Harris/Walz Catch-All | Harris to do Oprah interview

  • Thread starter Thread starter aGDevil2k
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 215
  • Views: 5K
  • Politics 
tallheel95 said:
I thought she did fine. She’s not as verbally skilled as Pete Buttigieg, for example, but to me she presents as an intelligent person who is committed to leadership. A bonus that there were no word salads, significant tangents or electric shark comments 🦈. Her opponents will think she was awful, her supporters will support her, and the rest of the country is just looking forward to the weekend. Not sure that it will have much of an impact either way.
Click to expand...
If she comes across as sincere and normal it could have impact. Trumps constant chaos is exhausting and I think there is a demographic that would just like to see a return to normalcy.
 
I didn’t watch the interview live last night but I think I’ve caught up now. Seems like Kamala did just fine. Questions to her seemed fair and she handled them well. I haven’t seen any flubs, etc. She passed the “adult in the room” question with flying colors.

The questions to Tim, while far fewer, were pathetic. Asking him only about the “weapons in war” comment and other overblown BS? What a waste of time. How about, “During your most recent term as governor, Minnesota passed an incredible number of bills with a tiny Democratic majority. Many of them are considered extremely progressive, and they will cost the state a lot of money. What have you learned from that experience that you would take into a Harris-Walz administration? And will you be pushing for the same highly progressive policies at the national level that Minnesota enacted under your leadership?”

Asking him about a DUI from decades ago? Gag me with a spoon, Dana.
 
Gift link - https://www.wsj.com/opinion/kamala-...cj72k2iga8mw&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink


Kamala Harris Soars Above CNN​

The Vice President embraces Bidenomics, if Trump can exploit it.​


“…
These are openings for Donald Trump, assuming he can prosecute the case. But that’s far from a sure thing. The Harris campaign’s bet, and it’s not a crazy one, is that the Vice President can soar to victory on a cloud of general promises, platitudes and “joy.”

The campaign is betting the press won’t care. And they’re betting that Mr. Trump won’t do the homework and doesn’t have the discipline and focus to expose any of this in debate or consistently on the stump. So far it’s been a winning wager.“
 
nycfan said:
Gift link - https://www.wsj.com/opinion/kamala-...cj72k2iga8mw&reflink=mobilewebshare_permalink


Kamala Harris Soars Above CNN​

The Vice President embraces Bidenomics, if Trump can exploit it.​


“…
These are openings for Donald Trump, assuming he can prosecute the case. But that’s far from a sure thing. The Harris campaign’s bet, and it’s not a crazy one, is that the Vice President can soar to victory on a cloud of general promises, platitudes and “joy.”

The campaign is betting the press won’t care. And they’re betting that Mr. Trump won’t do the homework and doesn’t have the discipline and focus to expose any of this in debate or consistently on the stump. So far it’s been a winning wager.“
Click to expand...
The problem with that attack strategy is that Biden’s handling of the economy was perfectly acceptable.

Of course most Americans don’t understand the the economy vs economics and think that the president has some sort of magic power to control the uncontrollable and predict the future.
 
Last edited:
Bigs23 said:
The problem with that attack strategy is that Biden’s handling of the economic economy was perfectly acceptable.

Of course most Americans don’t understand the the economy vs economics and think that the president has some of magic power to control the uncontrollable and predict the future.
Click to expand...

Doesn’t the president set prices of consumer goods?
 
Croatoan said:


Click to expand...

She didn’t deny this — just that she changed positions in 2020 and has supported fracking since. I think we all know that changing positions on fracking happened in 2020 as a condition of becoming Biden’s Veep.

But it is a classic political flip-flop that a competent candidate would hammer home in PA. Trump is not a competent candidate but they have dispatched JD Vance to basically live in PA for the remainder and try to make this point locally every day — but he keeps tripping over his own alien personality, so it is not clear whether he is clearly getting the message through as consistently as his campaign wants.
 
nycfan said:
She didn’t deny this — just that she changed positions in 2020 and has supported fracking since. I think we all know that changing positions on fracking happened in 2020 as a condition of becoming Biden’s Veep.

But it is a classic political flip-flop that a competent candidate would hammer home in PA. Trump is not a competent candidate but they have dispatched JD Vance to basically live in PA for the remainder and try to make this point locally every day — but he keeps tripping over his own alien personality, so it is not clear whether he is clearly getting the message through as consistently as his campaign wants.
Click to expand...
I deleted. Not worth hearing the spin.
 
Why is it a bad thing for a politician to change positions on certain matters?

For a liberal in particular, flexible thinking should be seen as a positive attribute. People do change their minds.

I get that these changes of heart are often politically motivated but I don’t think it’s crazy to think that a reasonable person can sincerely have a change of heart.

Explanation and track record should be considered when examining the motivation for changing a position.
 
Last edited:
nycfan said:
She didn’t deny this — just that she changed positions in 2020 and has supported fracking since. I think we all know that changing positions on fracking happened in 2020 as a condition of becoming Biden’s Veep.

But it is a classic political flip-flop that a competent candidate would hammer home in PA. Trump is not a competent candidate but they have dispatched JD Vance to basically live in PA for the remainder and try to make this point locally every day — but he keeps tripping over his own alien personality, so it is not clear whether he is clearly getting the message through as consistently as his campaign wants.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why these "flip-flops" are considered a bad thing. The president has a dual mandate of sorts: s/he is supposed to lead, but also to listen. Why isn't it an acceptable answer to say, "well, that campaign didn't turn out so well for me, did it? Voters don't want to ban fracking, and I've heard them. I think combatting climate change is really important, but I've learned that maybe there are other ways to do it that are better for Americans. For instance, the Inflation Reduction Act . . . "
 
Icky Mettle said:
Doesn’t the president set prices of consumer goods?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is Biden's fault that a blue checkmark on Twitter cost $8/month. If Elon wasn't subject to the pricing whims of an addled old man he would give them away for free to any conspiracy-minded piece of shit who asked.
 
Bigs23 said:
Why is it a bad thing for a politician to change positions on certain matters?

For a liberal in particular, flexible thinking should be seen as a positive attribute. People do change their minds.

I get that these changes of heart are often politically motivated but I don’t think it’s crazy to think that ax reasonable person can sincerely have a change of heart.

Explanation and track record should be considered when examining the motivation for changing a position.
Click to expand...

I can't agree more. Situations are fluid and politicians should be able to evolve on their thinking. I do get what Kamal was trying to say: you have underpinning values that help give you perspective, but its okay to shift on positions as situations unfold. Achieving energy independence is a vital security objective for the US; if fracking is crucial to attain that objective, than it makes sense to allow or expand it.

Having said thatI think the problem is when politicians are viewed as being politically expedient or calculating. The gifted politicians are the ones who can do that without making it look like a calculation.
 
Geisterfahrer said:
Opinion side, yes. News-side I’m finding it more reliable of late than The NY Times and their bosiding bullshit.
Click to expand...
Years ago, before everything was behind a paywall, the NYTimes allowed free access to their news stories, but charged for access to their editorials. And the WSJ had the exact opposite policy, gave away editorials for free, but charged to read news stories. I remember at the time people commenting on this difference and said it made sense when you considered the disparity in qualify for each part at each paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top