then Senator,
then VP and now the next POTUS?
Well, when Biden's only criteria for the job was "black" and "woman", and his
first choice was too communist to sell to middle America (L.A. Mayor Karen
Bass), yeah, she lucked into it by being the only prominent black woman
Democrat they could successfully push on us.
Horatio Alger, is that you?
BTR1701
2024-09-04 18:38:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
So Kamala just lucked out in becoming AG of California, then Senator,
then VP and now the next POTUS?
Well, when Biden's only criteria for the job was "black" and "woman", and his
first choice was too communist to sell to middle America (L.A. Mayor Karen
Bass), yeah, she lucked into it by being the only prominent black woman
Democrat they could successfully push on us.
Horatio Alger, is that you?
Ad hom, is that you?

Biden himself stated that Kammie was a DEI pick. If you have a problem with
that, look to him and your fellow Democrats, not me.
trotsky
2024-09-05 09:00:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
So Kamala just lucked out in becoming AG of California, then Senator,
then VP and now the next POTUS?
Well, when Biden's only criteria for the job was "black" and "woman", and his
first choice was too communist to sell to middle America (L.A. Mayor Karen
Bass), yeah, she lucked into it by being the only prominent black woman
Democrat they could successfully push on us.
Horatio Alger, is that you?
Ad hom, is that you?
Well said Ad homo.
BTR1701
2024-09-04 16:11:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive
reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President?
We're going to get one either way.
So Kamala just lucked out in becoming AG of California, then Senator,
then VP and now the next POTUS?
Well, when Biden's only criteria for the job was "black" and "woman", an
his
first choice was too communist to sell to middle America (L.A. Mayor Karen
Bass), yeah, she lucked into it by being the only prominent black woman
Democrat they could successfully push on us.
Horatio Alger, is that you?
Ad Hom, is that you?

FYI: Biden outright stated that Kammie was a DEI hire. If you have a proble
with that, look to him and your fellow Democrats, not me.
moviePig
2024-09-04 22:30:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive
reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President?
We're going to get one either way.
So Kamala just lucked out in becoming AG of California, then Senator,
then VP and now the next POTUS?
Well, when Biden's only criteria for the job was "black" and "woman", and his
first choice was too communist to sell to middle America (L.A. Mayor Karen
Bass), yeah, she lucked into it by being the only prominent black woman
Democrat they could successfully push on us.
Horatio Alger, is that you?
Ad Hom, is that you?
FYI: Biden outright stated that Kammie was a DEI hire. If you have a problem
with that, look to him and your fellow Democrats, not me.
(You seem unfamiliar with either 'Horatio Alger' or 'ad hom'.) Nobody
doubts that Harris's gender and ethnicity were plusses, but one can
suspect that competence was among the criteria. Remember Sarah Palin?
BTR1701
2024-09-04 22:52:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive
reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President?
We're going to get one either way.
So Kamala just lucked out in becoming AG of California, then Senator,
then VP and now the next POTUS?
Well, when Biden's only criteria for the job was "black" and "woman", and his
first choice was too communist to sell to middle America (L.A. Mayor Karen
Bass), yeah, she lucked into it by being the only prominent black woman
Democrat they could successfully push on us.
Horatio Alger, is that you?
Ad Hom, is that you?
FYI: Biden outright stated that Kammie was a DEI hire. If you have a problem
with that, look to him and your fellow Democrats, not me.
(You seem unfamiliar with either 'Horatio Alger' or 'ad hom'.) Nobody
doubts that Harris's gender and ethnicity were plusses, but one can
suspect that competence was among the criteria.
Competence?

This is a woman whose first major policy proposal was government price
controls on food. I forget what page that's on in the Communist Manifesto but
given how well that's worked out around the world everywhere it's been
implemented, it's not a sign of competence for an American vice president to
be advocating for it.

Even the reliably Dem cheerleaders at the NY Times and Washington Post wrote
WTF? editorials about that one.

Then there's her assertion that we Americans don't really enjoy the right to
free speech; it's a mere privilege granted to us by the government and which
can be revoked at its whim.

Competence?

The Biden people hid her away as an embarrassment for three years because they
thought she was so competent?
Post by moviePig
Remember Sarah Palin?
Yeah, you guys thought she was a joke, yet she was selected to be VP anyway,
thereby proving (assuming y'all weren't lying when you called her incompetent)
that competence is not a limiting criterion for selection to the VP slot.
Thanks for proving my point for me.
trotsky
2024-09-05 09:27:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive
reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President?
We're going to get one either way.
So Kamala just lucked out in becoming AG of California, then Senator,
then VP and now the next POTUS?
Well, when Biden's only criteria for the job was "black" and "woman", and his
first choice was too communist to sell to middle America (L.A. Mayor Karen
Bass), yeah, she lucked into it by being the only prominent black woman
Democrat they could successfully push on us.
Horatio Alger, is that you?
Ad Hom, is that you?
FYI: Biden outright stated that Kammie was a DEI hire. If you have a problem
with that, look to him and your fellow Democrats, not me.
(You seem unfamiliar with either 'Horatio Alger' or 'ad hom'.) Nobody
doubts that Harris's gender and ethnicity were plusses, but one can
suspect that competence was among the criteria.
Competence?
This is a woman whose first major policy proposal was government price
controls on food. I forget what page that's on in the Communist Manifesto but
given how well that's worked out around the world everywhere it's been
implemented, it's not a sign of competence for an American vice president to
be advocating for it.
WTF? editorials about that one.
Then there's her assertion that we Americans don't really enjoy the right to
free speech; it's a mere privilege granted to us by the government and which
can be revoked at its whim.
Competence?
The Biden people hid her away as an embarrassment for three years because they
thought she was so competent?
Post by moviePig
Remember Sarah Palin?
Yeah, you guys thought she was a joke, yet she was selected to be VP anyway,
thereby proving (assuming y'all weren't lying when you called her incompetent)
that competence is not a limiting criterion for selection to the VP slot.
Thanks for proving my point for me.
Holy fuck, did you just endorse VD Vance, who is similarly a joke?
trotsky
2024-09-05 08:47:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive
reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President?
We're going to get one either way.
So Kamala just lucked out in becoming AG of California, then Senator,
then VP and now the next POTUS?
Well, when Biden's only criteria for the job was "black" and "woman", and his
first choice was too communist to sell to middle America (L.A. Mayor Karen
Bass), yeah, she lucked into it by being the only prominent black woman
Democrat they could successfully push on us.
Horatio Alger, is that you?
Ad Hom, is that you?
FYI: Biden outright stated that Kammie was a DEI hire.
Did your cite for this get stuck up your ass with the shot glass again?
trotsky
2024-09-03 08:16:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive
reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President?
We're going to get one either way.
So Kamala just lucked out in becoming AG of California, then Senator,
then VP and now the next POTUS?
Well, when Biden's only criteria for the job was "black" and "woman",
"Criteria" is plural you fucking idiot,so it would be "criteria were..."
How the motherfuck do you expect to be taken seriously when you
"literally" can't put a proper sentence together? And when you expect
people to believe you "literally" know what it feels like to drive off a
cliff? Enquiring minds want to know.


and his
Post by BTR1701
first choice was too communist to sell to middle America (L.A. Mayor Karen
Bass), yeah, she lucked into it by being the only prominent black woman
Democrat they could successfully push on us.
So you're declaring intellectual bankruptcy on what I just said. That
was a bit predictable.

Hey, do you think Trump made a better pick with the guy who fucks
couches for fun and profit?
BTR1701
2024-09-04 18:44:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by trotsky
So Kamala just lucked out in becoming AG of California, then Senator,
then VP and now the next POTUS?
Well, when Biden's only criteria for the job was "black" and "woman",
"Criteria" is plural you fucking idiot,so it would be "criteria were..."
How the motherfuck do you expect to be taken seriously when you
"literally" can't put a proper sentence together?
Shall we revisit your latest spate of non-sensical grammar-defying posts,
Hutt?

Or are you acknowledging that no one takes you seriously?
BTR1701
2024-09-04 16:13:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by trotsky
So Kamala just lucked out in becoming AG of California, then Senator,
then VP and now the next POTUS?
Well, when Biden's only criteria for the job was "black" and "woman",
"Criteria" is plural you fucking idiot,so it would be "criteria were..."
How the motherfuck do you expect to be taken seriously when you
"literally" can't put a proper sentence together?
Shall we revisit your latest spate of non-sensical grammar-bending posts
Hutt?

Or are you acknowledging that no one takes you seriously?
trotsky
2024-09-05 08:50:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Post by BTR1701
Post by trotsky
So Kamala just lucked out in becoming AG of California, then Senator,
then VP and now the next POTUS?
Well, when Biden's only criteria for the job was "black" and "woman",
"Criteria" is plural you fucking idiot,so it would be "criteria were..."
How the motherfuck do you expect to be taken seriously when you
"literally" can't put a proper sentence together?
Shall we revisit your latest spate of non-sensical grammar-bending posts,
Hutt?
Why, are you literally finished driving off a cliff then? This isn't
your sex life, you can't have it both ways. If you want to talk about
my grammatical misdeeds you have to acknowledge your own or admit your
goal in life is to be a hypocrite?
Or are you acknowledging that no one takes you seriously?
Are you presuming to speak for all the dudes on this group because
you've had sex with all of them, or what?
NoBody
2024-09-02 15:10:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President? (Rhetorical question...)
A strong candidate can give an interview that advances their tailwind.
Only a moron of a candidate will refuse interviews to give the public
required information to make smart decisions.
You want a moron for President? NOT rehetorical.
Post by moviePig
Relax. I'm sure her public grilling can't be postponed indefinitely, as
*her* supporters are fundamentally vulnerable to reason.
moviePig
2024-09-02 16:45:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by NoBody
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point.
They have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for
four years during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
No, that's perfectly cool. Under the moviePig standard of presidential
campaigning, anything the political strategist deems is in the best
political interests of his candidate should be accepted without comment
or question.
Or does that only apply to Democrats?
Lord knows *nothing* gets accepted without comment. Where do you get
this crap?
When you rebut people who say that Kammie should talk to the press and
do interviews with, No, that would only hurt her chances at election so
ducking the press is an acceptable strategy.
Which is, in itself, a tacit admission that she's horrible so less
people see of her, the better.
Interviews rock the boat, something only a moron does while he has a
tailwind. You want a moron for President? (Rhetorical question...)
A strong candidate can give an interview that advances their tailwind.
Only a moron of a candidate will refuse interviews to give the public
required information to make smart decisions.
You want a moron for President? NOT rehetorical.
...
A tailwind, by definition, can't be "advanced", only disrupted. (And,
take heart, one never lasts forever.)
moviePig
2024-09-03 15:24:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by NoBody
A strong candidate can give an interview that advances their tailwind.
Only a moron of a candidate will refuse interviews to give the public
required information to make smart decisions.
You want a moron for President? NOT rehetorical.
...
A tailwind, by definition, can't be "advanced", only disrupted. (And,
take heart, one never lasts forever.)
I'm sure they'll be satisfied if their 'tailwind' lasts until November
7th...
Tickled pink. But it won't. It never does.
The Horny Goat
2024-09-03 07:02:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Relax. I'm sure her public grilling can't be postponed indefinitely, as
*her* supporters are fundamentally vulnerable to reason.
Uh you seriously believe that?

Everything we've heard suggests each of them has 40-45% of the vote
locked up so they're basically for the last 10-20% of the votes.

My personal impression is that a lot less of the so called
'undecideds' are actually so - so the odds are good that for now at
least it's already decided at least unless one of them pulls a game
changing blunder like Hillary did in 2016 with the 'deplorables'.

But at least it keeps journalists off the unemployment lines....
moviePig
2024-09-03 15:30:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by moviePig
Relax. I'm sure her public grilling can't be postponed indefinitely, as
*her* supporters are fundamentally vulnerable to reason.
Uh you seriously believe that?
Everything we've heard suggests each of them has 40-45% of the vote
locked up so they're basically for the last 10-20% of the votes.
My personal impression is that a lot less of the so called
'undecideds' are actually so - so the odds are good that for now at
least it's already decided at least unless one of them pulls a game
changing blunder like Hillary did in 2016 with the 'deplorables'.
But at least it keeps journalists off the unemployment lines....
I think her support would take a big hit were she to totally stonewall
the press, while Trump could fling feces at them and be admired for it.
trotsky
2024-09-01 20:49:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by trotsky
Post by moviePig
Post by moviePig
  On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
    After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews
with the media,
    Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with
Dana Bash on CNN.
    1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
    2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
    Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris,
who is
    famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering
unplanned questions,
    is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or
cover for her when
    she makes a mistake.
    Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done
several live
    interviews. That means they say what they say and the
audience hears it
    all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the
(enormous) benefit of
    having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped
out before
    anyone but the people in the interview room hear it.
Given the clear and
    massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the
Democrats, who can
    possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might
just as well
    write a script in advance, complete with the questions
and the answers,
    and then tape that.
    Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats
don't hand Dana
    Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and
ones to stay away
    from - as part of their preparation. They've done that
before in other
    election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep
that secret.
    Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
    Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the
press since
    her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as
disgraceful as CNN
    agreeing to it.
    If only we had an actual functioning news media left in
this country.
    A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open
interrogation.
    Ask Trump.  The difference from him is, only she will be
penalized for
    it.
  They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking
point. They
  have so few as it is.
  https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
Y'all had no trouble trusting 'reports' and 'unnamed sources' for four years
during Trump's term.
What's a glaring example of that?
Holy shit, whataboutism is all he's got now.
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true:  He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris.  If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
I'm *very* dubious about this debate happening. Trump won't have the
guts to go through with it.
BTR1701
2024-09-02 02:29:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
This is why she wants an unmuted mike:


https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1829925635126439936/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/X3nXu4zct7czcSxJ.mp4?tag=12
trotsky
2024-09-02 09:31:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
This is why she
The post was about Trump's want. If you are too scared shitless to talk
about Trump just admit it. If you need me to admit it for you because
of your scared shitlessness so be it.
moviePig
2024-09-02 19:28:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Speaking of "reports", Bill Maher dropped one that sounds too on-point
to be true: He said that Trump's team, who wanted open mikes during his
debate with Biden, now wants them muted for his debate with Harris. If
that report *is* true, more should be made of it.
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1829925635126439936/pu/vid/avc1/1280x720/X3nXu4zct7czcSxJ.mp4?tag=12
Damned pushy woman...
super70s
2024-08-30 09:14:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
Ask Trump. The difference from him is, only she will be penalized for
it.
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point. They
have so few as it is.
https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
I was referring to the talking point of her not facing reporters in an
interview since her nomination, but I suppose that's been replaced with
suggestive reports that the interview did not go well.
trotsky
2024-08-30 09:43:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
Ask Trump.  The difference from him is, only she will be penalized for
it.
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point. They
have so few as it is.
https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
I was referring to the talking point of her not facing reporters in an
interview since her nomination, but I suppose that's been replaced with
suggestive reports that the interview did not go well.
Does anyone expect an interview with Dana Bash to go well? Her calling
card is to be irritating.
moviePig
2024-08-30 16:09:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
On Aug 29, 2024 at 4:52:30 PM PDT, "super70s"
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
Ask Trump.  The difference from him is, only she will be penalized for
it.
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point. They
have so few as it is.
https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
I was referring to the talking point of her not facing reporters in an
interview since her nomination, but I suppose that's been replaced with
suggestive reports that the interview did not go well.
The political playbook says, when you're winning, keep your head down.
Ubiquitous
2024-09-05 08:31:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the
media, Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana
Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned
questions, is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or
cover for her when she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience
hears it all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous)
benefit of having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes)
snipped out before anyone but the people in the interview room hear
it. Given the clear and massive bias of the mainstream media in
favour of the Democrats, who can possibly take an edited interview
seriously? They might just as well write a script in advance,
complete with the questions and the answers, and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't
hand Dana Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and
ones to stay away from - as part of their preparation. They've done
that before in other election cycles. Of course, they'll do their
best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
Ask Trump.  The difference from him is, only she will be penalized
for it.
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point. They
have so few as it is.
https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
I was referring to the talking point of her not facing reporters in an
interview since her nomination, but I suppose that's been replaced with
suggestive reports that the interview did not go well.
The political playbook says, when you're winning, keep your head down.
Except she's not, not by a long shot. In fact, her campaign strategy
is to control the collapse of her campaign as long as possible.

--
"When we cheat, we win!"
- Harris-Walz 2024
The Horny Goat
2024-08-30 16:13:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 04:14:26 -0500, super70s
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
I was referring to the talking point of her not facing reporters in an
interview since her nomination, but I suppose that's been replaced with
suggestive reports that the interview did not go well.
Isn't the whole point of an interview that it NOT be editted?
shawn
2024-08-30 16:30:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 04:14:26 -0500, super70s
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
I was referring to the talking point of her not facing reporters in an
interview since her nomination, but I suppose that's been replaced with
suggestive reports that the interview did not go well.
Isn't the whole point of an interview that it NOT be editted?
Depends upon the situation. Unless the interview is really live on air
they may need to edit for time. Now I can see an interviewee not
wanting the interview to be edited without them having final say over
what goes on air so they can make sure the interview isn't edited to
have them say something they didn't mean to say.
Adam H. Kerman
2024-08-30 16:46:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by shawn
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
I was referring to the talking point of her not facing reporters in an
interview since her nomination, but I suppose that's been replaced with
suggestive reports that the interview did not go well.
Isn't the whole point of an interview that it NOT be editted?
Depends upon the situation. Unless the interview is really live on air
they may need to edit for time. Now I can see an interviewee not
wanting the interview to be edited without them having final say over
what goes on air so they can make sure the interview isn't edited to
have them say something they didn't mean to say.
All they have to do is make raw footage available. It's a common
practice.
moviePig
2024-08-30 19:01:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 04:14:26 -0500, super70s
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
I was referring to the talking point of her not facing reporters in an
interview since her nomination, but I suppose that's been replaced with
suggestive reports that the interview did not go well.
Isn't the whole point of an interview that it NOT be editted?
No candidate would sit down for, say, The 10 Most Hostile Questions.
J.B. Nicholson
2024-08-31 01:27:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
No candidate would sit down for, say, The 10 Most Hostile Questions.
From what I understand of Trump's recent visit to Chicago to speak (in
person) to the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), that's
pretty much what Trump did on Wednesday, July 31.

As I understand it, Kamala Harris was also invited to that same event
and she was allowed to choose appear in person or remotely over the
Internet and she chose not to appear at all. See NPR's coverage which
breezed past raising this as an issue even though it's one of the
things that stood out most about her campaign up to that date.

Quoting https://www.npr.org/2024/08/01/nx-s1-5060269/trump-nabj-appearance-controversy
Post by moviePig
There are also tough questions about why the group couldn’t work out
an arrangement to have Harris appear at the convention virtually,
given that she was flying to Houston for the funeral of friend and
sorority sister Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.
"[T]ough questions" which NPR apparently won't ask. Instead NPR moves
on to laying blame on NABJ for "question[ing] the wisdom of welcoming
the former president here" a couple of paragraphs later. How dare they
want to interview one of the leading candidates for a major elective
office?

So in the context of this thread about the recent CNN
puff-piece/advertisement being so notable for being Harris' first
event even resembling an interview, one could look at who put in the
effort to be in Chicago with the NABJ, live in person, and take
whatever questions were put to them without vetting or editing. As far
as I can tell, current Vice President Kamala Harris still hasn't done
this.
moviePig
2024-08-31 02:59:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
No candidate would sit down for, say, The 10 Most Hostile Questions.
From what I understand of Trump's recent visit to Chicago to speak (in
person) to the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), that's
pretty much what Trump did on Wednesday, July 31.
As I understand it, Kamala Harris was also invited to that same event
and she was allowed to choose appear in person or remotely over the
Internet and she chose not to appear at all. See NPR's coverage which
breezed past raising this as an issue even though it's one of the
things that stood out most about her campaign up to that date.
Quoting https://www.npr.org/2024/08/01/nx-s1-5060269/trump-nabj-appearance-controversy
Post by moviePig
There are also tough questions about why the group couldn’t work out
an arrangement to have Harris appear at the convention virtually,
given that she was flying to Houston for the funeral of friend and
sorority sister Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.
"[T]ough questions" which NPR apparently won't ask. Instead NPR moves
on to laying blame on NABJ for "question[ing] the wisdom of welcoming
the former president here" a couple of paragraphs later. How dare they
want to interview one of the leading candidates for a major elective
office?
So in the context of this thread about the recent CNN
puff-piece/advertisement being so notable for being Harris' first
event even resembling an interview, one could look at who put in the
effort to be in Chicago with the NABJ, live in person, and take
whatever questions were put to them without vetting or editing. As far
as I can tell, current Vice President Kamala Harris still hasn't done
this.
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover for
not speaking. Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from a major
debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in polling.
J.B. Nicholson
2024-08-31 04:18:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover
for not speaking. Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from
a major debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in
polling.
Biden withdrew his candidacy on July 21.

By July 31 Trump had survived an assassination attempt, which seems to
me to be a lot more serious than anything Harris can lay claim to. The
assassination attempt would have been reason for Trump to make
appearances remotely by Internet or not at all for being too shaken
but apparently he didn't do either of those things. Harris was a
sitting Vice President and could have been expected to speak on issues
of the day from that perspective, but by not taking any interviews
until that recorded, edited, CNN piece she didn't let anyone talk to
her about her record as VP.

I still come away from her campaign thinking that she would have been
much better off had the CNN "interview" been one of many instead of
her first. She would have had more practice at the least.
moviePig
2024-08-31 16:30:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover
for not speaking. Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from
a major debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in
polling.
Biden withdrew his candidacy on July 21.
By July 31 Trump had survived an assassination attempt, which seems to
me to be a lot more serious than anything Harris can lay claim to. The
assassination attempt would have been reason for Trump to make
appearances remotely by Internet or not at all for being too shaken
but apparently he didn't do either of those things. Harris was a
sitting Vice President and could have been expected to speak on issues
of the day from that perspective, but by not taking any interviews
until that recorded, edited, CNN piece she didn't let anyone talk to
her about her record as VP.
I still come away from her campaign thinking that she would have been
much better off had the CNN "interview" been one of many instead of
her first. She would have had more practice at the least.
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee. Some
charges of "presumptuousness" would surely have followed her acting as
more than that.

But, yes, like any politician, she's very carefully managing her public
appearances. Right now, that apparently means minimizing chances of
public missteps that could derail her soaring popularity. E.g., I don't
doubt that somewhere there's a focus group who dictated the timing of
the one interview that so far has been dribbled out.
BTR1701
2024-08-31 17:10:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover
for not speaking. Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from
a major debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in
polling.
Biden withdrew his candidacy on July 21.
By July 31 Trump had survived an assassination attempt, which seems to
me to be a lot more serious than anything Harris can lay claim to. The
assassination attempt would have been reason for Trump to make
appearances remotely by Internet or not at all for being too shaken
but apparently he didn't do either of those things. Harris was a
sitting Vice President and could have been expected to speak on issues
of the day from that perspective, but by not taking any interviews
until that recorded, edited, CNN piece she didn't let anyone talk to
her about her record as VP.
I still come away from her campaign thinking that she would have been
much better off had the CNN "interview" been one of many instead of
her first. She would have had more practice at the least.
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
Post by moviePig
But, yes, like any politician, she's very carefully managing her public
appearances. Right now, that apparently means minimizing chances of
public missteps that could derail her soaring popularity. E.g., I don't
doubt that somewhere there's a focus group who dictated the timing of
the one interview that so far has been dribbled out.
The fact that there's a self-serving reason for her cowardice doesn't
make it any less cowardly or a radical departure from the norms of a bid
for president. I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing
when Trump did it.
moviePig
2024-08-31 19:56:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover
for not speaking. Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from
a major debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in
polling.
Biden withdrew his candidacy on July 21.
By July 31 Trump had survived an assassination attempt, which seems to
me to be a lot more serious than anything Harris can lay claim to. The
assassination attempt would have been reason for Trump to make
appearances remotely by Internet or not at all for being too shaken
but apparently he didn't do either of those things. Harris was a
sitting Vice President and could have been expected to speak on issues
of the day from that perspective, but by not taking any interviews
until that recorded, edited, CNN piece she didn't let anyone talk to
her about her record as VP.
I still come away from her campaign thinking that she would have been
much better off had the CNN "interview" been one of many instead of
her first. She would have had more practice at the least.
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...

(Hahaha...etc.)
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
But, yes, like any politician, she's very carefully managing her public
appearances. Right now, that apparently means minimizing chances of
public missteps that could derail her soaring popularity. E.g., I don't
doubt that somewhere there's a focus group who dictated the timing of
the one interview that so far has been dribbled out.
The fact that there's a self-serving reason for her cowardice doesn't
make it any less cowardly or a radical departure from the norms of a bid
for president. I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing
when Trump did it.
"*Norms* of a bid for president". In this day and age. That's quaint...
BTR1701
2024-08-31 20:24:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover
for not speaking. Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from
a major debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in
polling.
Biden withdrew his candidacy on July 21.
By July 31 Trump had survived an assassination attempt, which seems to
me to be a lot more serious than anything Harris can lay claim to. The
assassination attempt would have been reason for Trump to make
appearances remotely by Internet or not at all for being too shaken
but apparently he didn't do either of those things. Harris was a
sitting Vice President and could have been expected to speak on issues
of the day from that perspective, but by not taking any interviews
until that recorded, edited, CNN piece she didn't let anyone talk to
her about her record as VP.
I still come away from her campaign thinking that she would have been
much better off had the CNN "interview" been one of many instead of
her first. She would have had more practice at the least.
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate* and
doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for policy, is
what candidates *do*.

At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
But, yes, like any politician, she's very carefully managing her public
appearances. Right now, that apparently means minimizing chances of
public missteps that could derail her soaring popularity. E.g., I don't
doubt that somewhere there's a focus group who dictated the timing of
the one interview that so far has been dribbled out.
The fact that there's a self-serving reason for her cowardice doesn't
make it any less cowardly or a radical departure from the norms of a bid
for president. I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing
when Trump did it.
"*Norms* of a bid for president". In this day and age. That's quaint...
I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing when Trump did
it.

Was that a lie or is this another one of those things that's only okay
when Democrats do it?
moviePig
2024-08-31 21:07:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover
for not speaking. Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from
a major debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in
polling.
Biden withdrew his candidacy on July 21.
By July 31 Trump had survived an assassination attempt, which seems to
me to be a lot more serious than anything Harris can lay claim to. The
assassination attempt would have been reason for Trump to make
appearances remotely by Internet or not at all for being too shaken
but apparently he didn't do either of those things. Harris was a
sitting Vice President and could have been expected to speak on issues
of the day from that perspective, but by not taking any interviews
until that recorded, edited, CNN piece she didn't let anyone talk to
her about her record as VP.
I still come away from her campaign thinking that she would have been
much better off had the CNN "interview" been one of many instead of
her first. She would have had more practice at the least.
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate* and
doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for policy, is
what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies ...and
God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
But, yes, like any politician, she's very carefully managing her public
appearances. Right now, that apparently means minimizing chances of
public missteps that could derail her soaring popularity. E.g., I don't
doubt that somewhere there's a focus group who dictated the timing of
the one interview that so far has been dribbled out.
The fact that there's a self-serving reason for her cowardice doesn't
make it any less cowardly or a radical departure from the norms of a bid
for president. I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing
when Trump did it.
"*Norms* of a bid for president". In this day and age. That's quaint...
I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing when Trump did
it.
Was that a lie or is this another one of those things that's only okay
when Democrats do it?
The 'norms' that have been shot thru the heart have given us the
possibility of a President who tried to overturn an election...
BTR1701
2024-08-31 21:43:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover
for not speaking. Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from
a major debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in
polling.
Biden withdrew his candidacy on July 21.
By July 31 Trump had survived an assassination attempt, which seems to
me to be a lot more serious than anything Harris can lay claim to. The
assassination attempt would have been reason for Trump to make
appearances remotely by Internet or not at all for being too shaken
but apparently he didn't do either of those things. Harris was a
sitting Vice President and could have been expected to speak on issues
of the day from that perspective, but by not taking any interviews
until that recorded, edited, CNN piece she didn't let anyone talk to
her about her record as VP.
I still come away from her campaign thinking that she would have been
much better off had the CNN "interview" been one of many instead of
her first. She would have had more practice at the least.
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate* and
doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for policy, is
what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies ...and
God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't handle
playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out and hit the
showers.
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
But, yes, like any politician, she's very carefully managing her public
appearances. Right now, that apparently means minimizing chances of
public missteps that could derail her soaring popularity. E.g., I don't
doubt that somewhere there's a focus group who dictated the timing of
the one interview that so far has been dribbled out.
The fact that there's a self-serving reason for her cowardice doesn't
make it any less cowardly or a radical departure from the norms of a bid
for president. I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing
when Trump did it.
"*Norms* of a bid for president". In this day and age. That's quaint...
I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing when Trump did
it.
Was that a lie or is this another one of those things that's only okay
when Democrats do it?
The 'norms' that have been shot thru the heart have given us the
possibility of a President who tried to overturn an election...
Thanks, Karine.

I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing when Trump did
it.

Was that a lie or is this another one of those things that's only okay
when Democrats do it?
moviePig
2024-09-01 02:39:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover
for not speaking. Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from
a major debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in
polling.
Biden withdrew his candidacy on July 21.
By July 31 Trump had survived an assassination attempt, which seems to
me to be a lot more serious than anything Harris can lay claim to. The
assassination attempt would have been reason for Trump to make
appearances remotely by Internet or not at all for being too shaken
but apparently he didn't do either of those things. Harris was a
sitting Vice President and could have been expected to speak on issues
of the day from that perspective, but by not taking any interviews
until that recorded, edited, CNN piece she didn't let anyone talk to
her about her record as VP.
I still come away from her campaign thinking that she would have been
much better off had the CNN "interview" been one of many instead of
her first. She would have had more practice at the least.
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate* and
doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for policy, is
what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies ...and
God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't handle
playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out and hit the
showers.
The question was never whether she can, bu whether she should. You're
thinking not as her political strategist, but as her political assassin.
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
But, yes, like any politician, she's very carefully managing her public
appearances. Right now, that apparently means minimizing chances of
public missteps that could derail her soaring popularity. E.g., I don't
doubt that somewhere there's a focus group who dictated the timing of
the one interview that so far has been dribbled out.
The fact that there's a self-serving reason for her cowardice doesn't
make it any less cowardly or a radical departure from the norms of a bid
for president. I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing
when Trump did it.
"*Norms* of a bid for president". In this day and age. That's quaint...
I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing when Trump did
it.
Was that a lie or is this another one of those things that's only okay
when Democrats do it?
The 'norms' that have been shot thru the heart have given us the
possibility of a President who tried to overturn an election...
Thanks, Karine.
I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing when Trump did
it.
Was that a lie or is this another one of those things that's only okay
when Democrats do it?
Well, Trump does have a penchant for "not okay" things...
BTR1701
2024-09-01 03:23:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover
for not speaking. Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from
a major debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in
polling.
Biden withdrew his candidacy on July 21.
By July 31 Trump had survived an assassination attempt, which seems to
me to be a lot more serious than anything Harris can lay claim to. The
assassination attempt would have been reason for Trump to make
appearances remotely by Internet or not at all for being too shaken
but apparently he didn't do either of those things. Harris was a
sitting Vice President and could have been expected to speak on issues
of the day from that perspective, but by not taking any interviews
until that recorded, edited, CNN piece she didn't let anyone talk to
her about her record as VP.
I still come away from her campaign thinking that she would have been
much better off had the CNN "interview" been one of many instead of
her first. She would have had more practice at the least.
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate* and
doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for policy, is
what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies ...and
God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't handle
playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out and hit the
showers.
The question was never whether she can, bu whether she should.
Oh, no. Given her past performance, both at the substance of her job and
the nonsense she continually spews, there are plenty of people
legitimately questioning whether she can.
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
But, yes, like any politician, she's very carefully managing her public
appearances. Right now, that apparently means minimizing chances of
public missteps that could derail her soaring popularity. E.g., I don't
doubt that somewhere there's a focus group who dictated the timing of
the one interview that so far has been dribbled out.
The fact that there's a self-serving reason for her cowardice doesn't
make it any less cowardly or a radical departure from the norms of a bid
for president. I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing
when Trump did it.
"*Norms* of a bid for president". In this day and age. That's quaint...
I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing when Trump did
it.
Was that a lie or is this another one of those things that's only okay
when Democrats do it?
The 'norms' that have been shot thru the heart have given us the
possibility of a President who tried to overturn an election...
Thanks, Karine.
I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing when Trump did
it.
Was that a lie or is this another one of those things that's only okay
when Democrats do it?
Well, Trump does have a penchant for "not okay" things...
trotsky
2024-09-01 09:03:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover
for not speaking. Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from
a major debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in
polling.
Biden withdrew his candidacy on July 21.
By July 31 Trump had survived an assassination attempt, which seems to
me to be a lot more serious than anything Harris can lay claim to. The
assassination attempt would have been reason for Trump to make
appearances remotely by Internet or not at all for being too shaken
but apparently he didn't do either of those things. Harris was a
sitting Vice President and could have been expected to speak on issues
of the day from that perspective, but by not taking any interviews
until that recorded, edited, CNN piece she didn't let anyone talk to
her about her record as VP.
I still come away from her campaign thinking that she would have been
much better off had the CNN "interview" been one of many instead of
her first. She would have had more practice at the least.
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate* and
doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for policy, is
what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies ...and
God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't handle
playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out and hit the
showers.
The question was never whether she can, bu whether she should.
Oh, no. Given her past performance, both at the substance of her job and
the nonsense she continually spews, there are plenty of people
legitimately questioning whether she can.
I love this kind of response! It's as if you're sitting on a porch
smoking hash in a corn cob pipe, saying "Wellsir, plenty of people are
saying this, I'll tell you what." Thanks for the laugh.
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
But, yes, like any politician, she's very carefully managing her public
appearances. Right now, that apparently means minimizing chances of
public missteps that could derail her soaring popularity. E.g., I don't
doubt that somewhere there's a focus group who dictated the timing of
the one interview that so far has been dribbled out.
The fact that there's a self-serving reason for her cowardice doesn't
make it any less cowardly or a radical departure from the norms of a bid
for president. I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing
when Trump did it.
"*Norms* of a bid for president". In this day and age. That's quaint...
I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing when Trump did
it.
Was that a lie or is this another one of those things that's only okay
when Democrats do it?
The 'norms' that have been shot thru the heart have given us the
possibility of a President who tried to overturn an election...
Thanks, Karine.
I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing when Trump did
it.
Was that a lie or is this another one of those things that's only okay
when Democrats do it?
Well, Trump does have a penchant for "not okay" things...
moviePig
2024-09-01 16:56:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover
for not speaking. Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from
a major debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in
polling.
Biden withdrew his candidacy on July 21.
By July 31 Trump had survived an assassination attempt, which seems to
me to be a lot more serious than anything Harris can lay claim to. The
assassination attempt would have been reason for Trump to make
appearances remotely by Internet or not at all for being too shaken
but apparently he didn't do either of those things. Harris was a
sitting Vice President and could have been expected to speak on issues
of the day from that perspective, but by not taking any interviews
until that recorded, edited, CNN piece she didn't let anyone talk to
her about her record as VP.
I still come away from her campaign thinking that she would have been
much better off had the CNN "interview" been one of many instead of
her first. She would have had more practice at the least.
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate* and
doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for policy, is
what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies ...and
God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't handle
playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out and hit the
showers.
The question was never whether she can, bu whether she should.
Oh, no. Given her past performance, both at the substance of her job and
the nonsense she continually spews, there are plenty of people
legitimately questioning whether she can.
...
It's just that, on this n.g., each instance of her "nonsense" that I've
recently scoped I've found to have been massaged to unrecognizability.
And my scoping was minimal, well within the reach of "plenty of people".
BTR1701
2024-09-01 18:01:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate* and
doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for policy, is
what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies ...and
God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't handle
playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out and hit the
showers.
The question was never whether she can, bu whether she should.
Oh, no. Given her past performance, both at the substance of her job and
the nonsense she continually spews, there are plenty of people
legitimately questioning whether she can.
...
It's just that, on this n.g., each instance of her "nonsense" that I've
recently scoped I've found to have been massaged to unrecognizability.
I've never 'massaged' anything. I've only ever quoted the words that
came out of her mouth.
moviePig
2024-09-01 19:41:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate* and
doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for policy, is
what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies ...and
God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't handle
playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out and hit the
showers.
The question was never whether she can, bu whether she should.
Oh, no. Given her past performance, both at the substance of her job and
the nonsense she continually spews, there are plenty of people
legitimately questioning whether she can.
...
It's just that, on this n.g., each instance of her "nonsense" that I've
recently scoped I've found to have been massaged to unrecognizability.
I've never 'massaged' anything. I've only ever quoted the words that
came out of her mouth.
A disingenuous excuse for paring away context.
BTR1701
2024-09-01 19:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate* and
doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for policy, is
what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies ...and
God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't handle
playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out and hit the
showers.
The question was never whether she can, bu whether she should.
Oh, no. Given her past performance, both at the substance of her job and
the nonsense she continually spews, there are plenty of people
legitimately questioning whether she can.
...
It's just that, on this n.g., each instance of her "nonsense" that I've
recently scoped I've found to have been massaged to unrecognizability.
I've never 'massaged' anything. I've only ever quoted the words that
came out of her mouth.
A disingenuous excuse for paring away context.
What you call context doesn't make her word spew any less nonsensical.
trotsky
2024-09-01 20:53:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate* and
doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for policy, is
what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies ...and
God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't handle
playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out and hit the
showers.
The question was never whether she can, bu whether she should.
Oh, no. Given her past performance, both at the substance of her job and
the nonsense she continually spews, there are plenty of people
legitimately questioning whether she can.
...
It's just that, on this n.g., each instance of her "nonsense" that I've
recently scoped I've found to have been massaged to unrecognizability.
I've never 'massaged' anything. I've only ever quoted the words that
came out of her mouth.
A disingenuous excuse for paring away context.
What you call context doesn't make her word spew any less nonsensical.
Do you have anything on par with the shark and the tremendous battery?
moviePig
2024-09-01 21:44:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate* and
doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for policy, is
what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies ...and
God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't handle
playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out and hit the
showers.
The question was never whether she can, bu whether she should.
Oh, no. Given her past performance, both at the substance of her job and
the nonsense she continually spews, there are plenty of people
legitimately questioning whether she can.
...
It's just that, on this n.g., each instance of her "nonsense" that I've
recently scoped I've found to have been massaged to unrecognizability.
I've never 'massaged' anything. I've only ever quoted the words that
came out of her mouth.
A disingenuous excuse for paring away context.
What you call context doesn't make her word spew any less nonsensical.
One wonders then, why context was so meticulously, quietly excised.
BTR1701
2024-09-01 22:29:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate* and
doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for policy, is
what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies ...and
God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't handle
playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out and hit the
showers.
The question was never whether she can, bu whether she should.
Oh, no. Given her past performance, both at the substance of her job and
the nonsense she continually spews, there are plenty of people
legitimately questioning whether she can.
...
It's just that, on this n.g., each instance of her "nonsense" that I've
recently scoped I've found to have been massaged to unrecognizability.
I've never 'massaged' anything. I've only ever quoted the words that
came out of her mouth.
A disingenuous excuse for paring away context.
What you call context doesn't make her word spew any less nonsensical.
One wonders then, why context was so meticulously, quietly excised.
LOL! "Meticulously".
BTR1701
2024-09-01 22:31:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate*
and doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for
policy, is what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies...
and God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't
handle playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out
and hit the showers.
The question was never whether she can, bu whether she should.
Oh, no. Given her past performance, both at the substance of her
job and the nonsense she continually spews, there are plenty of
people legitimately questioning whether she can.
It's just that, on this n.g., each instance of her "nonsense" that I've
recently scoped I've found to have been massaged to unrecognizability.
I've never 'massaged' anything. I've only ever quoted the words that
came out of her mouth.
A disingenuous excuse for paring away context.
What you call context doesn't make her word spew any less nonsensical.
One wonders then, why context was so meticulously, quietly excised.
Usually it's because Twitter and Facebook only allow videos of a certain
length, so they have to be pared down to the essentials.
moviePig
2024-09-01 23:02:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate*
and doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for
policy, is what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies...
and God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't
handle playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out
and hit the showers.
The question was never whether she can, bu whether she should.
Oh, no. Given her past performance, both at the substance of her
job and the nonsense she continually spews, there are plenty of
people legitimately questioning whether she can.
It's just that, on this n.g., each instance of her "nonsense" that I've
recently scoped I've found to have been massaged to unrecognizability.
I've never 'massaged' anything. I've only ever quoted the words that
came out of her mouth.
A disingenuous excuse for paring away context.
What you call context doesn't make her word spew any less nonsensical.
One wonders then, why context was so meticulously, quietly excised.
Usually it's because Twitter and Facebook only allow videos of a certain
length, so they have to be pared down to the essentials.
LOL! "Essentials".
BTR1701
2024-09-02 02:04:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate*
and doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for
policy, is what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies...
and God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't
handle playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out
and hit the showers.
The question was never whether she can, bu whether she should.
Oh, no. Given her past performance, both at the substance of her
job and the nonsense she continually spews, there are plenty of
people legitimately questioning whether she can.
It's just that, on this n.g., each instance of her "nonsense" that I've
recently scoped I've found to have been massaged to unrecognizability.
I've never 'massaged' anything. I've only ever quoted the words that
came out of her mouth.
A disingenuous excuse for paring away context.
What you call context doesn't make her word spew any less nonsensical.
One wonders then, why context was so meticulously, quietly excised.
Usually it's because Twitter and Facebook only allow videos of a certain
length, so they have to be pared down to the essentials.
LOL! "Essentials".
Yep. The parts where Kammie loses the thread of reality.
moviePig
2024-09-02 02:33:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate*
and doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for
policy, is what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies...
and God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't
handle playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out
and hit the showers.
The question was never whether she can, bu whether she should.
Oh, no. Given her past performance, both at the substance of her
job and the nonsense she continually spews, there are plenty of
people legitimately questioning whether she can.
It's just that, on this n.g., each instance of her "nonsense" that I've
recently scoped I've found to have been massaged to unrecognizability.
I've never 'massaged' anything. I've only ever quoted the words that
came out of her mouth.
A disingenuous excuse for paring away context.
What you call context doesn't make her word spew any less nonsensical.
One wonders then, why context was so meticulously, quietly excised.
Usually it's because Twitter and Facebook only allow videos of a certain
length, so they have to be pared down to the essentials.
LOL! "Essentials".
Yep. The parts where Kammie loses the thread of reality.
The parts essential to fool the two of us. (Want me to quote you?)
trotsky
2024-09-02 09:10:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate*
and doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for
policy, is what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies...
and God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't
handle playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out
and hit the showers.
The question was never whether she can, bu whether she should.
Oh, no. Given her past performance, both at the substance of her
job and the nonsense she continually spews, there are plenty of
people legitimately questioning whether she can.
It's just that, on this n.g., each instance of her "nonsense" that I've
recently scoped I've found to have been massaged to unrecognizability.
I've never 'massaged' anything. I've only ever quoted the words that
came out of her mouth.
A disingenuous excuse for paring away context.
What you call context doesn't make her word spew any less nonsensical.
One wonders then, why context was so meticulously, quietly excised.
Usually it's because Twitter and Facebook only allow videos of a certain
length, so they have to be pared down to the essentials.
LOL! "Essentials".
Yep. The parts where Kammie loses the thread of reality.
Sure, speaking of such things which would you pick, the shark or the
"tremendous battery?"
trotsky
2024-09-02 09:00:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate*
and doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for
policy, is what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
She'd have been accused of trying to preempt other candidacies...
and God knows what else. I'm pretty sure we both know this.
That's politics. Someone's always criticizing you. If she can't
handle playing in the deep end of the pool, she needs to get out
and hit the showers.
The question was never whether she can, bu whether she should.
Oh, no. Given her past performance, both at the substance of her
job and the nonsense she continually spews, there are plenty of
people legitimately questioning whether she can.
It's just that, on this n.g., each instance of her "nonsense" that I've
recently scoped I've found to have been massaged to unrecognizability.
I've never 'massaged' anything. I've only ever quoted the words that
came out of her mouth.
A disingenuous excuse for paring away context.
What you call context doesn't make her word spew any less nonsensical.
One wonders then, why context was so meticulously, quietly excised.
Usually it's because Twitter and Facebook only allow videos of a certain
length, so they have to be pared down to the essentials.
Does Facebook have a video length limit?

Instagram videos cannot be longer than 60 seconds, while Facebook videos
can be as long as 240 minutes. The first three seconds of the video are
the most important for grabbing attention, as storytelling for social
video is different from the passive storytelling of TV narratives.


So the four hour FB video limit is a problem for you? Fuck you you
fucking liar. Take your MAGA quality information and shove it back up
your ass whence it came. Any questions?
trotsky
2024-09-01 10:21:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover
for not speaking. Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from
a major debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in
polling.
Biden withdrew his candidacy on July 21.
By July 31 Trump had survived an assassination attempt, which seems to
me to be a lot more serious than anything Harris can lay claim to. The
assassination attempt would have been reason for Trump to make
appearances remotely by Internet or not at all for being too shaken
but apparently he didn't do either of those things. Harris was a
sitting Vice President and could have been expected to speak on issues
of the day from that perspective, but by not taking any interviews
until that recorded, edited, CNN piece she didn't let anyone talk to
her about her record as VP.
I still come away from her campaign thinking that she would have been
much better off had the CNN "interview" been one of many instead of
her first. She would have had more practice at the least.
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate* and
doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for policy, is
what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
But, yes, like any politician, she's very carefully managing her public
appearances. Right now, that apparently means minimizing chances of
public missteps that could derail her soaring popularity. E.g., I don't
doubt that somewhere there's a focus group who dictated the timing of
the one interview that so far has been dribbled out.
The fact that there's a self-serving reason for her cowardice doesn't
make it any less cowardly or a radical departure from the norms of a bid
for president. I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing
when Trump did it.
"*Norms* of a bid for president". In this day and age. That's quaint...
I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing when Trump did
it.
Because you're stupid you're getting "defying norms" conflated with
denying reality.
Post by BTR1701
Was that a lie or is this another one of those things that's only okay
when Democrats do it?
NoBody
2024-09-01 14:13:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover
for not speaking. Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from
a major debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in
polling.
Biden withdrew his candidacy on July 21.
By July 31 Trump had survived an assassination attempt, which seems to
me to be a lot more serious than anything Harris can lay claim to. The
assassination attempt would have been reason for Trump to make
appearances remotely by Internet or not at all for being too shaken
but apparently he didn't do either of those things. Harris was a
sitting Vice President and could have been expected to speak on issues
of the day from that perspective, but by not taking any interviews
until that recorded, edited, CNN piece she didn't let anyone talk to
her about her record as VP.
I still come away from her campaign thinking that she would have been
much better off had the CNN "interview" been one of many instead of
her first. She would have had more practice at the least.
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
And the Right would *never* have decried her "unseemly audacity"...
No, whether she was the nominee or not, she was still a *candidate* and
doing press interviews, explaining positions, advocating for policy, is
what candidates *do*.
At least they did until Grandpa Badfinger and Kammie came along.
Exactly. Hound Trump endlessly but be ever so gentle on Harris.
It's the liberal way.
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
But, yes, like any politician, she's very carefully managing her public
appearances. Right now, that apparently means minimizing chances of
public missteps that could derail her soaring popularity. E.g., I don't
doubt that somewhere there's a focus group who dictated the timing of
the one interview that so far has been dribbled out.
The fact that there's a self-serving reason for her cowardice doesn't
make it any less cowardly or a radical departure from the norms of a bid
for president. I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing
when Trump did it.
"*Norms* of a bid for president". In this day and age. That's quaint...
I was constantly told that defying norms was a bad thing when Trump did
it.
Was that a lie or is this another one of those things that's only okay
when Democrats do it?
Why can't it be both?
trotsky
2024-09-01 08:58:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover
for not speaking. Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from
a major debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in
polling.
Biden withdrew his candidacy on July 21.
By July 31 Trump had survived an assassination attempt, which seems to
me to be a lot more serious than anything Harris can lay claim to. The
assassination attempt would have been reason for Trump to make
appearances remotely by Internet or not at all for being too shaken
but apparently he didn't do either of those things. Harris was a
sitting Vice President and could have been expected to speak on issues
of the day from that perspective, but by not taking any interviews
until that recorded, edited, CNN piece she didn't let anyone talk to
her about her record as VP.
I still come away from her campaign thinking that she would have been
much better off had the CNN "interview" been one of many instead of
her first. She would have had more practice at the least.
By July 31, she was no more than the *presumptive* nominee.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
Post by moviePig
But, yes, like any politician, she's very carefully managing her public
appearances. Right now, that apparently means minimizing chances of
public missteps that could derail her soaring popularity. E.g., I don't
doubt that somewhere there's a focus group who dictated the timing of
the one interview that so far has been dribbled out.
The fact that there's a self-serving reason for her cowardice
Do you think you're anonyshitting your way to hurting her election
chances? One would think even you aren't this stupid.
BTR1701
2024-08-31 04:41:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
No candidate would sit down for, say, The 10 Most Hostile Questions.
From what I understand of Trump's recent visit to Chicago to speak (in
person) to the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), that's
pretty much what Trump did on Wednesday, July 31.
As I understand it, Kamala Harris was also invited to that same event
and she was allowed to choose appear in person or remotely over the
Internet and she chose not to appear at all. See NPR's coverage which
breezed past raising this as an issue even though it's one of the
things that stood out most about her campaign up to that date.
Quoting
Post by moviePig
There are also tough questions about why the group couldn't work out
an arrangement to have Harris appear at the convention virtually,
given that she was flying to Houston for the funeral of friend and
sorority sister Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.
"[T]ough questions" which NPR apparently won't ask. Instead NPR moves
on to laying blame on NABJ for "question[ing] the wisdom of welcoming
the former president here" a couple of paragraphs later. How dare they
want to interview one of the leading candidates for a major elective
office?
So in the context of this thread about the recent CNN
puff-piece/advertisement being so notable for being Harris' first
event even resembling an interview, one could look at who put in the
effort to be in Chicago with the NABJ, live in person, and take
whatever questions were put to them without vetting or editing. As far
as I can tell, current Vice President Kamala Harris still hasn't done
this.
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover for
not speaking.
No she doesn't.
Post by moviePig
Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from a major
debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in polling.
She wants to president. She might have to decide whether to launch a
nuclear missile some day at a major population center and have only
minutes to decide whether to do it.

But holding a press conference to articulate her political philosophy
and positions on major issues to voters is too scary for her?

She has no business even asking for the job.
trotsky
2024-08-31 08:21:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
No candidate would sit down for, say, The 10 Most Hostile Questions.
From what I understand of Trump's recent visit to Chicago to speak (in
person) to the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), that's
pretty much what Trump did on Wednesday, July 31.
As I understand it, Kamala Harris was also invited to that same event
and she was allowed to choose appear in person or remotely over the
Internet and she chose not to appear at all. See NPR's coverage which
breezed past raising this as an issue even though it's one of the
things that stood out most about her campaign up to that date.
Quoting
Post by moviePig
There are also tough questions about why the group couldn't work out
an arrangement to have Harris appear at the convention virtually,
given that she was flying to Houston for the funeral of friend and
sorority sister Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.
"[T]ough questions" which NPR apparently won't ask. Instead NPR moves
on to laying blame on NABJ for "question[ing] the wisdom of welcoming
the former president here" a couple of paragraphs later. How dare they
want to interview one of the leading candidates for a major elective
office?
So in the context of this thread about the recent CNN
puff-piece/advertisement being so notable for being Harris' first
event even resembling an interview, one could look at who put in the
effort to be in Chicago with the NABJ, live in person, and take
whatever questions were put to them without vetting or editing. As far
as I can tell, current Vice President Kamala Harris still hasn't done
this.
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover for
not speaking.
No she doesn't.
Post by moviePig
Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from a major
debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in polling.
She wants to president. She might have to decide whether to launch a
nuclear missile some day at a major population center and have only
minutes to decide whether to do it.
But holding a press conference to articulate her political philosophy
and positions on major issues to voters is too scary for her?
She has no business even asking for the job.
Holy fuck it sounds like you won't vote for her. In a state that isn't
a swing state so a couple of million Oath Keeper Twats wouldn't even
sway the election. Keep on pissing and moaning though, at least it
makes us laugh!
moviePig
2024-08-31 16:33:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by J.B. Nicholson
Post by moviePig
No candidate would sit down for, say, The 10 Most Hostile Questions.
From what I understand of Trump's recent visit to Chicago to speak (in
person) to the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), that's
pretty much what Trump did on Wednesday, July 31.
As I understand it, Kamala Harris was also invited to that same event
and she was allowed to choose appear in person or remotely over the
Internet and she chose not to appear at all. See NPR's coverage which
breezed past raising this as an issue even though it's one of the
things that stood out most about her campaign up to that date.
Quoting
Post by moviePig
There are also tough questions about why the group couldn't work out
an arrangement to have Harris appear at the convention virtually,
given that she was flying to Houston for the funeral of friend and
sorority sister Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee.
"[T]ough questions" which NPR apparently won't ask. Instead NPR moves
on to laying blame on NABJ for "question[ing] the wisdom of welcoming
the former president here" a couple of paragraphs later. How dare they
want to interview one of the leading candidates for a major elective
office?
So in the context of this thread about the recent CNN
puff-piece/advertisement being so notable for being Harris' first
event even resembling an interview, one could look at who put in the
effort to be in Chicago with the NABJ, live in person, and take
whatever questions were put to them without vetting or editing. As far
as I can tell, current Vice President Kamala Harris still hasn't done
this.
On July 31, Biden had only just resigned, so Harris has ample cover for
not speaking.
No she doesn't.
Post by moviePig
Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from a major
debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in polling.
She wants to president. She might have to decide whether to launch a
nuclear missile some day at a major population center and have only
minutes to decide whether to do it.
But holding a press conference to articulate her political philosophy
and positions on major issues to voters is too scary for her?
She has no business even asking for the job.
Yes, "she wants to be president". And she's trying to bring that about
...which may not always comport with your ideal gauntlet for her.
The Horny Goat
2024-08-31 18:10:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Certainly, any candidate that appears to shy from a major
debate seems likely to take a correspondingly major hit in polling.
She wants to president. She might have to decide whether to launch a
nuclear missile some day at a major population center and have only
minutes to decide whether to do it.
But holding a press conference to articulate her political philosophy
and positions on major issues to voters is too scary for her?
She has no business even asking for the job.
If a candidate doesn't understand this before throwing their hat into
the ring they have no business being there.

I'd be astonished if that was even an interview question.
The Horny Goat
2024-08-31 18:09:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by The Horny Goat
On Fri, 30 Aug 2024 04:14:26 -0500, super70s
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
I was referring to the talking point of her not facing reporters in an
interview since her nomination, but I suppose that's been replaced with
suggestive reports that the interview did not go well.
Isn't the whole point of an interview that it NOT be editted?
No candidate would sit down for, say, The 10 Most Hostile Questions.
Fair enough but getting a list of questions before the interview is
not a rare practice. What interviewees don't like is 'ambush
questions' but I've seen lots of interviews of this type where I
didn't considers the questions "slow pitches"
Ubiquitous
2024-09-05 08:31:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by super70s
Post by moviePig
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
I was referring to the talking point of her not facing reporters in an
interview since her nomination, but I suppose that's been replaced with
suggestive reports that the interview did not go well.
Isn't the whole point of an interview that it NOT be editted?
No candidate would sit down for, say, The 10 Most Hostile Questions.
Trump has done that several times.

--
Let's go Brandon!

trotsky
2024-08-30 09:17:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by BTR1701
Post by super70s
  After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the
media,
  Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash
on CNN.
  1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
  2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
  Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
  famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned
questions,
  is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for
her when
  she makes a mistake.
  Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several
live
  interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience
hears it
  all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous)
benefit of
  having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out
before
  anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the
clear and
  massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the
Democrats, who can
  possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as
well
  write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the
answers,
  and then tape that.
  Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't
hand Dana
  Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to
stay away
  from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before
in other
  election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that
secret.
  Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
  Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press
since
  her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as
CNN
  agreeing to it.
  If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this
country.
  A candidate is under no obligation to submit to open interrogation.
  Ask Trump.  The difference from him is, only she will be penalized
for
  it.
They're upset because they're about to lose a big talking point. They
have so few as it is.
https://ibb.co/SXXfZN7
"Reports suggest the interview did not go well..."
Right, if there's one thing we know to trust, it's suggestive reports...
LOL. The Mueller Report "didn't go well" either so the Trump
administration redacted a fuck ton of it. Right wing assholes don't
talk about that though.
trotsky
2024-08-30 08:20:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BTR1701
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
Point 1 leaves me with the strong impression that Harris, who is
famously bad at thinking on her feet and answering unplanned questions,
is absolutely counting on Walz to bail her out and/or cover for her when
she makes a mistake.
Point 2 is disgraceful. Trump and Vance have both done several live
interviews. That means they say what they say and the audience hears it
all, good or bad. Harris and Walz will have the (enormous) benefit of
having any ill-considered remarks (i.e. mistakes) snipped out before
anyone but the people in the interview room hear it. Given the clear and
massive bias of the mainstream media in favour of the Democrats, who can
possibly take an edited interview seriously? They might just as well
write a script in advance, complete with the questions and the answers,
and then tape that.
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful".
Considering this is her only concession to speaking to the press since
her coronation, yes, it is disgraceful, but not as disgraceful as CNN
agreeing to it.
Fascinating. You don't have the fucking balls to talk about
Trump/Vance, so you gaslight people on the group to pretend that you're
somehow being "discerning" by being too scared shitless to talk about
the right wing assholes in the equation. Why are you too scared
shitless to talk about them?
Post by BTR1701
If only we had an actual functioning news media left in this country.
Shut the fuck up you anonyshit asshole. Pick a lane, is it the media or
is it "her" and "her coronation?"
The Horny Goat
2024-08-30 04:35:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
<snip - for brevity>
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful". What would be
disgraceful is *quietly* editing it ...which apparently hasn't happened.
Not sure precisely what you mean though I'd have less problem if they
said "Editted by ______" in the credits - at least then we'd know.

Though like you I'd very much prefer live.
moviePig
2024-08-30 16:14:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
After many weeks of dodging any spontaneous interviews with the media,
Kamala Harris has finally agreed to an interview with Dana Bash on CNN.
1. Harris and Walz are interviewed TOGETHER
2. The interview gets edited before it is aired
<snip - for brevity>
Post by moviePig
Post by Rhino
Personally, I'm going to be surprised if the Democrats don't hand Dana
Bash and her people at list of questions to ask - and ones to stay away
from - as part of their preparation. They've done that before in other
election cycles. Of course, they'll do their best to keep that secret.
Harris editing the interview is hardly "disgraceful". What would be
disgraceful is *quietly* editing it ...which apparently hasn't happened.
Not sure precisely what you mean though I'd have less problem if they
said "Edited by ______" in the credits - at least then we'd know.
Though like you I'd very much prefer live.
In the intro, Bash says we're to see the entire interview. But, yeah,
that could spin out to mean almost anything.
Loading...