Kamala Harris interviewed by Brett Baier

[Aldebaran]

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.

Well, in the interest of being on the thread topic, it was Harris who was being interviewed, so there's that.

 

[o_mlly]

You should be standing where I am.

That could be the problem. A possible remedy for one whose hair is on fire is to stick their head in the sand.

 

[o_mlly]

(I have enough to be concerned about with possible futures. Possible pasts are not worth the argument.)

Another "I don't care" reply.

Your position apparently is the only possible past is the one we experienced. Nope.

 

[o_mlly]

What they have said or done, how the conduct themselves means nothing.

If someone is applying to manage your car dealership, only what he/she has said or done relating to managing businesses in the past should be of importance to you.

The choice is not Trump or our Lord and Savior but Trump or Harris. Check their records on managing the country. Hire the one who has done the better job.

 

[o_mlly]

This is the Texas-sharpshooter fallacy…candidate doesn't elect to go on a certain show that “our guy” went on= “she’s scared!”

That fallacy doesn't apply to Harris' decision to not go on the Rogan podcast. However, that fallacy would apply to CBS's editing of their Harris interview.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

More hypocrisy. Correct me if I misunderstood your position that having no free will in a determined universe, there are, morally speaking, no successes or failures because in your universe one just could not have done otherwise. Oh, except for Trump.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Another "I don't care" reply.

Your position apparently is the only possible past is the one we experienced. Nope.

This is not a discussion of quantum mechanics. This sub-sub-thread is about what did happen, not what could have happened. Whether it might have happened if Trump hadn't lost the election is irrelevant to if Trump *did* push Milley out or not. He did not.

 

[o_mlly]

This is not a discussion of quantum mechanics. This sub-sub-thread is about what did happen, not what could have happened. Whether it might have happened if Trump hadn't lost the election is irrelevant to if Trump *did* push Milley out or not. He did not.

It appears you do not understand Bayesian probability theory. Until Jan. 6, 2021, Bayesian logic would predict Milley's dimissal as evidenced by Milley himself. After Jan. 6, 2021, and only after Jan.6, 2021, would the same logic reverse the prediction. Have a good day.

 

[Bradskii]

If someone is applying to manage your car dealership, only what he/she has said or done relating to managing businesses in the past should be of importance to you.

It isn't. Apparently it is to you.

Not the least of my concern would be my customers' reaction when they find out the type of man I have hired. Considering his past deeds and words I'd lose most of my female clients and probably most of the married men. The question on everyone's lips would be 'Is this sort of man you'd want to deal with when buying a second hand car'.

 

[Larniavc]

His moral character is quite stellar!

Wait, having sex wit a porn star is moral character? My head is spinning.

 

[Aldebaran]

Wait, having sex wit a porn star is moral character? My head is spinning.

There's a simple solution for that.

 

[Bradskii]

More hypocrisy. Correct me if I misunderstood your position that having no free will in a determined universe, there are, morally speaking, no successes or failures because in your universe one just could not have done otherwise. Oh, except for Trump.

He's a great example of someone who literally can't help what he says or does because he only considers himself. Repentance is not a word in his dictionary. Not acknowledging his faults allows him to continue his ways. It's why he has been previously punished for previous immoral and illegal acts. As a deterrent. But we've seen that even that doesn't work. Fined for defaming a woman he simply does it again.

There's been a lot written about this type of personality. I'm sure you're aware of it. I hope you're not expecting any change.

 

[o_mlly]

It isn't. Apparently it is to you.

Not the least of my concern would be my customers' reaction when they find out the type of man I have hired. Considering his past deeds and words I'd lose most of my female clients and probably most of the married men. The question on everyone's lips would be 'Is this sort of man you'd want to deal with when buying a second hand car'.

The best predictor for a person's future performance is their past performance. On that premise, hire Kamala and you will lose your business.

Your customer's more likely question, "Is this man giving me a good deal on the car?" On the same premise, hire Trump and you'll have happy customers.

Have you not read 2 Samuel 11:12:25? God did not remove David, an adulterer and murderer, from his kingship. Give Trump a break, you are not God.

 

[o_mlly]

He's a great example of someone who literally can't help what he says or does because he only considers himself. Repentance is not a word in his dictionary. Not acknowledging his faults allows him to continue his ways. It's why he has been previously punished for previous immoral and illegal acts. As a deterrent. But we've seen that even that doesn't work. Fined for defaming a woman he simply does it again.

There's been a lot written about this type of personality. I'm sure you're aware of it. I hope you're not expecting any change.

Spoken like a self-anointed moral authority that approves of those who commit perverse sexual acts. The point is that who are you to judge Trump? See John 8:7.

 

[Bradskii]

The best predictor for a person's future performance is their past performance.

You actually want to use that as a means to decide if Trump is morally worthy of the position?

Give Trump a break, you are not God.

If he was truly sorry for the things he has said and done, if he could change for the better then I would. Truly, I honestly would. I'd do the same for anyone. Because everyone deserves a second chance. Or third, fourth...I've lost count with him. But you know just as well as I do that that is not on the cards. He is psychologically and emotionally unable to do so. He cannot repent.

In that case, as a Christian, what do you think the solution can possibly be? For some it appears to be to give him the keys to the kingdom. Hand over the nuclear codes. Make him Commander In Chief.

 

[o_mlly]

You actually want to use that as a means to decide if Trump is morally worthy of the position?

No one is morally worthy of the position. See Romans 3:23.

So, we should choose based on past performance as the best predictor of future performance. Trump wins, hands down.

 

[o_mlly]

... if he could change for the better then I would. Truly, I honestly would.

And is it your judgment that he cannot? See 1 Timothy 2:4-6.

He is psychologically and emotionally unable to do so. He cannot repent.

I didn't know you had a PhD in psychology. Where did you do your graduate work?

In that case, as a Christian, what do you think the solution can possibly be?

In matters of the world, choose the lesser evil. Trump wins again.

 

[Bradskii]

Spoken like a self-anointed moral authority that approves of those who commit perverse sexual acts. The point is that who are you to judge Trump? See John 8:7.

We all have a responsibility to ensure that those applying for high office maintain high standards. They represent the people they serve.

And we all judge others. We judge the behaviour of our spouses, our children, our friends and colleagues. And you are judged by others for how you act and what you say. Don't kid yourself otherwise. Trump doesn't get a free pass simply because we all have our own faults.

I'll assume that you repent for yours. When Trump does the same then his deeds and his attitude will be reassessed.

 

[Bradskii]

No one is morally worthy of the position. See Romans 3:23.

So, we should choose based on past performance as the best predictor of future performance. Trump wins, hands down.

That position only holds if you ignore the extent of his immorality.

 

[Bradskii]

In matters of the world, choose the lesser evil. Trump wins again.

So your argument is literally: My guy is bad. But not as bad as yours.

Do you honestly think that's a good argument? Isn't the blazingly obvious question then: 'Why on earth did you pick someone who you admit is bad in the first place?'

Which is not rhetorical by the way.