Kamala Harris interviewed by Brett Baier

[o_mlly]

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

Trump, effectively a lame-duck after the January 6 failed attempt to expose voting irregularities in order to put the election results under review.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Trump was President until January 6, 2021.

Trump was President until January 20, 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

I don't care if it was a liberal or conservative magazine. Nor did anyone say Milley and Trump had a relationship characterized by rainbows and lollypops. The claim was that Trump forced out Kelly and Milley. As to Milley, he certainly wasn't fired (not a claim you made), he didn't resign (not a claim you made) and he didn't retire early (a claim you *did* make). Specifically you said Trump "retired" Milley. This claim does not hold. Milley retired exactly on the schedule you would expect for the Chair of the Joint Chiefs. He retired at the end of his term (Sept 30, 2023) more than 2 1/2 years after Trump left office.

 

[o_mlly]

The claim was that Trump forced out Kelly and Milley.

I made no claim about Kelly but the parallels to Kelly and Milley relationships to Trump tend to support my claim that Trump would do to Milley what he did to Kelly, ie., force him out.

Kelly was not formally fired; however, his departure from the White House came amid reports of significant tension and disagreements with Trump.​

In December 2018, amid reports that Kelly would either be resigning or forced out, Trump confirmed that Kelly would be leaving "at the end of the year." Was General John Kelly fired by Donald Trump? Timeline of the relationship​

We are arguing about the unexperienced past. Implicit in your argument is that Trump would not have fired Milley if he remained President. Mine is that he would have "fired" Milley, just as Trump did effectively to Kelly.

 

[Aldebaran]

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.

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.

His moral character is quite stellar! You have nothing to prove otherwise.

 

[Bradskii]

Spoken like a truly touchy-feely person. Rational persons would examine his and her policies. Whoops, if we do that then she loses. Let's keep with orange-man-bad pitch.

Touchy feely? What? We are talking about the character of a man you want to represent you country, for heaven's sake.

You have the task of employing someone to run a department where you work, where half the workers are female and someone applied who seems to have the qualifications you are looking for. Then one of the women tells you that there's a tape of the guy boasting about how he could use his position where he worked previously to grope young women in the office. How do you respond to that?

Then another colleague says that he was taken to court for an offence that resulted from him having sex with a porn star. While his wife was pregnant. She's a good Christian. And she's horrified. And it turns out that he is a convicted felon because of this.

Then yet another finds that he has been found to have sexually assaulted a woman. The whole office knows about this.

One other tells you of a speech he made at a conference in front of a mixed audience where children were present where he talked about sexual acts with prostitutes and rambled on at length about the the size of the genitals of someone that was known to the everyone there.

Someone else tells you about a conversation he heard when the guy was told about a colleague who was a war hero. He'd been held for years by the Vietnamese and refused to be released until men under him were released. Your prospective employer was heard to say that he 'preferred heroes who weren't captured'. And it turned out that he'd avoided the draft on 5 separate ocassions.

What's your reaction? What do you tell these women? 'Hey, don't be so touchy feely. What we need to do is see what he can do for the department. That's the rational thing to do'.

 

[Bradskii]

His moral character is quite stellar! You have nothing to prove otherwise.

I don't need to be prove anything. It's all a matter of record. And I guess 'stellar' implies something else in your neck of the woods.

Check the post above this one. What do you tell your colleagues? That the fact that they are horrified that this guy might even get an interview is irrational?

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't need to be prove anything. It's all a matter of record. And I guess 'stellar' implies something else in your neck of the woods.

Check the post above this one. What do you tell your colleagues? That the fact that they are horrified that this guy might even get an interview is irrational?

What's wrong with him getting an interview? Doesn't the public deserve to hear what he has to say?

 

[Bradskii]

What's wrong with him getting an interview? Doesn't the public deserve to hear what he has to say?

It's a guy applying for a job at your company. Do you tell the women in your office that this 'touch feely' attitude is irrational? I am absolutely certain that you wouldn't. I am absolutely positive that you wouldn't even entertain the idea of interviewing him. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. I know that from your posts which tell me that you have high moral standards.

If Trump didn't exist but I was trying to convince you that a person as described was someone I was considering hiring, you'd be tearing strips off me. And rightly so.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's a guy applying for a job at your company. Do you tell the women in your office that this 'touch feely' attitude is irrational? I am absolutely certain that you wouldn't. I am absolutely positive that you wouldn't even entertain the idea of interviewing him. I have no doubt about that whatsoever. I know that from your posts which tell me that you have high moral standards.

If Trump didn't exist but I was trying to convince you that a person as described was someone I was considering hiring, you'd be tearing strips off me. And rightly so.

Depends on the job I guess.

 

[Bradskii]

Depends on the job I guess.

What do you mean that it depends on the job? It's some kind of managerial position. He's going to be working with people and in charge of them.

Why wouldn't you berate me for suggesting that we ignore all the immorality? Why wouldn't you compare your adherence to Christian moral precepts while deriding my lack of a moral compass in even considering to interview him?

 

[Aldebaran]

What do you mean that it depends on the job? It's some kind of managerial position. He's going to be working with people and in charge of them.

Why wouldn't you berate me for suggesting that we ignore all the immorality? Why wouldn't you compare your adherence to Christian moral precepts while deriding my lack of a moral compass in even considering to interview him?

What are his qualifications in relations to the job?

 

[Bradskii]

What are his qualifications in relations to the job?

They don't concern you. I'll be interviewing him to see if he's suitable from a business point of view. I've given you the relevant facts as regards his suitability from a moral standpoint.

Why aren't you denigrating me for even considering such a person? I've got people lined up to tell me that what he has said and what he has done excludes him for being considered. What should I say? That we ignore all of that?

 

[RileyG]

78% of Americans think the country is going in the wrong direction after the Biden-Harris Administration.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4256371-most-us-adults-say-country-heading-wrong-direction/

Well.... GOD WILLING, TRUMP will WIN the election!

 

[Aldebaran]

They don't concern you. I'll be interviewing him to see if he's suitable from a business point of view. I've given you the relevant facts as regards his suitability from a moral standpoint.

A business point of view would be that it's good for business if this guy has the needed skills/knowledge/experience to do the job.

Why aren't you denigrating me for even considering such a person? I've got people lined up to tell me that what he has said and what he has done excludes him for being considered. What should I say? That we ignore all of that?

Point taken. You're fired! I'm replacing you with the guy you're considering.

 

[Bradskii]

A business point of view would be that it's good for business if this guy has the needed skills/knowledge/experience to do the job.

I don't know that yet. I haven't interviewed him. But in your opinion, his actions and his words that can only be described as immoral and obscene are to be ignored. They aren't to be considered when employing someone.

 

[Servus]

Harris ducked out of the Joe Rogan interview. I figured she would, but I'm still disappointed.

 

[Pommer]

Harris ducked out of the Joe Rogan interview. I figured she would, but I'm still disappointed.

This is the Texas-sharpshooter fallacy…candidate doesn't elect to go on a certain show that “our guy” went on= “she’s scared!” no, she just doesn’t “need” Joe Rogan’s audience because they aren‘t going to vote for her anyways, going on would have made her look desperate for votes.

 

[Servus]

This is the Texas-sharpshooter fallacy…candidate doesn't elect to go on a certain show that “our guy” went on= “she’s scared!” no, she just doesn’t “need” Joe Rogan’s audience because they aren‘t going to vote for her anyways, going on would have made her look desperate for votes.

With there being around 230 fallacies people have made up, there's one for just about anything, probably including what I'm posting right now. And probably for what you just posted as well.

 

[Hazelelponi]

.

I don't know that yet. I haven't interviewed him. But in your opinion, his actions and his words that can only be described as immoral and obscene are to be ignored. They aren't to be considered when employing someone.

When employing someone you don't get to know what they might have said once 50 years ago in a locker room.

When employing someone you interview them, speak to their references and take them at face value. ..

If you like them enough to hire them, you see how well they do the job they were hired to do.

 

[Bradskii]

When employing someone you don't get to know what they might have said once 50 years ago in a locker room.

In this case we have all the evidence we need. All relatively recent. Personal accounts, court records, emails, tapes, video, Twitter and X. There's no denying it. It's all available. Apparently I should ignore it. Whatever my colleagues think.

'Ye cannot serve God and mammon.' Apparently I am to serve the latter because it might be good for business. And ignore the immorality. Is that the lesson you want I should take from this?