Harris/Walz Catch-All | Kamala blitz in closing stretch

  • Thread starter Thread starter aGDevil2k
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 1K
  • Views: 30K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
To clarify, the "edited" version wasn't broadcast in a replay of the interview, it was used in a promo for the interview.

If true, it still seems sketchy and pro-Harris/anti-Trump.
Click to expand...
OK, perspective. The "word salad" was a better answer to the question than Trump has provided in months to any question. It consisted of complete sentences and coherent ideas. It was a bit wordy. You could tell how hard Harris was trying to massage the answer so as to not give any ammo to either side. That's our world. Don't hate the player.

In a world where the so-called liberal media sanewash Trump on a daily basis, this is a total non-story.

Edit to add: her response was also more coherent and accurate than most of what you write on this message board, and you have the advantage of not being put on the spot in an interview to be broadcast worldwide.
 
Ddseddse said:
Precisely what kind of word salad are we talking about? Electric boat Hannibal Lector windmill shark? Or just taking the long way around to get to the point?
Click to expand...
I kinda like today’s “grocery, it’s kinda a simple word, it means everything you eat the stomach speaks”
 
Ddseddse said:
Precisely what kind of word salad are we talking about? Electric boat Hannibal Lector windmill shark? Or just taking the long way around to get to the point?
Click to expand...
Here's the transcript...but it comes off much worse if you see the video: "Well, Bill, the work that we have done has resulted in a number of movements in that region by Israel that were very much prompted by, or a result of, many things, including our advocacy for what needs to happen in the region."
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I feel like it's a stretch. For the people entertained by other people watching playing World of Warcraft really want to see some politician jumping on their stream to talk politics? Would people watching a football game?

And maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it is kind of a free-flowing discussion that touches on politics that just happens to have a gaming stream in the background. I really have no idea.

But it seems like he could use the time more effectively by engaging old people that actually vote but if I'm wrong, he's an innovator.
Click to expand...
Do you want commercials during any sporting event?
 
superrific said:
OK, perspective. The "word salad" was a better answer to the question than Trump has provided in months to any question. It consisted of complete sentences and coherent ideas. It was a bit wordy. You could tell how hard Harris was trying to massage the answer so as to not give any ammo to either side. That's our world. Don't hate the player.

In a world where the so-called liberal media sanewash Trump on a daily basis, this is a total non-story.
Click to expand...
That's an awful lot of typing for what is essentially bosiding.
Edit to add: her response was also more coherent and accurate than most of what you write on this message board, and you have the advantage of not being put on the spot in an interview to be broadcast worldwide.
Click to expand...

middle-finger.gif
 
ZenMode said:
That's an awful lot of typing for what is essentially bosiding.


middle-finger.gif
Click to expand...
Among the other words you do not understand, we can add bosiding. Bosiders are conservatives who try to pretend that the candidates are the same because one candidate (Kamala, in this case) says something less than ideal, when their own people are out there moronizing for hours at a time every fucking day.

Again, it was a wordy response. It was also truthful -- thus making it superior to virtually everything Trump says -- and coherent (again, superior to Trump). So there's no comparison. And to point out that Kamala's worst moment was as good or better than Trump's best is not bosiding.

As for the quality of your posts, that's in your control. When you write stupid shit, people will have a dim view of you. It's been that way for thousands of years. The solution isn't the middle finger. It's to stop writing stupid shit.
 
Igs149 said:
Disagree here. She somewhat fell out of the news cycle and is trying to re-energize the cycle. She’s not Barack Obama for sure. But she has done reasonably well and, frankly, one thing Trump has done well is be “available” and “in the media”.
Click to expand...


It's easy to stand at a rally and spew divisive hate for the simpletons to lap up. He has not made himself available to anyone who could or would even remotely hold his feet to the fire over anything that's come to light since the debate or any of the outright lies he spreads daily.

Igs149 said:
I do want a much more pointed economy answer.
Click to expand...


Of course. Part of the double standard.
 
superrific said:
Among the other words you do not understand, we can add bosiding. Bosiders are conservatives who try to pretend that the candidates are the same because one candidate (Kamala, in this case) says something less than ideal, when their own people are out there moronizing for hours at a time every fucking day.

Again, it was a wordy response. It was also truthful -- thus making it superior to virtually everything Trump says -- and coherent (again, superior to Trump). So there's no comparison. And to point out that Kamala's worst moment was as good or better than Trump's best is not bosiding.

As for the quality of your posts, that's in your control. When you write stupid shit, people will have a dim view of you. It's been that way for thousands of years. The solution isn't the middle finger. It's to stop writing stupid shit.
Click to expand...
You may want to attribute bosiding to one party, but that's not how it works. Bosiding isn't relegated to one party. Your response was bosiding. A decent portion of her response was unintelligible, something that is not entirely uncommon for her. The fact that Trump talks like a drunk third grader doesn't change that.
 
thebruinbleedstarheelblue said:
Do you want commercials during any sporting event?
Click to expand...
Commercials I get. My understanding is that this would be like Walz giving his thoughts on economic policy during a second and eight. And maybe I'm wrong and/or maybe that's just the way these video game streams work.

And again, if it works I think it's great but there's only so much time between now and the election and just not sure how many votes you get for this versus something else. But I give them credit for trying. If it works you'll see a whole lot more of it.
 
ZenMode said:
You may want to attribute bosiding to one party, but that's not how it works. Bosiding isn't relegated to one party. Your response was bosiding. A decent portion of her response was unintelligible, something that is not entirely uncommon for her. The fact that Trump talks like a drunk third grader doesn't change that.
Click to expand...
Unintelligible? I’ve been holding out hope for you, but there’s no chance you’d call a response like that by a man “unintelligible.” I’d encourage you to seriously examine whether you’re applying a fair standard to the statements made in this campaign.
 
ZenMode said:
You may want to attribute bosiding to one party, but that's not how it works. Bosiding isn't relegated to one party. Your response was bosiding. A decent portion of her response was unintelligible, something that is not entirely uncommon for her. The fact that Trump talks like a drunk third grader doesn't change that.
Click to expand...
Again, you don't know what bosiding is. It's false equivalence. You're right that it's not relegated to one party, but it is relegated to the people who are having to defend the indefensible. An example of bosiding on the left: "sure, the Great Leap Forward starved 30 million people, but let's not forget that black people in capitalist America live in poverty." And while it was not ever expressed that way, it was a sadly common sentiment expressed post WWII (I mean generally about communist societies, not necessarily the one example). Or another: Sure, the Soviet Union has a gulag, but Eugene Debs was put in jail!

Nothing that I wrote bears any connection to bothsiding, for obvious reasons. Well, reasons that should be obvious to most people. You keep wanting to fight with me over the meaning of words, and it's a puzzling choice. I'm a published author. For long stretches of my life, I wrote for a living. I have a large working vocabulary. If I didn't understand the meaning of words, I wouldn't have gotten to where I did. Here's a tip: if you argue with me about semantics, law or philosophy, you will lose every single time. Maybe you'll get a Chaminade-UVa upset once in a blue moon, but almost always you will get blown out. That's not a knock on you, though you surely will interpret it that way. Different people have different skills, because of differences in genetic inheritance, childhood environment, professional choices, training and opportunity, etc. Find what you're good at. This ain't it.
 
superrific said:
Again, you don't know what bosiding is. It's false equivalence. You're right that it's not relegated to one party, but it is relegated to the people who are having to defend the indefensible. An example of bosiding on the left: "sure, the Great Leap Forward starved 30 million people, but let's not forget that black people in capitalist America live in poverty." And while it was not ever expressed that way, it was a sadly common sentiment expressed post WWII (I mean generally about communist societies, not necessarily the one example). Or another: Sure, the Soviet Union has a gulag, but Eugene Debs was put in jail!

Nothing that I wrote bears any connection to bothsiding, for obvious reasons. Well, reasons that should be obvious to most people. You keep wanting to fight with me over the meaning of words, and it's a puzzling choice. I'm a published author. For long stretches of my life, I wrote for a living. I have a large working vocabulary. If I didn't understand the meaning of words, I wouldn't have gotten to where I did. Here's a tip: if you argue with me about semantics, law or philosophy, you will lose every single time. Maybe you'll get a Chaminade-UVa upset once in a blue moon, but almost always you will get blown out. That's not a knock on you, though you surely will interpret it that way. Different people have different skills, because of differences in genetic inheritance, childhood environment, professional choices, training and opportunity, etc. Find what you're good at. This ain't it.
Click to expand...
I believe this is the second time you've given me your resume. It didn't change anything the first time and won't this time. Regardless of your previous employment, or how much you are clearly in love with your own intellect, there are clear examples of your liberal leanings impacting your views. The recent disagreement about using abnormal to describe homosexuality is an example. The discussion was littered with subjectivity and emotions despite the fact that homosexuality clearly fits the definition of abnormal, while heterosexuality fits the definition of normal.

I believe, but could be wrong, it was you who, on the old ZZLP, tried to passively justify the George Floyd riots by referencing MLKj's quote “A riot is the language of the unheard” while leaving out that MLKj, in the same speech, said that rioting actually hurt the cause of the civil rights movement. This is something I'm sure you already knew, since you are so intelligent and well-read, yet failed to acknowledge because of, IMO, your liberal bias. Again, if I have the wrong person, disregard.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top