Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Let’s go point by point:

  1. "She discussed. Didn't actually detail."

    • Wrong. She did. She talked specifics—border security, root causes, healthcare. You just want a soundbite.
  2. "I was wrong. She mentioned Trump 24 times."

    • Counting words isn’t an argument. She referenced Trump for context, contrasting policies. It’s relevant.
  3. "21:30 mark... never answers about Biden's mental decline."

    • Loaded question. She defended his record—valid response. She’s not playing the game of feeding a biased narrative.
  4. "16:00 mark... turns the page on Trump."

    • Exactly the point. She’s differentiating the administration. It’s standard and relevant, especially when the past admin is still influencing the conversation.
  5. "Twenty-four times."

    • Again, context matters. You’re fixated on a number, not substance.
  6. "How many illegals crossed?"

    • Baier’s loaded question is oversimplified. Immigration numbers fluctuate. Harris pointed viewers to DHS for the most up-to-date figures—responsible move. She explained the broader policy changes her administration implemented. She gave the real answer, not a headline for you.

"Anything else?"

  • Yep. Your critique is just biased nitpicking. You’re ignoring context and focusing on word counts. Try engaging with what she actually said.

Asking about when you noticed something (Biden's cognitive decline) means time should be in the answer.

When you're asked to provide a number ( how many immigrants....) a number should be in the answer.

These are not loaded questions. They are straightforward questions that can be answered with straightforward answers. No deflections or non-answers just simple straight forward answers. If you don't know the answer or don't want to say the answer then you deflect and give a non-answer. This is exactly what Harris does. 'How would you tackle inflation?" Straightforward question. "I was born in a middleclass........" Pure deflection. A non-answer.

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Thailand said:

Baier thought she was quite good and caught him out that should count for something?

How do you know what Baier thought? 

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
Just now, Yellowtail said:

How do you know what Baier thought? 

It's on video , you can find it, probably.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Come on - tell us what it will be - go and get it.

Yes i will at dinner time.

Seems unfair as if I lose my, avatar will look like i won!

That being your current election avatar

Edited by earlinclaifornia
Posted
34 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I would LOVE to engage  with what she actually said, if she actually said anything of substance. Most was boilerplate pablum.  Mentioning the other candidate once a minute instead of using that time to introduce a new audience to her own policy proposals was weak.  

She said: Trump Trump Trump, let me finish,  Trump Trump Trump wait a minute Trump Trump Trump I was saying  Trump Trump Trump

  • Haha 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Oh, you meant what he said. 

My earlier post on what he said. Link provided. 

 

"She got the better of me" and "she got what she wanted. That’s Baier own assertions of the interview. 


 

  • Like 1
  • Love It 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Thailand said:

Baier thought she was quite good and caught him out that should count for something?

Yeah, I just watched it:

 

  • Thumbs Up 2
Posted
Just now, Eric Loh said:

My earlier post on what he said. Link provided. 

 

"She got the better of me" and "she got what she wanted. That’s Baier own assertions of the interview. 


 

Right, all out of contest as is typical of the left, as expected, thanks! 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Right, all out of contest as is typical of the left, as expected, thanks! 

😂

Posted
1 hour ago, placeholder said:

And what would going to visit that frozen landscape tell me about whether or not there were few takers for the lease? Or, for that matter, why would you make being there a general criterion fornews stories?  This has got to be one of the most botlike comments I have seen posted in this forum. I don't see how any sentient creature could have come up with this one.

So you don't live in that frozen landscape You've never been there You don't know anything about the oil industry up there and you get your news from a few propaganda arms and then you pontificate and make the world a dumber place

  • Like 1
  • Thumbs Up 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

 

Mark Cuban - lets acknowledge he is as impartial as Hannity.

His comment "she answered all his questions" made me laugh - she responded, but she did not answer one of them.

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Mark Cuban - lets acknowledge he is as impartial as Hannity.

His comment "she answered all his questions" made me laugh - she responded, but she did not answer one of them.

 

 

 

Maybe she needs to learn how to weave....then all will become crystal clear....555

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

The fact that she drew 7.8 million Fox viewers was already a win for her. Fox audiences were  interested to know more about her and listen to her. That is a good sign for her with just 20 days from the election and not so good for Trump. . 

It was a terrible campaign mistake driven by desperate measures needed - they even have Obama out haranguing black men to vote for Kamala as the polls show a lot of them aint gonna vote, and many are switching back to Trump.  The interview confirmed what the GOP supporters thought about her (and more), and the Dems supporters saw it through rose coloured glasses. But most of those still undecided saw it for what it was - a train wreck. IMO she lost a chunk of the white 'female' vote after that interview.  It looks to me like Kamala is causing a lot of white women and black men to not vote this time, and a bunch of them to actually vote for Trump.

 

This is a single term election only - it is a unique election in that there has only been one POTUS who lost Office and then won it back one term later (Cleveland in 1893). Many might not like Trump (he aint 'personable'), but they think Trump for another four years has got to be better than the last 4 years of Biden-Harris. Plus Trump has won over people he lost in 2020, and Kamala has not 'won over' people enough to view her as a suitable person to be POTUS.  

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, theblether said:

20 Harris staffers speak to Politico. This is the Pennsylvania team. Politico are apparently readying "what really happened" at Fox. 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/16/kamala-harris-pennsylvania-campaign-drama-00183844

 

Reading that article, my heart goes out to all those PA Dems who are going to take it in the shorts because they couldn't put lipstick on the pig.  It's not their fault.  But they'll be getting the blame.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

It was a terrible campaign mistake driven by desperate measures needed - they even have Obama out haranguing black men to vote for Kamala as the polls show a lot of them aint gonna vote, and many are switching back to Trump.  The interview confirmed what the GOP supporters thought about her (and more), and the Dems supporters saw it through rose coloured glasses. But most of those still undecided saw it for what it was - a train wreck. IMO she lost a chunk of the white 'female' vote after that interview.  It looks to me like Kamala is causing a lot of white women and black men to not vote this time, and a bunch of them to actually vote for Trump.

 

This is a single term election only - it is a unique election in that there has only been one POTUS who lost Office and then won it back one term later (Cleveland in 1893). Many might not like Trump (he aint 'personable'), but they think Trump for another four years has got to be better than the last 4 years of Biden-Harris. Plus Trump has won over people he lost in 2020, and Kamala has not 'won over' people enough to view her as a suitable person to be POTUS.  

 We Americans will decide in the voting booth, November 5th

 

Edited by earlinclaifornia
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
47 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yeah, I just watched it:

 

She turned up at 5.17, knowing his show started at 6pm, and she gave him only 20 minutes. 

As Brett said - they were clearly trying to 'ice the kicker'. His explanation to Hannity about the illegal immigration issues, completely exposed the lies that she said, and how she deflected and refused to answer his questions. 

 

  • Haha 1
  • Agree 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Topics

  • Latest posts...

    1. 0

      Arrest warrants issued for false reports against Big Joke’s wife

    2. 0

      Thai healthcare tycoon Boon Vanasin flees as fraud charges mount

    3. 0

      EC persists in Thaksin investigation despite court ruling

    4. 0

      Thailand Live Monday 25 November 2024

    5. 180

      K bank E-mail with Tax Forms attached ?

    6. 180

      K bank E-mail with Tax Forms attached ?

    7. 180

      K bank E-mail with Tax Forms attached ?

  • Popular in The Pub


×
×
  • Create New...