Kamala Harris interviewed by Brett Baier

[Hazelelponi]

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?

Mammon is on the other side of the aisle doing the whole war for profit thing, the corporatist thing.

I've not seen anything out that tells me he is the lesser person.

 

[o_mlly]

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'.

"Hair on Fire!"

I find it ironic that one who professes his belief that morality is either only subjective, or relative or practical would attempt to impose his ideas of morality on another. I guess the practical modifier means any act is morally OK as long as you don't get caught, or the exposition of that act doesn't hurt anyone.

After you put out the fire, check your facts. Trump is not a convicted felon for a sex act (which he denies) or making a non-disclosure contract with a porn star accuser in order to stop her from publicly falsely accusing him of adultery.

He was convicted of fraudulently altering business records. Now, the heavily Dem Manhattan district and the Dem prosecutor and the Dem judge got what they wanted. Now Harris can campaign against a convicted felon. And then the Dem judge delays sentencing "so as to not interfere with the upcoming election". A decision that prohibits Trump from appealing the trial's guilty verdict until after the election. You're OK with that, morally speaking of course?

Now turn your scrupulously moral brain on a 20-year adulteress who used sex to gain political contacts in San Francisco.

 

[Bradskii]

Mammon is on the other side of the aisle doing the whole war for profit thing, the corporatist thing.

I've not seen anything out that tells me he is the lesser person.

All you know about the potential hire is what I've told you. I'm looking for some guidelines as to whether a person so described should be considered for an interview. It seems that I'm to ignore the concerns of my fellow workers and likewise ignore the litany of faults as noted. Considering where I'm asking the question I have to say I'm surprised to be told that moral character doesn't count.

 

[Bradskii]

I find it ironic...

You should be standing where I am. An atheist on a Christian forum being told that moral character isn't worth a hill of beans. Ignore everything because...well, some people I guess think they'll benefit by doing so.

I'm not sure that you appreciate where this leads. If someone is applying for the very top job in the country and what he has said and done can be wilfully ignored then there's no argument to prevent anyone at any time applying for any position under the same circumstances. What they have said or done, how the conduct themselves means nothing. Want to check his rap sheet? No need. What to hear what he thinks of women? Hey, ignore that. Well, what about...

No. Ignore it all. There's no point in listing it all out. Read my lips: It. Doesn't. Count.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

did you forget your own post:

3. Trump fired Kelly and "retired" Milley.

Clear statements (mostly clear, the "" in "retired" have some ambiguity in communication) of the actual past.

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​

Which I do not dispute, nor have I.

We are arguing about the unexperienced past.

Is that what you think your statement was. It sure looks like a claim about the experienced path. I didn't see "would have forced out" or similar language in your claim.

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.

Again, I have made no arguments about what Trump would have done if he was President throughout 2021 (and through toda) (shudder). I don't care about such disturbing alternative realities. (I have enough to be concerned about with possible futures. Possible pasts are not worth the argument.)

 

[Aldebaran]

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.

I didn't realize that was my opinion.

 

[Aldebaran]

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.

She's turned to rich celebrities to sing songs for her to get votes. That's desperation.
Bread and circuses in addition to word salads that don't amount to any substance.

 

[Aldebaran]

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?

We also have his resume' of being president already for 4 years.
That seals the deal for me.
Mr. Trump, you're hired!

 

[Bradskii]

I didn't realize that was my opinion.

Then you can correct my impression. Do I consider his moral character to be important when deciding whether to grant him an interview? And his qualifications don't come into it. Those, plus his abilities won't be discussed unless we decide that we overlook his moral failings.

 

[Bradskii]

We also have his resume' of being president already for 4 years.
That seals the deal for me.
Mr. Trump, you're hired!

We're not talking about the president. This is someone applying to represent my company. See post above.

 

[Aldebaran]

Then you can correct my impression. Do I consider his moral character to be important when deciding whether to grant him an interview? And his qualifications don't come into it. Those, plus his abilities won't be discussed unless we decide that we overlook his moral failings.

Try running a business sometime. When hiring employees, the first thing an employer sees is a resume' which outlines the prospective employee's skills, experience, education, etc. After that comes the interview, where the employer can assess moral character if that's what he is placing an emphasis on for that particular position.

 

[Bradskii]

Try running a business sometime. When hiring employees, the first thing an employer sees is a resume' which outlines the prospective employee's skills, experience, education, etc. After that comes the interview, where the employer can assess moral character if that's what he is placing an emphasis on for that particular position.

I've run my own business. I've hired and fired. No need for a heads up. But you keep ignoring the problem. I have been told about this guy's behaviour. And we have the evidence. Do we ignore his explicit immoral words and deeds?

 

[Aldebaran]

I've run my own business. I've hired and fired. No need for a heads up. But you keep ignoring the problem. I have been told about this guy's behaviour. And we have the evidence. Do we ignore his explicit immoral words and deeds?

I guess so!
Was that the answer you were hoping for?

 

[Bradskii]

I guess so!
Was that the answer you were hoping for?

Was I hoping that people on this forum would tell me that a person's immoral acts aren't a consideration when thinking about putting them into a position of authority? No. But what I was hoping for and what I expected are two different things.

 

[Aldebaran]

Was I hoping that people on this forum would tell me that a person's immoral acts aren't a consideration when thinking about putting them into a position of authority? No. But what I was hoping for and what I expected are two different things.

Changing the goalposts now? I figured you would eventually.

 

[Bradskii]

Changing the goalposts now? I figured you would eventually.

What goalposts? You've given me your answer. It took a while, but it was very clear. In fact, it couldn't be clearer.

 

[Aldebaran]

What goalposts? You've given me your answer. It took a while, but it was very clear. In fact, it couldn't be clearer.

And then you changed the question.

 

[Bradskii]

And then you changed the question.

Please, don't play games. I asked 'Do we ignore his explicit immoral words and deeds?' And you specifically said that you guess so. I am to ignore them. They are not to be considered. That cannot be clearer.

 

[Aldebaran]

Please, don't play games. I asked 'Do we ignore his explicit immoral words and deeds?' And you specifically said that you guess so. I am to ignore them. They are not to be considered. That cannot be clearer.

I'd be more concerned with Harris's lack of a train of thought, and her evasiveness. It breeds suspicion rather than trust.

 

[Bradskii]

I'd be more concerned with Harris's lack of a train of thought, and her evasiveness. It breeds suspicion rather than trust.

What was that about goalposts earlier? You've been asked about verifiable immoral acts and whether they should be ignored or not when considering someone for a position of authority. Someone who will represent you.

It seems that we should ignore them. They aren't to be considered.