Kamala Harris interviewed by Brett Baier

[Hammster]

I guess you didn't read what I wrote. She was trying to reach people that watch Fox and give them the truth. Too many believe what the Fox pundits say and don't actually listen to better sources.

Right. And that’s why ignored the questions. I know why she went on. That was never in question.

 

[Yarddog]

Right. And that’s why ignored the questions. I know why she went on. That was never in question.

Again, you have strange understanding of the English language. She didn't ignore anyone, she answered the question to get her points across.

 

[Hans Blaster]

November 3, 2020.

What has that date got to do the term of Gen. Milley as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I'm asking nicely.

Are you? it was a snide remark IMO

 

[o_mlly]

Again, their opinions are based on facts.

You ought to check on Hans Blaster's analysis of your argument. Good advice: When in a hole, it's a good idea to stop digging.

 

[Hammster]

Again, you have strange understanding of the English language. She didn't ignore anyone, she answered the question to get her points across.

lol.

 

[o_mlly]

What has that date got to do the term of Gen. Milley as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Milley's term ran from October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2023. Really, can you not figure out the main reason Milley wasn't fired in 2020?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Milley's term ran from October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2023. Really, can you not figure out the main reason Milley wasn't fired in 2020?

That wasn't the claim you made. It was:

3. Trump fired Kelly and "retired" Milley.

And it is clear that Trump did no such "retiring" of Gen. Milley. I'm not sure where you get the idea that firing him was ever in the cards.

 

[o_mlly]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that firing him was ever in the cards

If you want to play Ostrich and stick your head in the sand then we are at an impasse.

In one instance, Trump suggested that Gen. Mark Milley, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his administration, could face execution for calling officials in China. ​

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/nx-s1-5134924/trump-election-2024-kamala-harris-elizabeth-cheney-threat-civil-liberties

​

Gee, do you really think that Trump would offer up Milley for treason and not fire him first?

 

[Hans Blaster]

If you want to play Ostrich and stick your head in the sand then we are at an impasse.

Now you are just insulting me.

In one instance, Trump suggested that Gen. Mark Milley, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his administration, could face execution for calling officials in China. ​

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/21/nx-s1-5134924/trump-election-2024-kamala-harris-elizabeth-cheney-threat-civil-liberties

​

Gee, do you really think that Trump would offer up Milley for treason and not fire him first?

He wasn't President in Sept. 2023. It was a post to his social media page one week before the retirement of Gen. Milley.

These Trump internet screeds of viciousness offer no evidence to suggest that Trump knew about the calls before Milley testified about them in Congress after Trump had already left office, nor does the linked PBS news article.

 

[o_mlly]

He wasn't President in Sept. 2023.

Trump was President until January 6, 2021. This article from the liberal magazine The New Yorker evidences the tensions between Trump and Milley:

How long could this standoff between the Pentagon and the President go on? For the next few months, Milley woke up each morning not knowing whether he would be fired before the day was over. … “They both (Milley and Esper) expected, literally on a daily basis, to be fired,” Gates recalled. Milley “would call me and essentially say, ‘I may not last until tomorrow night.’​

Inside the War Between Trump and His Generals

How Mark Milley and others in the Pentagon handled the national-security threat posed by their own Commander-in-Chief.

www.newyorker.com

 

[Bradskii]

You ought to check on Hans Blaster's analysis of your argument. Good advice: When in a hole, it's a good idea to stop digging.

It's not a fact tha he said that he prefers heroes who weren't captured? It's not a fact he is a convicted felon? It's not a fact that he said he felt free to grab women by the genitals? It's not a fact that he has been found to have sexually assaulted a woman? It's not a fact that he tried to have the election overturned? It's not a fact that he still says he didn't lose?

The man is beneath contempt. But hey, that's just my opinion. Based on the facts.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's not a fact tha he said that he prefers heroes who weren't captured? It's not a fact he is a convicted felon? It's not a fact that he said he felt free to grab women by the genitals? It's not a fact that he has been found to have sexually assaulted a woman? It's not a fact that he tried to have the election overturned? It's not a fact that he still says he didn't lose?

The man is beneath contempt. But hey, that's just my opinion. Based on the facts.

None of which addresses his policies, which are what informed voters base their votes on.

 

[Bradskii]

None of which addresses his policies, which are what informed voters base their votes on.

I could spend the rest of the day listing all the reasons why he shouldn't have ever been considered as a candidate. It would take me that long to do it. I wouldn't even bother complaining about his policies. I wouldn't have to get to them before a reasonable person would say after a page or so of what he has said and done 'Wait, there's more?'

I wouldn't have to mention Hannibal Lecter or sharks and batteries and pet eating. I wouldn't have to mention that just a couple of days ago he again thought that Obama was the president. It would take me too long to cut and paste the dozens of pages of evidence from Jack Smith's brief regarding his attempts to overthrow the last election. I wouldn't have to mention the scores of people who have worked for him that are warning you about his character.

What I might have to do is try to explain how you ever got to a point where a man so unsuitable by any criteria is in the running to represent your country. But I can't fathom it. And it's not his policies that come into it. It should never get to that point. That you bring them up just shows that you are completely missing the point.

And how you can claw your way back to something approaching a decent Republican party that represents honest-to-god conservative values is something else that's beyond me. If Trump loses then maybe another two terms. If he wins...then heaven only knows.

 

[Aldebaran]

I could spend the rest of the day listing all the reasons why he shouldn't have ever been considered as a candidate. It would take me that long to do it. I wouldn't even bother complaining about his policies. I wouldn't have to get to them before a reasonable person would say after a page or so of what he has said and done 'Wait, there's more?'

I wouldn't have to mention Hannibal Lecter or sharks and batteries and pet eating. I wouldn't have to mention that just a couple of days ago he again thought that Obama was the president. It would take me too long to cut and paste the dozens of pages of evidence from Jack Smith's brief regarding his attempts to overthrow the last election. I wouldn't have to mention the scores of people who have worked for him that are warning you about his character.

What I might have to do is try to explain how you ever got to a point where a man so unsuitable by any criteria is in the running to represent your country. But I can't fathom it. And it's not his policies that come into it. It should never get to that point. That you bring them up just shows that you are completely missing the point.

And how you can claw your way back to something approaching a decent Republican party that represents honest-to-god conservative values is something else that's beyond me. If Trump loses then maybe another two terms. If he wins...then heaven only knows.

So anyway, which of his policies don't you like?

 

[Bradskii]

So anyway, which of his policies don't you like?

For me to start arguing his policies would assume that I think he is a person whose policies are worth arguing about. They really aren't worth discussing because it gives his position as a candidate some validity. If this guy was applying for a job then he wouldn't get asked in for an interview. Period. It's a complete waste of time asking about how good his work is.

And yes, in other threads I have commented on his nonsensical ideas for a tariff trade war or leaving NATO but this is a discussion about his character. Again, his policies aren't of interest. He shouldn't be in a position to have them. You shouldn't be in the position of trying to defend him.

 

[Aldebaran]

For me to start arguing his policies would assume that I think he is a person whose policies are worth arguing about. They really aren't worth discussing because it gives his position as a candidate some validity. If this guy was applying for a job then he wouldn't get asked in for an interview. Period. It's a complete waste of time asking about how good his work is.

So you have no argument against his policies. Understood.

And yes, in other threads I have commented on his nonsensical ideas for a tariff trade war or leaving NATO but this is a discussion about his character. Again, his policies aren't of interest. He shouldn't be in a position to have them. You shouldn't be in the position of trying to defend him.

Well, he's a candidate (and former president), so he's in the position to have policies. And I, being a free American with the right to not only vote, but also to discuss my reasonings, am in the position to do so.

 

[Bradskii]

So you have no argument against his policies. Understood.

Don't treat me like an idiot. I said why I shan't discuss his policies and my command of English and yours is good enough so that you know why.

Well, he's a candidate (and former president), so he's in the position to have policies. And I, being a free American with the right to not only vote, but also to discuss my reasonings, am in the position to do so.

His moral character can apparently can be something you can ignore. I personally don't even begin to understand that. How it has gotten to this point is a complete mystery.

 

[Pommer]

Trump was President until January 6, 2021.

Really?
Who was President from January 7th to January 20th?

 

[o_mlly]

The man is beneath contempt. But hey, that's just my opinion. Based on the facts.

You forgot to quote Miller's full admission, especially the last part, "I don't want to go on a rant here, that's just my opinion (based on just the facts that I like), I could be wrong".

We're not electing the pope; we are electing someone to manage our country for 4 years. Gee, let's keep the one who has demonstrably failed at doing that as opposed to the one who successfully did that. Those are the important facts to rational people.