[For some reason I can’t unembed the previous version of the video that worked this morning…]
I’m still waiting for a transcript, but if you were lucky enough to miss last night’s Kamala Harris Hail Mary interview with Bret Baier on Fox News, that’s the whole thing above. Harris arrived 10 minutes late for the interview and her staff cut it off early, so instead of the promised 30 minute interview with someone more prone to asking genuine questions than, say, The View’s panel of progressive dolts, Harris struggled through less than that. She is literally trying to run out the clock, perhaps a sound strategy when you’re ahead, but a cowardly when you are behind.
Observations:
- Yesterday I opined that Harris has virtually nothing to support her argument for being President other than the irrefutable fact that she isn’t Donald Trump and that women should be able to kill their unborn children at will—and the President has almost no power to assist with the latter. Based on last night’s interview, I was literally correct. I expected Harris to be a little better prepared to issue some substance in the interview; now that I saw it, I don’t know what I was thinking. There literally is no substance to Harris or her candidacy, at least nothing she’s willing or able to express publicly. She really thinks she will get away with this, and that not being that Hitler/dictator/liar/super-villain/monster Trump is enough to win. Fascinating.
- Harris did everything she could to avoid answering questions. constantly shifting to “But Trump…” I assume this was the agreed-upon strategy because she and her party think the American public is stupid and can’t recognize desperate deflection and fakery when it is right in front of their eyes. Maybe they are stupid. We shall see.
- When Baier asked the obvious question about why Harris kept talking about “change” and “turning the page” when she, her party, and the man whose policies she endorsed without exception or reservations on “The View” have been in the metaphorical driver’s seat since 2021, Harris answered,
“Well, first of all, turning the page from the last decade in which we have been burdened with the kind of rhetoric coming from Donald Trump that has been designed and implemented to divide our country…”
Later she elaborated, sort of, saying “Let me be very clear—My presidency will not be a continuation of Joe Biden’s presidency. Like every new President that comes into office I will bring my life experiences, my professional experiences, and fresh and new ideas.”
- Then..
Baier: “[M]ore than 70 percent of people tell the country is on the wrong track. They say the country is on the wrong track. If it’s on the wrong track, that track follows three and a half years of you being Vice President and president Biden being President. That is what they’re saying, 79% of them. Why are they saying that? If you are turning the page, you’ve been in office for three and a half years.”
Harris: “And Donald Trump has been running for office since …
Baier: “But you’ve been the person holding the office!”
Harris: “Come on, come on!”
Baier: “Madam Vice President.”
Harris: “You and I both know what I’m talking about. You and I both know what I’m talking about.”
Baier: “I actually don’t. What are you talking about?”
Harris: “What I’m talking about is that over the last decade, people have become …”
Baier: “But you have the lever of power!”
Harris: “But, listen, over the last decade, it is clear to me and certainly the Republicans who are on stage with me. The former chief of staff to the President, Donald Trump, former defense secretaries, national security adviser and his Vice President, one that he is unfit to serve that he is unstable, that he is dangerous, and that people are exhausted with someone who professes to be a leader who spends full time demeaning and nd engaging in personal grievances and it being about him and…”
Baier: “Madam Vice President.”
Harris: “… instead of the American people. People are tired of that.”
Baier: “If that’s the case why is half the country supporting him? Why is he beating you in a lot of swing states? Why, if he’s as bad as you say that half of this country is now supporting this person who could be the 47th president of the United States? Why is that happening?”
Harris: “This is an election for president of the United States. It’s not supposed to be easy.”
Baier: “I know, but if it’s as…”
Harris: “It’s not supposed to be a cake walk for anyone.”
Baier: “So are they misguided, the 50%? Are they stupid?”
Harris: “Oh, god, I would never say that about the American people. And, in fact, when you listen to Donald Trump, if you watch any of his rallies, he is the one who tends to demean and belittle and diminish the American people. He is the one who talks about an enemy within — within — an enemy within — talking about the American people, suggesting he would turn the American military on the American people.”
- Here’s another glaring example of how all Harris could do was deflect to Trump rather than discuss her own positions:
Baier: “So, are you still in support of using taxpayer dollars to help prison inmates to detained illegal aliens on inmates to transgender?
Harris: “I will follow a law and it’s a law that Donald Trump actually followed. You’re probably familiar with — now it’s a public report that under Donald Trump’s administration, these surgeries were available to on a medical necessity basis to people in the federal prison system and I think, frankly, that ad from the Trump campaign is a little bit of, like, throwing, you know, stones when you’re living in a glass house.”
Baier: “The Trump aides say he never advocated for that prison policy and no gender transition surgeries happened during his…”
Harris: Well, you know what? You gotta take responsible for what happened in your administration.
Baier: “He had no surgeries happened in his presidency.”
Harris: “It’s in black and white.”
Baier: “So, would you still advocate for using taxpayer dollars for gender reassignment surgeries?”
Harris: “I will follow the law, just as I…”
Baier: “But you have a say in…”
Harris: “I think Donald Trump would say he did.”
Baier: “You would have a say as president.”
Harris: “Like I said, I think he spent $20 million on those ads trying to create a sense of fear in the voters because he actually has no plan in this election that is about focusing on the needs of the American people whereas a $20 million on that ad on an issue that, as it relates to the biggest issue that effect the American people, it’s really quite remote and, again, his policy was no different. Look at where we are though.”
Oh.
- This was Harris’s “But Trump!” deflection when Baier asked when it was that she began to figure out that President Biden was losing marbles at a rapid rate, and why she kept insisting he was as sharp as ever:
“Joe Biden I have watched from the Oval Office to the Situation Room, and he has the judgment and the experience to do exactly what he has done in making very important decisions on behalf of the American people. Brett, Joe Biden’s not on the ballot, and Donald Trump is … I think the American people have a concern about Donald Trump.”
- I would like to read or hear the reasoning by a Democrat zombie that Harris was effective in this interview. I ban commenters on Ethics Alarms who argue like she did.
- Nah, there’s no mainstream media bias (or coordination of the news media through Axis High Command)! The memo went out that the official spin to be put on this debacle is that Harris showed she was strong and combative. The official word-of-the- day was “feisty” which—I’m sure it was a coincidence—shows up again and again. Baier, naturally, is being criticized for being “rude” by trying to get Harris to answer his questions. “Kamala Harris Arrived for a Fox Interview. She Got a Debate,” whined the Times, as if the mainstream media hacks haven’t treated every interview with Trump or Vance as an adversarial encounter.
- Over at Alhouse’s place, the supposedly “fiercely” objective blogger’s reaction to the interview was “I’ve been waiting for Harris to do a tough, challenging interview, and it was painful to watch the deflection and evasion. The main defense seemed to be to make Bret Baier look bad because he interrupted. Terrible.” In the almost 200 comments to her post so far, only “Inga,” the Democrat troll that Althouse tolerates for some reason, was anything but disgusted with Harris’s performance. Inga wrote in part, “Harris did an excellent job. Much much much better than Trump if he were to have been interviewed by Rachel Maddow or someone on MSNBC or CNN, that’s why he is chickenshit to face a tough interviewer.”
How deluded or dishonest must someone be to call Harris’s performance “an excellent job”?
- Baier is getting criticized by Trump supporters because he didn’t ask other questions, such as grilling Harris about the FBI report just released that showed a much higher murder rate in the U.S. under Biden than had been reported before. If Harris had submitted to an hour-ling interview as she should have, Baier would have been able to ask more questions.
ADDED…
Harris had some gall going on about Trump’s “enemy within” quote, which she and others, including the New York Times, mischaracterized. Here’s the Times [I think all Harris did is read the Times piece and adopted its spin.]
With three weeks left before Election Day, former President Donald J. Trump is pushing to the forefront of his campaign a menacing political threat: that he would use the power of the presidency to crush those who disagree with him.
In a Fox News interview on Sunday, Mr. Trump framed Democrats as a pernicious “enemy from within” that would cause chaos on Election Day that he speculated the National Guard might need to handle.
A day later, he closed his remarks to a crowd at what was billed as a town hall in Pennsylvania with a stark message about his political opponents.
“They are so bad and frankly, they’re evil,” Mr. Trump said. “They’re evil. What they’ve done, they’ve weaponized, they’ve weaponized our elections. They’ve done things that nobody thought was even possible.”
How the Times gets from those comments to “use the power of the presidency to crush those who disagree with him” I don’t know. Do you? He predicted Democrats rioting, and that is exactly what others (including me) have predicted. The National Guard quells riots. If the National Guard is called out on Election Day, it will be the Biden Administration that does it.
Harris said that Trump called “the public” the “enemy within,” which makes no sense and isn’t what he said. He called her party “the enemy within.” That’s what it is, as I have documented here for months and years. Trump is, as usual, sloppy with explaining himself, but if there is anyone who has no standing to criticize him for characterizing her party as “the enemy within,” it is a member of this…
…administration. As for “They’ve done things that nobody thought was even possible,” that is true. Beginning with executing an investigation of the President based on false information from the Democratic Presidential campaign, Harris’s party has executed two impeachments that did not conform to Constitutional and established norms, corrupted a Presidential election by loosening ballot security standards, held a partisan star chamber inquiry over a single riot at the Capitol to establish the falsehood that Trump attempted an “insurrection,” and used partisan prosecutors to pursue multiple legal cases against their most formidable political opponent. Then they appointed a Presidential candidate with no participation by the voting public whatsoever, Soviet-style.
Trump’s statement was essentially correct. The Democrats have become a pernicious enemy of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the political process.
Ethics Alarms 
Career Lefty Mark Halperin paints a decidedly Less_Than_Flattering portrait of what to expect from Lefty’s Unhinged Psyche if Trump wins.
YOIKES!!!
PWS
I have conducted a handful of interviews in my career and if anyone had the gall to arrive ten minutes late – unless it was with bloody gauze on his/her forehead and a story to back it up – that person’s chances of hire were immediately placed in the proverbial “circular file”, whether or not the actual interview took place.
At this point, the Harris/Walz campaign appears to be 100% reliant on the “I’m not Trump” and “Trump is an existential threat” messages. The campaign, while maybe it’s in panic mode, is resting on all the free media advertising it will get over the next three weeks spreading those messages. It is counting on Democrats to simply get in line and vote for a duo that often struggles – even when combining their cognitive abilities – to out-think, out-wit, and out-speak the senile man in the White House they kicked off the ticket ninety days ago.
And what’s really sad?…VP Harris’ time with Baier may have been her best interview performance since her debate with President Trump. It’s certainly the right up there with anything she’s done in the last two weeks.
Pathetic.
I would love to read something from someone that defends VP Harris’ interview performance with Baier – heck, any “interview” she’s given from the last half month – strictly on its own merits…with NO reference to Republicans or Trump/Vance.
U.S.A Today Opinion piece on the interview by someone who either didn’t watch it or wants everyone who didn’t watch it to believe it went the way he paints it.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/opinion-harris-did-fox-news-234057499.html
Fortunately, the comments make it pretty clear what actually did happen.
I have been surprised more than once by the stories in USA Today I see referenced on the RCP website. I had assumed that it would be filled with the typical progressive propaganda. Perhaps it is, but there are also stories from the rest of the country there.
And, if I can judge from the first dozen or so comments on this story, perhaps that is so because many of their readers are not just progressive true believers.
It is actually refreshing, especially reading the left-wing slant of the Wall Street Journal’s news division.
Jack: ” “Kamala Harris Arrived for a Fox Interview. She Got a Debate,” whined the Times, as if the mainstream media hacks haven’t treated every interview with Trump or Vance as an adversarial encounter.”
Didn’t the Left complain when Musk said he was going to interview Trump, but not debate? (Maybe it was have a conversation, not an interview.) As I recall, they were upset that Musk was not going to ask tough questions.
I have only seen snippets of this (and the prior training wheels media blitz). My impression was she did better with Bret’s harder questions than the softball questions on the View. Maybe not much better. But, with Bret, she knew she had to counter his position and did so; with the View, she did not know which way to hit the softball.
That deflection on Joe’s competence really bugged me. Her response was that Biden is not on the ballot. I wish Bret had said, “the issue is not whether he is on the ballot; the issue is whether you lied to the American people about his competency.”
Also, when I don’t think I understand someone, I believe I try really hard to make sure I do before I respond. Then, there was this:
Harris: “You and I both know what I’m talking about. You and I both know what I’m talking about.”
Baier: “I actually don’t. What are you talking about?
I think Bret was being honest and I felt exactly the same way.
Then, there is this:
Harris: “It’s not supposed to be a cake walk for anyone.”
Stay tuned: Either “cake walk” is no longer racist, or Harris’ popularity in the black community will continue to plummet.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cakewalk-dance-black-history/
-Jut
Baier performed as I expected: diligent, prepared, respectful, but unwilling to accept evasion and filibuster.
Having interviewed a fair number of senior politicos back in my talk radio days, I could clearly see what both Baier and Harris were doing.
Harris was relying on long-winded talking-point set pieces in an attempt to run out the clock. When walking into what they know is likely to be a contentious interview, politicians often use this tactic in order to constrain the number of questions they’ll actually receive during the segment. With nearly every question, Harris (rather unimaginatively) pivoted to something along the lines of “But Trump!” and resume the talking points.
Baier is a pro, and recognizes that respect for the audience is paramount in broadcast. A broadcast interviewer needs to know who’s in the audience and understand what THEY want to know. Essentially, it’s the interviewer’s job to ask the questions the audience would ask if they had access to the interviewee. And if the interviewee tries to divert, pivot or burn time, it’s the interviewer’s job to re-focus on the original question.
This is sometimes perceived as rude. It’s not. A politician burning airtime with blather is what’s actually rude. And an interviewer who lets them get away with it is dis-serving the audience. Not only does letting a politico get away with this leave the audience uninformed, it results in a boring broadcast – and that might be the greatest sin of all.
My general approach in such interviews was to give the guest three bites at the apple. And if they obfuscated each time, I would move on to a different question – because doing anything else would also be boring.
I used to get emails from listeners asking me why I let politicos get away with not answering the question. And I would respond “I gave him three opportunities. He dodged each time. And you recognized the evasion. Seems to me that tells us as much as we would have learned if he had actually answered the question: that he’s chickenshit on that issue. Don’t you agree?” And the listeners invariably would.
I think it was fifteen or twenty years ago, Arthur, when I first started noticing television political reporters interviewing politician suddenly became perfectly content to allow politicians to simply spout a talking point unrelated to the question. And the reporters were content to simply move on to another question, which was similarly “responded to” with another, random, non-responsive talking point, at which the reporter would say, “Thank you Congressman,” and send it back to the network. I’ve always found this maddening. I want to shout, “Wait! He didn’t answer the question! Why are you letting him get away with simply spouting a talking point? What’s going on here?”
In my experience, part of that is acquiescence on the part of the reporter(s), and part of it is self-preservation.
The self-preservation part, IMO, is two-fold: first, they want to maintain their access to newsmakers, who might very well shut them out if they become too cheesed off at the reporter(s). The second part, obviously, is continued presence at the cool kids’ table at work.
And yet, they continue to bill themselves as Edward R. Murrow incarnate and the last defense against tyranny. Assholes.
I was amazed to see people writing that Baier kept interrupting Harris. When I was watching the interview, I was surprised that he kept quiet as much as he did and let her ramble on, basically saying the same things over again.
That was being rude? Such comments make you think they grew up in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany and thought the press in those countries did aggressive questioning of Stalin and Hitler. Oh wait, they’re not actually journalists and don’t recognize one when they see him.
Sheesh.
I don’t understand (people on either of the aisle) who can watch an interview of their candidate perform that badly and come out and say they did great. It should make them mad too. They should want better of their candidate. Maybe if more people on their side starting saying the exact same thing, their candidate might actually do better.
I think the left is taking its cues from Jill Biden, who told Joe after Trump had exposed him for the dementia patient he is, that he had done great. He hadn’t, but it didn’t matter. Everyone knew he hadn’t, but no one was going to admit it, and a little more than three weeks later, he left the race, strictly for the good of the nation, of course, not because he knew he was disabled and not because he knew he was going to lose. Now Kamala’s numbers are sagging and it’s looking increasingly less likely that she’s going to win, leave alone win easily, and they are still trying to whistle past the graveyard, while their tactics become more and more radical and more and more grabbing for scraps.
Some musician/pundit named Bill Madden has been reposting a series of videos from people saying that Harris “killed it” in the interview since last night. In one he wrote, “Given how combative Bret Baier was, the ability of Kamala Harris to push back while staying cool was incredibly impressive. The confidence and strength of Harris is exactly what we want in dealing w/Putin and Xi. Harris is going to be the next president of the United States.” Incredibly impressive!I commented, “PSST! Bill! People with confidence and strength have the honesty and integrity to actually answer the questions they are asked.”
These people are poster children for “Bias makes you stupid.”
They don’t care about Harris’s abilities or lack thereof. They’ll lie to try to cover up her shortcomings. Because she’s just the candidate. The candidate is irrelevant. What you’re supposed to vote for is THE TEAM. A vote for Harris is a vote for the entire Democrat regime and all its operatives. If you don’t vote for Harris, you will allow people who are not part of and loyal to the regime to seize the levers of power. And we certainly can’t have that, so, vote for Harris and all the good people will keep running the show. From here on out, every Presidential race will be between a cipher propped up by the regime and “an existential threat to democracy,” i.e., the Republican candidate. The Dems are playing the long game. And I think they’ve won. They have forever recast elections. And even if Trump wins, they’ll double down and regroup over the next four years of the absolute chaos they will manufacture. They are vicious revolutionaries.
Putin or Xi will mop the floor with her. She will not be able to pivot back to Donald Trump every time one of them gets tough with her.
Ah, yes! The great irony of the Russian collusion hoax: Why on earth would the Russians want to have to deal with Trump rather than Hillary, Joe or Harris? Clearly, they love having a demented old man as president of the U.S, much as they would love to be confronted by a fool like Hillary or a nitwit like Kamala. Why didn’t anyone ever note this in the whole preposterous (continuing!) episode?
Indeed!
Barack wants to chastise black males for being sexist. I suspect nothing about black American males could even approach the racist and sexist mindset of your average Russian. Putin would love Harris to be President because he is already convinced of his superiority over her.
-Jut
I watched it. Baier was professional and courteous. Harris interrupted him numerous times and pulled the “hey, I’m talking” mansplaining ploy she used against Pence. Baier didn’t back down, though.
While watching, I was thinking, “Harris supporters are going to say that she entered the lion’s den and emerged unscathed, that she held her own with Baier, that she pushed back against his questions and made her points. She was confrontational and strong.” Yeah, ok. But, substantively, she didn’t offer anything on policy other than “I’m not Trump and Trump is mean. Vote for me!”
I loved this line, though: “You gotta take responsible for what happened in your administration.” Talk about obtuse. Baier wouldn’t let her off the hook on the border crisis or the Fox poll that 79% of the poll answerers think the country is headed in the wrong direction. Her filibuster on both issues fell flat. And the cake walk line? The MSM has paved the way for her by shielding her from any real confrontation or tough questioning. That does not do the public any good when trying to evaluate a candidate for office.
Althouse’s take-away was spot on, in my opinion. You can be feisty and combative – Trump does it all the time – but you need substance.
Baier’s post-interview comments on Fox were intriguing. He was rather dismissive of her performance in a way only Baier can employ.
jvb
“turning the page from the last decade in which we have been burdened with the kind of rhetoric coming from Donald Trump that has been designed and implemented to divide our country…”
Just to remind, it’s indisputable that the Democrats promoted Trump’s candidacy as early as 2015, specifically to serve as a divisive force:
https://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the-hillary-clinton-campaign-intentionally-created-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
Not a single Democrat has ever paid a price for doing this.
Well, to be fair, they did pay the price of having their supposed pushover, joke candidate win and turn members of their party into incurable lunatics as a result.
I share this different point of view.
https://x.com/mcuban/status/1846783351278944439
I just wrote Cuban noting how embarrassing that tweet is.
Saying they are shameless doesn’t half cover it. They are gaslighting the entire country.
I just watched the full interview on the Fox website. It lasted 26 minutes. It took a lot of courage for he to even show up, so give her props. Try listening to the Bloomberg interview with Trump. It was basically the same, with the interviewer posing reasonable questions and Trump rambling, avoiding answering the specific question, and regurgitating his talking points in a not very coherent manner. Trump is consistently late for his town halls and rallies. Seems every criticism of Harris you could also level at Trump, so I look at her policies, which for some reason I have no problem discerning from her website and the interviews and speeches so far.
It’s an easy choice for me. But I’m tired of the criticisms of being late, only using scripted answers, not being able to speak coherently. I’m voting on policy. Tariffs, deportations, use of the military to control Americans, abortion access, on and on. I know Harris’ position on all these issues. I also know Donald Trump’s and I find him repulsive. He could be on time for every single event and actually answer the questions in an intelligent way and I would still not vote for him.
Well said. Four more years of the Obama Biden presidencies! Heck, eight more years!
Essentially what you know about Harris is that she opposes Trump policies. Her website is 80% copied from the Biden policy site; I doubt that she knows what’s on it. There is no Trump “policy” of using the military to control Americans—that’s one of the pure scaremongering Left fake narratives, and so is abortion access, which Trump has no control over as President. It is literally impossible to deport all of the illegal aliens, but I cannot comprehend anyone opposing the principle of enforcing the immigration laws against those who have willfully defied them. Will Harris try to inflict price controls on the economy like she said she would? How about the measure she supported in California, of decriminalizing shoplifting? She picked a VP who doesn’t support the First Amendment—does that trouble you at all? Will she, like Biden appoint incompetent heads of departments and agencies based on color, ethnicity and sexual orientation and refuse to fire them when they prove to be incompetent? Do you think racial reparations makes any sense at all…Harris says she’s in favor of that.
On the good side, there are many reasons to find Trump repulsive…
Doesn’t just the suggestion that a President would use the military to control the civilian population give you pause? Does me. I can just imagine if Harris or Biden had suggested it, even in jest.
The shoplifting law in California does not decriminalize shoplifting, it reduces those incidents up to $950 with a misdemeanor rather than a felony. In truth, the threshold in California is lower than those in Arkansas, Nebraska, and Texas, all Republican run states. She did not write the bill, merely wrote the language on the ballot and certified that it had the necessary signatures. She did not take a stand on the bill
Trump may not control abortion access, but he influences it, as demonstrated in his deliberate appointment of anti-choice Supreme Court Justices, which he proclaimed in his campaign and bragged about after Roe was struck down. Given another term, he will no doubt appoint even more.
Even if he deports one tenth of the people he intends to, it would be a danger to our economy and extremely expensive. And his buddy, Stephen Miller, wants to deport even legal immigrants that are here on temporary protective status.
Incompetence is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion, Trump’s appointments of Betsy Devos, an opponent of public education, a postmaster general who had a vested interest in reducing services of the post office, Ben Carson in charge of HUD when he opposed public housing were all incompetent. But maybe you agree with them.
Racial reparations are like Trump’s threat to deport millions of people. She can’t do it as President. And don’t you think we should do something about compensation for the loss of generational wealth due to slavery? I don’t know if the answer is reparations, but something should be done.
What did the Romans do to compensate for the loss of generational wealth they imposed on their slaves?
How many descendants of their slaves are U.S. citizens?
Were you aware that Obama’s nickname among Hispanic advocacy groups was the ‘Deporter in Chief’? 3 million deportations under Obama, far more than any previous administration. His State of the Union included statements about more boots on the ground to secure the border than ever before. You can see them on YouTube. Bill Clinton also called for border strengthening in his SOTU addresses, but any Republican wanting to enforce border law is automatically Hitler’s second coming. A bit of reflection is in order, but I am not holding my breath. Democrats good, Republicans bad.
I truly, truly, do not understand how Democrats rationalize an open border. Name me any other country that would allow it. Our border with Mexico is the main issue here, but did you know that there is no reciprocity involved? Mexico prosecutes illegal crossing and visa overstay as felony crimes, and plenty of Americans have done stints in Mexican prisons. It’s almost comical.
I’ve mentioned on the blog more than once that I reside in Japan. The hoops I had to jump through to get Permanent Residency over the 15 years it took to attain it! But I filed the paperwork, jumped through all those hoops for the 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, 5-year visa stepping stones to PR. I keep my Resident Status card up to date, and carry it as required. Why? It’s the law where I live. All the other Americans I know all toe the line, but still back an open border philosophy for the US. I don’t get it.
I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, so I may be wrong, but isn’t changing something from a felony (which involves a prison sentence) to a misdemeanor (which results in a fine, but usually nothing) decriminalizing it?
As you are, I assume, a college educated woman your position is consistent with many other suburban white women. My question to you is will the demographic that support her willing to accept blame when Putin,Xi, and Khameni begin their expansionary efforts during her administration. Will you support mandatory selective service registration for both sexes?
VP Harris has criticized Trump’s desire to use tariffs. She argues, as do others with limited Economics backgrounds, tariffs will increase prices for American consumers. So too will higher corporate taxes. The difference is that higher corporate taxes affect every domestic business. Conversely, tariffs are an avoidable tax simply by producing the product here domestically. As I understand Trump’s use of tariffs he does do strategically to incentivize producers to produce products domestically. I would posit that higher corporate tax rates will need to be offset by higher prices or wage stagnation. Consumers cannot avoid having higher corporate taxes from being passed on to them because all incomes always flow to households at some point. The effect of corporate taxes is more likely to cause an exchange of capital for labor which gives the corporation a non cash deduction through depreciation rather than wage payments. Further, increases in capital usage in place of labor will reduce the demand for labor and thus reduced pressure on wage increases.
VP Harris says that Trump will ban abortions but Dobbs prevents a nationwide ban or a codification of Roe unless all the states banned it within their own state or enshrined it in their state laws or Constitution. I do not understand why supposedly educated women who also outnumber men at the polls need to keep pushing the need for a nationwide anything goes abortion rights bill. Do they not understand the Dobbs decision or is it just an excuse to vote for a female candidate irrespective of qualifications. Why are women not pursuing that agenda at the state level like Dobbs requires?
VP Harris has a charged that Trump will end the Constitution and specifically the 14th amendment which guarantees equal protection yet proposes to give one specific demographic group special benefits in the form of forgivable loans to start business which is an outright violation of the 24th amendment. HRC who stumps for Ms Harris actually called for criminalizing what she deemed misinformation. Harris’ running mate stated that hate speech is not protected. He also said we need to eliminate the electoral college. Lest we not forget that Harris called for a mandatory buy back of certain firearms that are currently legal in many states. So which party seems to be eliminating the Constitution.
When you’ve reached eight years of your candidate being referred to as “Hitler” and a “fascist” and an “existential threat to democracy/American/every American” such that deranged people start shooting at her – and when they do, people of the opposing party are disappointed that she somehow survives – then you can talk at me about being tired. You’re nowhere CLOSE to tired yet.
“You’re nowhere CLOSE to tired yet.“
Bravo Indigo November Golf Oscar!
PWS
You have no idea how tired I am. Trump also calls Harris and Biden fascists and communists (how you can be both is beyond me). And hasn’t Biden been described as a threat to democracy on this very website? I certainly didn’t want Trump to die. He would be a martyr and there would have been riots in the streets. May he live long, just not as my President.
When a candidate says things that endanger the lives of innocent, legal immigrants and FEMA workers, he is not fit to hold any office.
How has ge endangered immigeants and FEMA workers?
DNC generated talking points!!!
Jan, Trump has never said anything negative about legal immigrants. He explicitly talks about illegal alien border crossers. The people instilling fear – if it actually occurs- occurs by NGO advocates for those crossing illegally who derive enormous resources from taxpayers, and progressives who want to advance the importation of significant numbers of migrants. Legal immigrants who have immigrated here using the current immigration protocols are some of the most vocal proponents of tightening the security of the border.
I have no idea what you are talking about him endangering FEMA workers.
You also made the claim that Trump would use the National Guard on civilians. He was speaking about controlling riots not rounding up citizens. Using the National Guard to control civilian unrest is not new. They can only be used for crowd control and have no arrest powers. That talking point is used to instill fear into ignorant voters. I understand that you will allow it because it advances or reinforces your existing beliefs. You are no different than ignorant Republicans who follow the hardliners who gin up fear on their side.
President Trump – and by extension, Republicans – are labelled as “threats to democracy” based on what is suggested they will do. Republicans use that label for what Democrats ARE doing. There is a not-so-subtle difference with that.
You didn’t want President Trump to die, but plenty of others did, and many of them voiced their disappointment publicly.
So when the current President, the Vice President, half of the Senate, half of the House, 100% of the hosts on “The View”, 90% of the TV talking heads, and 90% of those writing newspaper articles say things that endanger the lives of President Trump and those around him, are they not fit to hold any office – including the job they now have?
I wonder why when I click “reply”, it doesn’t put my comments in the proper chain of conversation. That’s probably Trump’s fault, too…
Joel.
I think it’s just that others are just buzzing in before you. I just posted one and it wound up following five other responses.
Joel; for proper nesting, you’re better off clicking on the post, locating the comment to which you’d like to respond, and then clicking on reply to that comment.
PWS
The often-imitated but never-duplicated Babylon Bee:
https://babylonbee.com/news/harris-complains-she-was-not-informed-the-interview-would-include-questions