MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2024
But where are the questions for Trump? It's as we noted this very morning. For better or worse, Candidate Harris almost surely has a fair amount of splainin' to do.
Due to the way her candidacy came into being, she has only had a month to get her campaign up and running. We're amazed by how few journalists ever cite that obvious point when they complain about her failure to conduct press events up to this point in time.
Still, if we're playing by normal rules, she probably needs to present a platform—and she probably needs to sit for some interviews. At least, that's what Bret Stephens says in this week's episode of The Conversation—and Gail Collins says she agrees.
New York Times headline included:
Kamala Harris Has Left the Building
[...]
Bret: The problem with Harris is that she’s a political chameleon—a tough-on-crime prosecutor in one phase of her career, a self-described “radical” in another. Voters will want to figure out whether she’s a pragmatist (good), an opportunist (not good) or a phony (doubleplusungood). One way to find out is to insist that she sit down for some serious journalistic interviews and answer a few difficult questions. I can think of some.
Gail: Can’t argue with you about the interviews. Harris isn’t even doing press conferences and that’s just wrong. Hope she’ll make a turn now that she’s the official nominee.
They agree—Candidate Harris should sit for some serious interviews. Stephens says he can think of some questions. Some of those questions are these:
Gail: If you were her questioner, what would you ask?
Bret: In no particular order: If grocery stores, whose profit margins hover between 1 and 3 percent, are price gouging, what do you say about Apple, whose margins are above 25 percent? Do you believe, as you signaled in 2019, that illegal immigrants should be entitled to free health care? Is the phrase “from the river to the sea” antisemitic? Will you use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon? If the record of the Biden-Harris administration is so strong, why do a plurality of Americans describe the current state of the economy as bad or very bad?
Gail: The economy is not bad! But go on.
Bret: What causes inflation? Have you witnessed any instances when President Biden’s mental faculties appeared diminished and were you worried about his ability to serve out a second term? Would you send American military forces to fight for Taiwan if it were attacked by China? Name one liberal position with which you disagree and why. How will a Harris-Walz administration differ in policies from a Biden-Harris one?
Those are very detailed questions. It would take a day-long series of interviews for Candidate Harris to answer them.
Still, some of those questions are very basic. We now mention the unnoticed dog which just keeps forgetting to bark:
When in the world has Candidate Trump ever submitted to serious interviews? When has he ever offered actual answers to any such actual questions?
When has he offered actual answers, not rambling, off-topic filibusters which seem to wander the earth?
When will our high-end journalists insist that Candidate Trump engage in such serious interviews? Is that silly session with Elon Musk somehow supposed to count? How about the candidate's sessions with Hannity—the sessions in which the Fox News star tries to get the candidate to repeat the right answers?
When will Candidate Trump engage in serious interviews? By now, Trump's extremely peculiar conduct has been normalized to such an extent that this obvious question pretty much never gets asked.
Journalist Stephens is center right. Journalist Collins is center left.
When will Trump submit to serious interviews? It should have fallen to Collins to ask. But what a surprise—she didn't!
When will Candidate Trump face actual questions—with the requirement that he provide actual answers?
It may be the world's most obvious question. Thanks to the normalization of madness, it's the question which never gets asked!
Answer:
ReplyDeleteThose corporate tax breaks aren't going to pass themselves.
Somerby refers to "journalist Stephens" when he has quoted an opinion piece, an editorial, not a piece of reporting. Somerby routinely conflates clearly labeled opinion with news reporting, failing to distinguish the different purposes of these two forms. One is to convince while the other is to inform. Stephens is a Republican and he has his own world view and opinions which he is working to convince readers to share. He is an editorial writer with opinions, not a journalist whose goal is to share facts and information.
ReplyDelete"Bret: The problem with Harris is that she’s a political chameleon—a tough-on-crime prosecutor in one phase of her career, a self-described “radical” in another. Voters will want to figure out whether she’s a pragmatist (good), an opportunist (not good) or a phony (doubleplusungood). One way to find out is to insist that she sit down for some serious journalistic interviews and answer a few difficult questions. I can think of some."
This ugly description of Harris comes straight from the right wing. Harris is not a chameleon, not a phony, not an opportunist. She has a long career in public service as a prosecutor followed by a term as a US Senator representing the people of CA and a term as Vice President in a highly successful administration. It is grossly unfair and inaccurate to apply Stephens' language to Harris after her lengthy service. During that time, her accomplishments have been obvious and her positions are well known. She would not have been chosen to be Biden's VP had her ideas not neen compatible with his own.
Somerby's pretense that she is hiding something from the people is ridiculous, but it echoes Stephens and other right wing talking points about Biden/Harris being puppets of Obama or Soros or some Communist cabal. It is an insult to Harris to characterize her this way, using Republican words to do so. This is why Somerby's claim that he will be voting for Harris seems specious and itself a ruse to convince readers that he shares Democfatic views when he plainly does not.
Harris is conducting her campaign in the same manner as all normal candidates (Trump excluded). There is no reason to be suggesting this stuff about her, other than sexism and animosity towards her candidacy. Somerby is the liar here, about his own motives and beliefs when he repeats Stephens' attack on Harris.
I am voting for Harris with full confidence in her ability and support for her policies and goals -- which are largely to support American families and enable all of us to prosper. I hope you will vote for her too.
Opinion writing is journalism, too.
DeleteNo, opinion writing is clearly labeled as opinion because it is not journalism. Journalism conveys information via reporting. Opinion is commentary, analysis, reaction to news, sharing of ideas. There is no presumption of truth for opinion, as there is with reporting.
DeleteHere is the Wikipedia definition of journalism:
"Journalism is the production and distribution of reports on the interaction of events, facts, ideas, and people that are the "news of the day" and that informs society to at least some degree of accuracy."
Newspapers include editorials and opinion pieces but they are not news simply because they appear in a newspaper, any more than comics are news.
Opinion writing is journalism.
DeleteOpinion writing is writing. Some of it is propaganda and disinformation. Are those journalism?
DeleteI don't know how someone reads this post and their take away is this:
Delete"Somerby's pretense that she is hiding something from the people is ridiculous, but it echoes Stephens and other right wing talking points about Biden/Harris being puppets of Obama or Soros or some Communist cabal. It is an insult to Harris to characterize her this way, using Republican words to do so. This is why Somerby's claim that he will be voting for Harris seems specious and itself a ruse to convince readers that he shares Democfatic views when he plainly does not."
Accusing Somerby of being someone who would vote for a Republican for public office is a low bow.
DeleteI hope Bob sues them for libel.
He would have to show that he voted for Biden and not Trump in 2020 (when he told us he was for Biden and then did the same critical hit piece on him). Truth is the defense against libel. I don't think he can do that.
DeleteI don't know how anyone witnesses the many interviews of Trump and their takeaway is this:
Delete"When will Candidate Trump face actual questions—with the requirement that he provide actual answers?
It may be the world's most obvious question. Thanks to the normalization of madness, it's the question which never gets asked!"
Where are the articles from the left condoning any of Trump's crazy behavior? We aren't overlooking it either -- there is video every day of his crazy statements, labeling them as crazy. Somerby's belief that the left is normalizing Trump is itself crazy.
Why would Somerby be aiming his questions at Harris if he believes she should have some time to prepare her campaign? That makes no sense.
@2:12 You are being excessively literal when reading Somerby.
Deletedef. Excessively literal: to comprehend the plain meaning of a text or other writing.
Deleteas if
DeleteThe anonymouse says that opinion writing is “…commentary, analysis, reaction to news, sharing of ideas. There is no presumption of truth for opinion, as there is with reporting.”
DeleteHowever, the anonymouse finds all these things objectionable unless the commentator sounds like a paid political party hack. Any variation from “team spirit” and partisan talking points is tantamount to bad faith/heresy. Anonymices don’t respect any thing less than total militant, servile ideological and political obeisance.
That isn’t true at all.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:39pm, yes it is true. You don’t tolerate an iota of talk that is anything less than glowing as to your dear leaders. You immediately slander Bob as being a complete fraud when he says anything off your script.
DeleteIt was an absolute hoot to see the DNC leadership finagle Biden off the ticket and then to watch anonymices instantly stop complaining and fall in line behind Harris as though it had all been your idea after it was done.
@5:08 - What do you call the drivel in the Times' Rich Lowrey column today?
DeleteGarth Daniel, I didn’t read it.
DeleteCecelia, it was anonymous commenters here who called Biden’s removal undemocratic.
DeleteAnonymouse 10:45pm, you didn’t call Biden’s removal undemocratic (as though you’d call Pelosi and company that), you called it unnecessary and based upon a media/Republician narrative that the DNC should fight rather than fear. .
DeleteDouble post from me screwing up the name arrow when trying to fix a typo.
DeleteNo, I said it was undemocratic. I am fine with Harris but what they did to Biden was wrong and I said so. You tell lies about the anonymous commenters.
DeleteThere has never been a time in the almost 250-year history of the USA, that the media cared at all about the age and/ or the cognitive decline of Presidential candidates.
DeleteKamala is cognitive.
ReplyDeleteNo one can force a crazy person (unable to focus and direct his own thoughts) to give answers to questions when he does not know those answers and cannot think clearly enough to articulate a coherent viewpoint. We already have plenty of evidence that Trump is unfit for office and incapable of thinking well enough to do the job (or any job, most likely).
ReplyDeleteSomerby cannot have this both ways. He has claimed that Trump is mentally ill, but then he demands that trump be treated like a normal person and "required" to answer questions after he has shown that he cannot do so.
Remember the debate? While Biden was having his difficulties, so was Trump. Trump ignored the questions in order to ramble on his own chosen topics, failing to respond to the direct questions repeated by the moderators, over and over. He several times talked after his mic was turned off (because his time had elapsed) and he lied constantly. That is not the performance of someone capable of conforming his behavior to any format.
Trump has also botched several interviews after the debate, including favorable ones on Fox News, where he was ultimately cut off because he wouldn't respect their time limits and was not responding to questions.
But Somerby thinks this guy should be given yet another chance to explain his platform, when he won't follow his own staff's directives about staying on topic at his rallies? Harris is normal and Trump is not. Harris has been explaining her policies. Trump has never done so.
Today's essay is ridiculous. Trump is not being held to the same standard as Harris in any respect and Somerby's suggestion that he be interviewed yet again, ignores everything that has already happened. That is unfair but also shows Somerby's bias. Harris is not the candidate with the information problem. Somerby's response is to pretend Trump is normal, coherent, that he has a platform, and suggest that Harris has been deficient. Anyone can see how unfair this is to Harris and how sexist this double standard is.
I don't think Somerby thinks Trump is "normal, coherent, that he has a platform..." or that his suggestion to interview Trump and force coherent answers is real. I think he is simply agreeing with you that there is a double standard...
DeleteHere is Somerby's conclusion:
Delete"When will Trump submit to serious interviews? It should have fallen to Collins to ask. But what a surprise—she didn't!
When will Candidate Trump face actual questions—with the requirement that he provide actual answers?
It may be the world's most obvious question. Thanks to the normalization of madness, it's the question which never gets asked!"
Note that he blames the Democrat but not the Republican for not asking. Meanwhile Somerby, who claims to be liberal is the one asking for Harris to be interviewed but he is NOT blaming Stephens for not asking for Trump to be interviewed. Does anyone really think Harris will NOT be interviewed during her campaign?
The only people normalizing madness are the Republican MAGA Trump supporters. Even some Republicans are no longer enabling his behavior despite having to bow to him out of fear for their careers. WE are not normalizing Trump, Collins is NOT normalizing him. The press is not normalizing Trump. Those who want the power and financial gain Trump embodies are supporting him and overlooking his deterioration out of their own self-interest. Democrats don't gain anything from Trump. This is 100% a Republican problem and NOT something the mainstream legacy press has created or supported.
No one can make Trump do anything he doesn't want to do, except the courts, but they are acting slowly and undermined by their own corruption.
Why does Somerby not discuss the real problem with Trump -- he has too much power and he hurts people with it. He represents a problem with billionaires in general (are Thiel and Musk any better?) and corruption in government (Clarence Thomas, George Santos, MTG, Gaetz, and so many others). When is Somerby going to start talking about the real world and telling the truth?
This is another attack on Harris and a defense of Trump (who has so unfairly been denied the chance to engage in interviews where they ask questions).
Anonymouse 2:45pm says “Somerby cannot have this both ways. He has claimed that Trump is mentally ill, but then he demands that trump be treated like a normal person and "required" to answer questions after he has shown that he cannot do so.”
DeleteThat’s Somerby’s point, Einstein. Bob wants Trump talking and he wants the media commenting on how crazy he thinks that Trump sounds. On the other hand, you have spent years objecting to that notion for no other reason than Bob advocates it.
Bob thinks that by not doing this the media have mainstreamed Trump’s disorders and completely waved away any expectations that Trump should sound coherent, informed, and “cognitive”.
I don’t completely share Somerby’s assessment of Trump, but I do think that had the media pressed this to the point that Bob thinks is necessary, perhaps we’d see a Trump that was less media personality and more presidential. I don’t think it would change large masses of his supporters, but it would be the right thing for the media to have done rather than their leaving it to the lawfare and political machinations of Trump’s powerful critics.
Anonymices talk about discussion and analysis, but they try and shut down such things with a vengeance, when it is off their TDH political operational script.
I don’t see anonymous comments trying to shut down discussion (except over Israel). I see you and PP and AC/ MA trying to stifle dissent.
DeleteThe media has already been calling Trump demented. It hasn’t made him presidential at all. What you call “lawfare” is Trump being prosecuted for his crimes, as anyone else would be.
DeleteAnonymouse 9:38pm, interesting. Which media member is calling Trump crazy? Rather than “weird”.
DeleteIf Trump loses, you’ll see the legal cases fall away like water on Gor-Tex.
Anonymouse 9:35pm, it’s not stifling dissent to defend Bob against anonymouse accusations that he’s lying about being a liberal and that he’s a Harris supporter.
DeleteThat’s not a difference over political policy, it’s anonymouse slander.
When Bret Stephens snaps his fingers, Somerby barks.
DeleteLeo, on the contrary when any farmhand puts a toe out of your cornfield, you bite.
Delete“ If Trump loses, you’ll see the legal cases fall away”
DeleteThis will not happen. He will be held accountable. They aren’t political ploys.
I don’t know anyone who intends to vote for Trump.
ReplyDeleteI know quite a few people who intend to vote for Trump (I am not one of them). They are out there and they are angry and motivated. Don't count the man out, that's what they did in 2016 and look how that turned out.
Delete2:17,
DeleteMy condolences.
And here is how Democrats have felt, as expressed by Yastreblansky at Rectification of Names blog:
Delete"So my political idea, at long last, is that there must be parallel processes in social organizations, instances of group trauma, and that Trump's 2016 victory really was a traumatic event for all, us Democrats, a blow from which we struggled to recover, with a host of theories, more than one of them no doubt correct, as to what went wrong (for me, the FBI's public revival of the State Department emails scandal was a genuine abuse, and so was the Wikileaks treatment of the Podesta emails, plus the suppression of such facts as were already known about Trump's Russia involvement, and the total media failure on Trump's $25-million Trump University fraud, but I'm sure there's more), stomped into our hearts by the failures of the Flynn trial, the Mueller investigation, and the first Trump impeachment.
They could break laws they felt like breaking, and there wasn't a thing we could do about it! They could fail repeatedly to break the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection, with their "Muslim ban" proposals, but eventually the Supreme Court would just give in (with a rule that ensured it was only against impoverished Muslims, not Muslims in general). They could treat asylum applicants as criminals, tearing their families apart and parking them in concentration camps. Trump could freely siphon government cash into his businesses, and nobody could do anything about it; he could take much larger sums from from foreign governments with huge interests in influencing US policy, and nobody would say anything. Nobody was in a position to stop him! The Supreme Court wasn't even interested in trying! All those promises in the Federalist papers on how our brilliant Constitution was designed to save us from tyranny turned out to be lies!
And then we won the 2020 election, and it didn't even feel good, poisoned by Trump's rejection of the results and attempts to overturn them, even though they didn't work, and the catastrophic situation we found ourselves in, largely because of his government's mismanagement. That, I think, was the second moment, the beginning of the afterwardsness, in which we began to experience the PTSD symptoms. The souring of America, as I called it last year, in which nothing gave us any satisfaction."
He continues describing how the nomination of Harris has led us out of that condition into a state of enthusiasm and yes, joy.
https://yastreblyansky.blogspot.com/2024/08/joe-did-what-post-trumpatic-stress.html#more
The Republican Trumpies may feel angry about their candidate's loss but so are the Democrats and we are going to win again in 2024. I do not feel the least bit sorry for assholes who think they are justified in breaking laws, colluding with foreign governments and engaging in violence because Trump needs to win. That isn't how elections work in our country.
Yastreblansky at Rectification of Names is a great writer.
DeleteYastreblansky has said what we all knew. Anonymices are victims of unresolved trauma.
DeleteIn fact, they eat unresolved trauma (along with some angst) with every meal.
Ha ha ha ha, Trump's illegal behavior is so funny!
DeleteAnonymouse 5:38pm, trauma.
DeleteDonald Trump is the Hunter Biden of Presidential candidates.
DeleteFrom Robert Reich:
ReplyDelete"Sometimes the pettiest of disagreements between political campaigns can reveal a world of difference in the candidates.
Consider the current disagreement over the rules of the September 17 debate, particularly whether the candidates’ microphones will be muted when it’s not their turn to speak.
You might suppose team Trump would want the mics unmuted and Harris would want them muted.
But you’d be wrong. It’s just the opposite.
Harris’s team wants the mics unmuted when it’s Harris’s turn to speak because they want the television audience to see and hear Trump out of control, as he was in his 2020 debate with Joe Biden when Biden finally told him to “just shut up.”
Harris’s team thinks Trump will be even be more out control when confronted with Harris, and she’ll be even more effective than Biden in shutting Trump down.
Which, apparently, is also the thinking of team Trump — and why they want him muted when it’s Harris’s turn to speak."
Recall that Somerby argued that Trump did not try to talk over his muted mic during the Biden debate, when it was obvious on video that he had continued talking beyond his alotted time. Somerby claimed that was a lie, when it was easily verified by watching the debate video. (Somerby also said that Trump had not "stalked" Hillary during their debate, as she and viewers had claimed.)
If Somerby is going to deny Trump's misbehavior it is difficult to discuss whether Trump has explained his own policies clearly at any point, much less whether he has addressed interviewer questions. But when Trump's own staff are frustrated by his failure to campaign effectively, perhaps Somerby's defense of Trump will be less credible.
And if Somerby cannot see what Trump is plainly doing during his interviews and debate, how can he be trusted to evaluate whether Harris has been responsive to interview questions? Most Democrats are happy with her campaign statements and interviews -- it is the Republicans who are not. Oddly, Somerby claims to be liberal and yet he is joining the Republicans in his complaints about Harris. What's up with that?
I don't think somerby was complaining about Harris and not doing interviews. In fact, I think he said that she should be given leeway since she just recently became the candidate and in a rather unusual way. At the same time, he's not wrong that the party candidate should at least have a platform posted to her website. Again, maybe it is just taking some time given the way she was thrust into the position...
DeleteHarris should post all the big-government programs she is proposing to help the citizens of the USA, and that it'll all be paid for by Mexico.
DeleteThat should satisfy journalist Stephens.
2:24,
Deletethis is your first warning. Reasonableness is not tolerated here. Please show less of it in future comments or you will be 'fan-boyed'.
You can find info about Harris's plans for her administration here:
Deletehttps://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/50369-kamala-harris-economic-platform-resonates-across-party-lines
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/19/harris-2024-platform-democratic-national-convention
"An 87-year-old Texas woman who complained about local seniors not being sent mail-in ballots had her house raided by officers for the state's election integrity unit.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times reported that Lidia Martinez, a retired educator who lives in San Antonio, was shocked last week when officers came to her house at 6 a.m. and informed her that they were searching her residence because she had filed a complaint about residents in her area getting their mail-in ballots.
Martinez says she's spent decades volunteering with the League of United Latin American Citizens to help seniors in the Latino community register themselves to vote.
“I go to a lot of senior events; I explain to them what they have to do,” she told the Times. “I’ve been involved in politics all of my life.”
The officers at her house asked to see the voter registration cards that she had collected. After informing them that she didn't have them at her house, they proceeded to search the property and left with her laptop, her phone and some documents.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton defended the raid as part of an election integrity investigation.
However, leaders with LULAC are demanding answers to what they say is a baseless raid on Martinez and other members of their organization.
In fact, notes the Times, LULAC is asking the United States Department of Justice to intervene and conduct a civil rights probe into the Texas government's actions."
-----------------
This kind of thing will get worse if Trump is elected. It won't just be Mexican Americans who are targeted, but Democrats and anyone engaged in community service or activism that Republicans dislike. This is how all of our freedoms are endangered. Trump will encourage abuse of power at lower levels of government and we will all feel the shadow of these abuses, not just our Mexican American neighbors.
This is what they do. The less people who vote the better change the republican bastard have of winning.
DeleteI posted this the other day and no one even commented:
Trump campaign sues Michigan Gov. Whitmer over new voter registration sites
The suit contends the Democratic governor and secretary state are improperly using some federal offices as voter registration sites.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-campaign-sues-michigan-gov-whitmer-new-voter-registration-sites-rcna161964
We're talking about registering voters. That is it. Just registering voters and the trumplicans are suing to stop it.
They hate us for our freedom.
DeleteThey lose when we are free to vote. They know that, so they fight dirty, break rules and laws, cheat in order to win elections they cannot win fairly. Somerby should be talking about that, but he is too busy enabling the double standard by normalizing election cheating by the right wing.
Delete@2:37
DeleteA similar suit was filed by Republicans in Arizona today.
I wrote a lengthy comment about this and it is now disappeared.
Delete@3:52
DeleteI see other commenters blaming this glitch on Our Host. I rather suspect it's a bug in blogspot.
It'll fix itself. Like cimate change.
DeleteIf you're going to write a long comment, compose it in a text app, then copy it to the blog. If it disappears, you still have your original.
Deletethx for the suggestion!
DeleteQiB:
DeleteArizona is the bell cow for frivolous election-fraud lawsuits. Hoping one or more will stick is the GOP's only chance of keeping it from turning blue. For Texas, however, it's all about aggregation of power and racism.
A winning strategy for Democrats: let Trump talk as much as possible.
ReplyDelete"When will Candidate Trump engage in serious interviews?"
ReplyDeleteTrump has sat for just such an interview--July 31 at the convention of the National Association of Black Journalists.
He performed badly.
So badly that his handlers led him out the door early.
Delete"Kamala Harris Has Left the Building"
ReplyDeleteThis is a horrible headline, obviously hostile to Harris. It comes from when Elvis would give a concert and afterward they would announce "Elvis has left the building" in order to shut down the calls for another encore. The phrase was used nostagically after Elvis died, because he was truly gone.
Kamala Harris has not left any building and she is not going anywhere. The idea that she should respond to applause by coming back on stage to give a detailed explanation of her policy and programs is ludicrous. She is not refusing to explain but is working on her campaign, taking the time she needs to do so. She has already released an economic policy and there exists a Democratic platform adopted at the convention last week.
But the connotations of using a phrase applied to a dead man to describe Harris are in extremely poor taste. That reveals the bias of the NY Times and it is grossly unfair to Harris, who did not create the situation she is in.
Somerby should have said so, before rushing to agree with the Republican attack on her while pretending some pseudo-sympathy and offering no defense.
There is no point in writing comments if Somerby is going to take down the ones he doesn't want to appear.
ReplyDeleteAnonymouse 3;54pm, yes, absolutely . That’ll show him.
DeleteThere’s no point in writing comments even if Bob lets them stay.
DeleteI don’t think BS questions are that good. Nobody said anything about supermarkets engaging in gouging, the healthcare is a gotcha question, from river to sea can indeed be used in an antisemitic manner. (If an undocumented immigrant shows up with broken bones from his job, are we not going to treat him). The Biden questions are not direct questions and/or irrelevant and are meant to be divisive; and foreign policy questions are complex without yes or no answers. If anything this shows why KH should not sit down with the NYT.
ReplyDeleteKamala could let journalists submit written questions. If she thinks any are worthwhile, she can send written replies.
ReplyDeleteRFK Jr is a curious guy:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.newsweek.com/rfk-jr-decapitated-dead-whale-chainsaw-1944219
He should've become a biologist.
DeleteHe should have studied the biology of vaccines.
DeleteAnother day in Trumpistan:
ReplyDeleteThe former president also suggested he would “fire” officials involved with the Afghanistan withdrawal in 2021 “like The Apprentice”; floated the idea of a “Space National Guard” to serve as the Space Force’s “primary combat reserve”; and repeated false claims that the US military is “out of ammunition.”
Americans can take comfort knowing that Kamala Harris launched her political career while sleeping with a powerful mayor 30 years her senior. This shows good judgement and wisdom on her part and proves she isn't crazy.
ReplyDeleteAnd Trump launched his with birthirism, a racist based lie. And the Trump family began their real estate ventures in Queens, New York, fraudulently raising rents on low income housing tenants. And that, of course, was only the beginning.
Delete2:36, yeah, we're not voting for an altar girl, we need someone competent to do the job, ok trollboy?
DeleteExactly! Americans, burdened by record debt and struggling to keep up, can take succor in the fact that Kamala Harris launched her political career by having an affair with a powerful mayor 30 years her senior. She later mounted an embarrassingly short-lived presidential campaign that failed to gain any traction with voters and ended in financial ruin amid accusations of incompetence. Despite this, she went on to become the most unpopular vice president in history and is now the presumptive nominee for president—without ever winning one vote, participating in any debates, or giving any interviews. How thankful we all are to the DNC for looking out for us. ;)
DeleteWait. Competent? Competent. That's an interesting and quite original description of Mrs. Harris. I never heard that one before. Competent. Hmnnn.
DeleteThat's interesting. "Competent". We needed someone competent to the job. And Kamala Harris was the person that came to mind?? Her vice-presidency was full of accusation on incompetency, was it not?
Deletehttps://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/30/kamala-harris-office-dissent-497290
DeleteThis describes her overseeing a dysfunctional, incompetent mess.
And because Trump is bad we're all supposed to be happy and proud that the DNC has bestowed upon us someone who is an obvious lightweight mess? We're supposed to get all excited about that?
DeleteI am long past the point where I would ever get "excited" over any politician. You might need to grow up.
DeleteI am very happy with the job Biden did to restore the economy from the dumpster fire trump left us in as he sulked out of town with boxes of our public documents stashed away.
I look forward to Harris replacing Clarence Thomas and Alito with progressive voices who aren't fucking bitter nasty reactionary hacks. What exactly is your problem, dingleberry?
That we had no choice in who we elect for president and that the person who was chosen for us is a lightweight that might lose. And that you're a dick.
DeleteYou're damn right we had no choice. Biden was going down in flames. Any other path would have doomed the party to divisive chaos with little time remaining. That's fucking life, big boy. You want a blankie?
DeleteWe have a fucking choice now.
The media couldn't care less about the age and/ or the cognitive decline of Presidential candidates. They've been that way forever.
DeleteWe wouldn't have been stuck with Biden going down in flames if the DNC hadn't prevented a primary and banned all debates last year. Dumb dickhead.
DeleteThe Democratic Party was hoping Biden would, again, crush Trump so bad in the Presidential election that no one could question the results.
DeleteIt looks like Harris will have to do it this time.
10:11, how often does a party with the incumbent challenge him for the 2nd term? seriously. Fuck your debates, they're stupid and don't mean jack shit. Trump didn't participate in a single one this year. Jackass, you think there is some politburo committee in the DNC that decides these things? You're such a child.
Delete