Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I’m glad Kamala refused to dignify Trump’s bigotry and idiocy with a response.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/08/29/us/harris-trump-election
Harris brushes aside a question about Trump questioning her race, refusing to be drawn in.
“Same old tired playbook, next question please,” Harris said.
“That’s it?” Bash asked, to which Harris concluded, “That’s it.”
That was a classy response and a boss move. She doesn't need to get mired in his racist traps (like Obama did with Trump's birther nonsense).
Serious question - what has the Biden-Harris administration done for the Black community?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Odd: CNN doesn’t seem to be livestreaming the interview on their site- they are making people sign in through their cable provider to watch the full interview. Why would they do that?
Odd pt. 2: CNN has not put the interview on youtube for people to watch. Why not?
Why do Americans need to sign in with a cable provider to watch the democratic candidate interview? What if someone doesn’t have cable? They can’t watch it.
Why can’t CNN post the interview on their youtube channel?
Somebody without cable can still pay for CNN as part of various streaming packages. They are just trying to make some money, that's all.
So the American people have to pay CNN or a cable company to listen to the D pres candidate interview?
Anonymous wrote:Odd: CNN doesn’t seem to be livestreaming the interview on their site- they are making people sign in through their cable provider to watch the full interview. Why would they do that?
Odd pt. 2: CNN has not put the interview on youtube for people to watch. Why not?
Why do Americans need to sign in with a cable provider to watch the democratic candidate interview? What if someone doesn’t have cable? They can’t watch it.
Why can’t CNN post the interview on their youtube channel?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Dana Bash: "You've been VP for 3 and a half years. Why didn't you do this?"
Kamala: "We brought inflation down"
She's a walking Trump ad.
+1 Correct. Still cannot believe these are our choices. For me this comes down to the economy/business acumen, the border, and past performance on the world stage. Harris/Walz seem like deer in headlights.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Watch the energy view and it's entirety. Was it a hard hitting expose no, it was never supposed to be, but at least her answers were coherent and on topic, which is more than I can say for his deranged press conferences. I will never understand why he continues to get a pass talking about Hannibal lecter for 90 minutes but a Democratic candidate who is concise and answers questions is somehow not looking presidential?
Let's see the unedited interview or better yet a live interview one on one with a reporter.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hillary Clinton was so much more competent than Harris. And compare Harris with Obama or Bill Clinton, or even John McCain.
But now because we are unfortunately stuck with Harris, we democrats have to gaslight ourselves and others into thinking that these populist word salads are acceptable. A shame.
And Romney too. It wasn't that long ago that there was an expectation that presidential candidates would generally be informed, competent, and decent human beings.
Now we have Donald Trump, an abomination. And due to the colossal arrogance of Joe Biden and his family - Jill and Hunter - we are in the strange situation where mediocrity gets to fall upwards. Democrats have a lot of talent, but none of them can run for president because of what the Bidens did. Instead, we have two months of fingers-crossed Harris can maintain some basic coherence when speaking without a teleprompter. And in the meantime we all need to pretend she's some awesome, historic candidate that will lead America out of the wilderness.
It's a farce. Even children recognize there are moments in a game when you need a do-over.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Hillary Clinton was so much more competent than Harris. And compare Harris with Obama or Bill Clinton, or even John McCain.
But now because we are unfortunately stuck with Harris, we democrats have to gaslight ourselves and others into thinking that these populist word salads are acceptable. A shame.
And Romney too. It wasn't that long ago that there was an expectation that presidential candidates would generally be informed, competent, and decent human beings.
Now we have Donald Trump, an abomination. And due to the colossal arrogance of Joe Biden and his family - Jill and Hunter - we are in the strange situation where mediocrity gets to fall upwards. Democrats have a lot of talent, but none of them can run for president because of what the Bidens did. Instead, we have two months of fingers-crossed Harris can maintain some basic coherence when speaking without a teleprompter. And in the meantime we all need to pretend she's some awesome, historic candidate that will lead America out of the wilderness.
It's a farce. Even children recognize there are moments in a game when you need a do-over.
Anonymous wrote:Hillary Clinton was so much more competent than Harris. And compare Harris with Obama or Bill Clinton, or even John McCain.
But now because we are unfortunately stuck with Harris, we democrats have to gaslight ourselves and others into thinking that these populist word salads are acceptable. A shame.
Anonymous wrote:Hillary Clinton was so much more competent than Harris. And compare Harris with Obama or Bill Clinton, or even John McCain.
But now because we are unfortunately stuck with Harris, we democrats have to gaslight ourselves and others into thinking that these populist word salads are acceptable. A shame.
Anonymous wrote:Hillary Clinton was so much more competent than Harris. And compare Harris with Obama or Bill Clinton, or even John McCain.
But now because we are unfortunately stuck with Harris, we democrats have to gaslight ourselves and others into thinking that these populist word salads are acceptable. A shame.
Anonymous wrote:Watch the energy view and it's entirety. Was it a hard hitting expose no, it was never supposed to be, but at least her answers were coherent and on topic, which is more than I can say for his deranged press conferences. I will never understand why he continues to get a pass talking about Hannibal lecter for 90 minutes but a Democratic candidate who is concise and answers questions is somehow not looking presidential?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Was Tim Walz actually necessary in that interview?
It is traditional for both candidates to it for the first interview together.
Absentee ballots go out next week. No one outside of MN has any idea who he is.