Kamala Harris Defends Policy Stance in Heated Fox News Interview

[dinsdale]

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.

[LosLobo]

13 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.  

Let’s cut through the noise:

1. Boilerplate Pablum? Harris discussed real issues—immigration, healthcare, and gun control—clearly outlining her administration's strategies. Dismissing them as 'boilerplate' just shows you’re not engaging with the content.

2. ‘Mentioning the other candidate once a minute’? You call that weak? It’s called context. She’s drawing contrasts, which is crucial in an election. Voters deserve to know the differences in leadership.

3. Introducing her own proposals? She did! If you want a detailed policy plan, look for it instead of nitpicking how often she referenced Trump. Your preference for soundbites over substance is limiting the discussion.

If you really want to engage, listen to the whole interview and consider the points she made rather than just counting mentions. That’s how real discourse happens.

[Thailand]

30 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

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

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

[Yellowtail]

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? 

[Thailand]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

How do you know what Baier thought? 

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

[earlinclaifornia]

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

[Yellowtail]

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

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Thailand said:

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

Oh, you meant what he said. 

[Hanaguma]

4 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Let’s cut through the noise:

1. Boilerplate Pablum? Harris discussed real issues—immigration, healthcare, and gun control—clearly outlining her administration's strategies. Dismissing them as 'boilerplate' just shows you’re not engaging with the content.

2. ‘Mentioning the other candidate once a minute’? You call that weak? It’s called context. She’s drawing contrasts, which is crucial in an election. Voters deserve to know the differences in leadership.

3. Introducing her own proposals? She did! If you want a detailed policy plan, look for it instead of nitpicking how often she referenced Trump. Your preference for soundbites over substance is limiting the discussion.

If you really want to engage, listen to the whole interview and consider the points she made rather than just counting mentions. That’s how real discourse happens.

On the first topic, immigration, she refused to answer the question. She also refused to answer why her administration reversed all of Trump's EOs about border security. She mentioned a bill that could not pass congress, even though the Dems controlled BOTH houses at that time. Then moved on to this years' border bill, which was DOA. Nothing else of substance. And that was 10 minutes' time of the interview.

 

Her first answer on "turn the page"? "I'm not Donald Trump". Second answer? "My presidency will not be a continuation of Joe Biden's presidency".  Well no sh!t darling.  How about fleshing those answers out a bit?

 

Then she talks about the last decade. Well, a decade ago, Obama was president. Over the past 16 years, Democrats have been in power for 12. WTF is she maunering on about?

 

Then the disproven shibboleth about "turning the military on the American people". Utter horse hockey.  Context matters. He was talking about if there was extensive civil unrest after the election. Not having Marines show up at your backyard BBQ if you are a Harris supporter. Totally disingenuous nonsense from the VP. 

 

As soon as Biden's obvious decline is brought up, she does a rapid fire b-b-but Trump, 5 times in 30 seconds. Never talks about her culpability in defenestrating her boss, nor his diminished capacity. 

 

Then, about Iran. Baier says that her administration has relaxed sanctions and allowed Iran to enjoy millions in profits. Her answer, and I quote "But let's go back to Donald Trump..."

 

It was a joke. But hopefully enough people watched and could see how shallow and vacuous she is. Not an original thought in her head.

[Eric Loh]

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. 

 

[Yellowtail]

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:

 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

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

WOW - If Trump can get Pennsylvania again, then it is definitely good night Irene Kamala.

[Yellowtail]

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! 

[Thailand]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

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

😂

[earlinclaifornia]

24 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How do you know what Baier thought? 

Try keeping up

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Try keeping up

 

You first 

[earlinclaifornia]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

You first 

I have posted hours ago the comments he said just a detailed

[earlinclaifornia]

12 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

WOW - If Trump can get Pennsylvania again, then it is definitely good night Irene Kamala.

That’s why I keep you updated daily

I think of it as my ace in the hole

[earlinclaifornia]

18 hours ago, shdmn said:

 

[Yagoda]

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

[Eric Loh]

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. . 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

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.

 

[Will B Good]

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

 

 

 

[earlinclaifornia]

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

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

 

 

 

 He really had a weave going with Bloomberg interview. Why people support him is ludicrous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyaHbUmVll4

 

trump bloomberg interview highlights

 

 

 

[Will B Good]

1 minute ago, earlinclaifornia said:

 He really had a weave going with Bloomberg interview. Why people support him is ludicrous.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyaHbUmVll4

 

trump bloomberg interview highlights

 

 

 

 

 

 

I can only listen to him for 2 minutes then I start to contemplate self-harming.

 

 

 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

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.  

[TroubleandGrumpy]

8 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

 He really had a weave going with Bloomberg interview. Why people support him is ludicrous.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyaHbUmVll4

At least he answered some questions (for over an hour) in the lion's den. And several other Dem aligned MSM channels too.

[impulse]

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.

 

[earlinclaifornia]

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

 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

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.