Sky News on Kamala Harris

[Hammster]

Here’s 14 minutes of critique of Harris from Down Under.

 

[JosephZ]

Sky News Austrailia is no different than Newsmax or Fox News in the US.

 

[Hammster]

Sky News Austrailia is no different than Newsmax or Fox News in the US.

Genetic fallacies are still fallacies.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Here’s 14 minutes of critique of Harris from Down Under.

So, I'm watching the video, and it starts off with 2 solid minutes of what I'll charitably call commentary, and the first example of her supposed buffoonery is the very same clip that we ripped apart in your other thread.

The commentary describes that interview as Harris having "another shocker recently." Except it wasn't "recently" - it was from 2010. I found the full original:

The line about "infrared light" is at 18:33. It's a silly metaphor that doesn't make any sense, but it's used within a larger explanation that makes complete sense and that describes a good thing that her office did (assuming it's true, which I haven't verified).

I got about halfway through before I grew bored with Sky's braindead snark. If you guys want to look smarter than somebody, this is not the way to do it.

 

[Hammster]

So, I'm watching the video, and it starts off with 2 solid minutes of what I'll charitably call commentary, and the first example of her supposed buffoonery is the very same clip that we ripped apart in your other thread.

The commentary describes that interview as Harris having "another shocker recently." Except it wasn't "recently" - it was from 2010. I found the full original:

The line about "infrared light" is at 18:33. It's a silly metaphor that doesn't make any sense, but it's used within a larger explanation that makes complete sense and that describes a good thing that her office did (assuming it's true, which I haven't verified).

I got about halfway through before I grew bored with Sky's braindead snark. If you guys want to look smarter than somebody, this is not the way to do it.

You’re not convinced? Shocked.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You’re not convinced? Shocked.

And you are?

 

[Hammster]

And you are?

Most of us already know. That’s why her approval rating has been atrocious.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Most of us already know. That’s why her approval rating has been atrocious.

If you know, why do you have to rely on such low quality sources to make your point? Can't you find anything more intelligent and more substantive? You don't see me here posting stuff from Occupy Democrats, do you?

 

[JustOneWay]

If you know, why do you have to rely on such low quality sources to make your point? Can't you find anything more intelligent and more substantive?You don't see me here posting stuff from Occupy Democrats, do you?

Research is harder - grabbing the low hanging fruit is easier.

 

[Hammster]

If you know, why do you have to rely on such low quality sources to make your point? Can't you find anything more intelligent and more substantive? You don't see me here posting stuff from Occupy Democrats, do you?

You have the option to not reply.

 

[Hammster]

Research is harder - grabbing the low hanging fruit is easier.

It’s Harris. That’s mostly what there is while we await a press conference.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You have the option to not reply.

I know. I could have looked at the title of the thread and the caption and assumed that it would be the same sort of smooth-brained pablum that we've seen tossed around here over and over again - in which case, I likely wouldn't have replied. But instead, I chose to give you and your source the benefit of the doubt, the chance to enlighten me.

Silly me.

 

[Hammster]

I know. I could have looked at the title of the thread and the caption and assumed that it would be the same sort of smooth-brained pablum that we've seen tossed around here over and over again - in which case, I likely wouldn't have replied. But instead, I chose to give you and your source the benefit of the doubt, the chance to enlighten me.

Silly me.

Yeah. Okay.

 

[Servus]

If you know, why do you have to rely on such low quality sources to make your point? Can't you find anything more intelligent and more substantive? You don't see me here posting stuff from Occupy Democrats, do you?

Deflection. If the word salads had been displayed on any other source, that wouldn't change their content any.

 

[Servus]

Research is harder - grabbing the low hanging fruit is easier.

What sort of research should be involved in playing clips of Harris speaking?

 

[imsaneru]

Here’s 14 minutes of critique of Harris from Down Under.

We also enjoy watching "Lefties loosing it" , where Joe and Kamala are the new stars of comedy.
We used to watch the clowns Zig and Zag but even they are not as funny as Joe and Kamala. Joe used to crack me up so bad that I would be in tears of laughter , and so far it looks like Kamala might try to out do Joe , hope so , coz I really do enjoy good humour.

 

[KCfromNC]

The commentary describes that interview as Harris having "another shocker recently." Except it wasn't "recently" - it was from 2010.

That means she obviously has access to the Obama time machine, which means a vote for Harris is really a vote for a third Obama term. Obviously. Nothing weird at all about that.

 

[stevevw]

Here’s 14 minutes of critique of Harris from Down Under.

What stood out for me is the commentator saying Harris says a lot of words to fill space that don't actually mean anything. Like she is treating everyone as morons by explaining very basic and obvious ideas instead of actually getting into the real issues.

This is either because she doesn't know, doesn't have that deeper more comprehensive knowledge of whats going on or she is avoiding being specific because she is too scared to express what she really thinks depnding on the circumstances.

That leads to the second point that stood out which was that nobody really knows who Harris is because she is like a chamileon and changes to suit the situation. Manipulates things politically winning friends and influencing people.

But as the video shows all we have to do is focus on what she has said when unguarded and its definetly a radical left ideology. But now we are seeing another recreation of Harris to distance herself from this.

But even a quick search will expose the lies. The Left CNN were constantly proclaiming her as the border zcar. Now they say she was never the border zcar. Piecing this two contradictory terms together sums up Harris and her supporters, she is the border zcar and she isn't the border zcar at the same time. Incoherent word salad.

The obvious example is how Harris constantly proclaimed her Indian heritage and then suddenly began proclaiming her Black heritage when it suited politically. While proclaiming to support black people and then supporting anti black ideology such as dismantling black families and reducing law and order within black communities which have high rates of crime compunding the situation.

But those blacks who have not been fooled by the ideological overreach of race identity politics know very well that the progressive elites are not acting in their best interests from their ivory academic towers. Where 80% of black communities are Christian and are suffering the cost of living crisis created by the very people that claim to be on their side.

 

[FireDragon76]

CNN isn't left, it's centrist, even somewhat right-of-center at times. MSNBC is left-of-center.

 

[stevevw]

CNN isn't left, it's centrist, even somewhat right-of-center at times. MSNBC is left-of-center.

Actually CNN moving more to the centre is a recent change. Since the rise of Trump they have been on the Left. Its only since a new CEO has taken over that they are now going back to basics with informed news rather than allowing their anchors to push their own ideologies.

But there is still a degree of bias that has yet to be removed. The fact that CNN push the idea now that Harris was not the border czar when they have repeatedly said she was in the past.

But it is good if news media like CNN become more central and factual because it seems the majority of media is biased to the left. Or at the the ones that people seem top hear anyway.

It seems over the last year or more there has been a rise in independent media that is not subject to the influence of government and corps or political activists groups and they are becoming more popular.

This comes at the same time that enough time has gone by for people to see the lies and unrealities that political ideologues have been pushing. We have seen a number of examples where these false narratives are exposed such as with CRT within institutions and the sackings of several heads for pushing antisemetism and racist policies.