Kamala Harris Defends Policy Stance in Heated Fox News Interview

[Hanaguma]

10 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

Jill Biden will be sharpening her claws no matter what occurs. 

I have a feeling that the Bidens are secretly hoping for a Harris loss.  What better vindication for Joe than for Kamala to lose? He can say, "look man, if I were the candidate we woulda won!".  But if Harris wins that makes replacing Joe look like brilliant strategy. 

[theblether]

Trump at the Al Smith dinner "Harris has a childcare plan, I hope she keeps Doug away from the nannies" 

 

Hilarious.

[theblether]

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

I have a feeling that the Bidens are secretly hoping for a Harris loss.  What better vindication for Joe than for Kamala to lose? He can say, "look man, if I were the candidate we woulda won!".  But if Harris wins that makes replacing Joe look like brilliant strategy. 

 

I think it's safe to say that Jill Biden will unleash if this ends with a Trump victory. And woe betide anyone that gets in her way. 

[dinsdale]

2 minutes 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

 

 

Implosion is immanent. Bunch of woke, brainless idiots employed under DEI.

[Hanaguma]

3 minutes ago, theblether said:

Trump at the Al Smith dinner "Harris has a childcare plan, I hope she keeps Doug away from the nannies" 

 

Hilarious.

Yeah, he was on fire. His shots at Schumer and Walz were pretty harsh! Not to mention the "white guys for Harris"...

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Alaska. 

 

Really? Most oil companies shun Alaska. Very expensive to drill there.

 

Even when the Trump administration offered up ANWR land on a platter with a lease sale late into its term, few companies bothered to show.

https://www.vox.com/climate/23863150/biden-arctic-drilling-big-oil

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I have a feeling that the Bidens are secretly hoping for a Harris loss.  What better vindication for Joe than for Kamala to lose? He can say, "look man, if I were the candidate we woulda won!".  But if Harris wins that makes replacing Joe look like brilliant strategy. 

More mindreading. Such a difficult thing to fake.

[Eric Loh]

8 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

So, did you actuallly read the transcript I provided?   And check whether or not your six assertions were valid or merely the fevered dreams of a member of Team Harris.

She got the better of me and she got what she wanted. That’s Baier own assertions of the interview. Being on Team MAGA has made you lose sight of reality. 
https://www.yahoo.com/news/even-fox-news-bret-baier-134325219.html

[dinsdale]

 

 

 

[Eric Loh]

6 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Yeah, he was on fire. His shots at Schumer and Walz were pretty harsh! Not to mention the "white guys for Harris"...

You really condone such foul language at a Catholic Church Event with the. Cardinal seating next to him? Seriously you too have lost your morality compass.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-spews-profanity-and-bizarre-insults-at-catholic-al-smith-charity-dinner/

[Hanaguma]

6 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You really condone such foul language at a Catholic Church Event with the. Cardinal seating next to him? Seriously you too have lost your morality compass.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-spews-profanity-and-bizarre-insults-at-catholic-al-smith-charity-dinner/

The Cardinal was probably laughing the hardest!  Priests can be rather earthy.

[Yagoda]

16 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Yeah, he was on fire. His shots at Schumer and Walz were pretty harsh! Not to mention the "white guys for Harris"...

Schumer sat there like a dude who just found out she was a tranny

 

[Yagoda]

17 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Really? Most oil companies shun Alaska. Very expensive to drill there.

 

Even when the Trump administration offered up ANWR land on a platter with a lease sale late into its term, few companies bothered to show.

https://www.vox.com/climate/23863150/biden-arctic-drilling-big-oil

How would you know have you ever been there?

[billd766]

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Fair enough too - either way it goes, I will be with you on doing that.

A man keeps his word and does not renege on a deal. 

Like Trump and his "60 Minutes" deal that he pulled out of?

 

Perhaps being fact checked on live TV is enough to pull out of a deal.

 

After all to quote your post, "A man keeps his word and does not renege on a deal".

 

So why did Trump pull out of the "60 Minutes" program?

[theblether]

11 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You really condone such foul language at a Catholic Church Event with the. Cardinal seating next to him? Seriously you too have lost your morality compass.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-spews-profanity-and-bizarre-insults-at-catholic-al-smith-charity-dinner/

 

Oh be quiet you sanctimonious crow. 

 

 

[dinsdale]

9 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

You really condone such foul language at a Catholic Church Event with the. Cardinal seating next to him? Seriously you too have lost your morality compass.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-spews-profanity-and-bizarre-insults-at-catholic-al-smith-charity-dinner/

The Catholic Church has been guiltier of far fouler things than a bit of, let's face it, a bit  of very mild adult humour. 

[placeholder]

Just now, Yagoda said:

How would you know have you ever been there?

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.

[theblether]

Just now, billd766 said:

Like Trump and his "60 Minutes" deal that he pulled out of?

 

Perhaps being fact checked on live TV is enough to pull out of a deal.

 

After all to quote your post, "A man keeps his word and does not renege on a deal".

 

So why did Trump pull out of the "60 Minutes" program?

 

60 Minutes - the laptop deniers? 

 

Give it a rest. 

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

The Cardinal was probably laughing the hardest!  Priests can be rather earthy.

 "...probably"? Really? More B.S. from you.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

60 Minutes - the laptop deniers? 

 

Give it a rest. 

What don't you understand about the fact that Trump accepted the invitation. 

[dinsdale]

Politically there's no need for 60 minutes for Trump. He's done enough interviews and the Dems are in trouble.  I'm sure this is what his advisers would be saying. 

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

Politically there's no need for 60 minutes for Trump. He's done enough interviews and the Dems are in trouble.  I'm sure this is what his advisers would be saying. 

Probably a wise move for him. Just as backing out of a second debate with Harris was. Not helpfu to his cause to display his lunacy again.

[Eric Loh]

16 minutes ago, theblether said:

 

Oh be quiet you sanctimonious crow. 

 

 

Morality is not you strong suit when you roll with Trump, the faux Christian. 

[dinsdale]

10 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Probably a wise move for him. Just as backing out of a second debate with Harris was. Not helpfu to his cause to display his lunacy again.

He didn't back out of a 2nd debate with Harris. Check your knowledge of terms. To back out of something means you have already agreed to do something. No such 2nd debate was agreed upon. As for 60 minutes he declined the interview. Maybe for some reason he doesn't trust CBS after their editing of Harris' nonsensical answer on Iran.

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

He didn't back out of a 2nd debate with Harris. Check your knowledge of terms. To back out of something means you have already agreed to do something. No such 2nd debate was agreed upon. As for 60 minutes he declined the interview. Maybe for some reason he doesn't trust CBS after their editing of Harris' nonsensical answer on Iran.

You're correct. He didn't back out of the interview. But he was too chicken to agree to another one. Given his insane rants during the first debate, it was a wise choice. The thing is his 60 minute interviews was scheduled to be held before Harris's. So he mistrusted the editing before the interview occurred?

[dinsdale]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

You're correct. He didn't back out of the interview. But he was too chicken to agree to another one. Given his insane rants during the first debate, it was a wise choice. The thing is his 60 minute interviews was scheduled to be held before Harris's. So he mistrusted the editing before the interview occurred?

Yes you are correct about the 60 minute interview. I was just thinking about that timeline. Trump's camp said no firm commitment was made but I don't believe that. Seems like the October thing is a tradition.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

If anything shows how massively out of touch you are with reality, it's the comment of yours I've quoted above. Here is same genuine information about the oil and gas industry. Both oil and gas production rose to record levels.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61545#:~:text=Crude oil production in the,than 13.3 million b%2Fd.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/265331/natural-gas-production-in-the-us/

 

 

 

Yet still significantly less than what I think was projected if Trump had been reelected. 

[LosLobo]

5 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

1. She discussed. Didn't actually detail. 

 

2. I was wrong. She mentioned Trump 24 times. Check the transcript.

 

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/kamala-harris-interview-on-fox-news

 

3. 21:30 mark in the interview. Baier asks about Biden. Harris deflects by saying that Biden is not on the ballot, then deflects again to Trump. Never answers about Biden's mental decline.

 

4. At 16:00 minutes Baier asks about "turning the page". Harris goes straight to "turn the page from Donald Trump's rhetoric". Baier says she has been in office nearly 4 years, she again deflects to Trump.

 

5. Twenty four times.

 

6. First question was "how many illegals have crossed?" She never gave a number, never answered. She deflects to the usual pablum of "we have a broken immigration system....." and ignores the follow up about why her administration immediately reversed all of Trump's executive orders on border security. 

 

Anything else?

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.

[Yellowtail]

The same people talking about how great Harris was, all talked about how Walz creamed Vance and how Biden was sharp as a tack...

[Hanaguma]

1 minute 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.

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.