Kamala Harris interviewed by Brett Baier

[Aldebaran]

Why on earth is that somehow relevant?

Forgive my presumption, but I do presume that you judge others on their moral character. There's quite a lot of positions held in this forum that are just based on morality. And when I say quite a lot, it's just about every position. And it's not like I'm surprised. I've been posting on religious forums for very many years indeed. If Trump was any other person (and especially if he was a Democrat) then most people in this forum would be in attack mode should anyone be dumb enough to try to excuse his behaviour.

This man is by far the most unsuitable person ever to stand for high office. And when I say 'by far' I really mean there has been no-one like him. Ever.

And what I will never understand is how so many not just ignore what he has said and done, but actually try to excuse it.

Considering the binary choice, what's the alternative? A woman who hasn't received a single primary vote, who wants to make abortion the main priority in her campaign, who has already left the border unsecured and allowed countless deaths to happen as a result, and lied to us about Biden's condition, and has been involved in decisions that has led to high inflation, and has no problem with young children in school being exposed to porn and transsexual ideology?
And what do you believe is "moral" about either voting for someone like that, or simply not voting at all and doing nothing to prevent her from taking office?

 

[Bradskii]

Considering the binary choice...

I'm not talking about a choice. I'm talking about whether someone should even be considered to be in a position where you need to make a choice.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm not talking about a choice. I'm talking about whether someone should even be considered to be in a position where you need to make a choice.

Considering is a choice.
How do you think the decision of whether to consider someone or not is not a choice? Decision/choice=same thing.

Both definitions found with a simple Google search.
Decision defined: "a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration."

Choice defined: "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities."

And yes, it is a decision that is being made: Decision 2024 – NBC Los Angeles

 

[A2SG]

Nope. Unnecessary debt-financed government spending is the cause.

Seems there are well respected and experienced economists who disagree with you on this, as my link demonstrated. Since I'm not one of those, I'll leave you to fight it out with them.

So, the arsonist pretending now to be a fireman in order to keep his/her job is a good thing? The fact is that the arsonist's policies caused ~ 20% increase in prices. Now, as fireman, stands over your smoking embers and you think he did a good job?

As the link provided demonstrated, it's a provable fact that inflation has decreased under Biden, due, in large part, to his economic policies. You can disagree with this fact if you like, I won't stop you, but the fact remains, regardless of your feelings.

As a journalist, certainly you know citing biased sources ("Roosevelt Institute ... advances progressive policies") is not good journalism.

I check a variety of sources, that one seemed to explain the issue the best. If you have better sources, feel free to present them. You may want to show me how yours are better, however, by specifically explaining how the bias you perceive in the one I provided affects the facts, but yours doesn't. It's easy to say a source is biased, but when pressed to show how that bias affects the factual data presented, that charge can often fall a bit flat.

Does Massachusetts not have an internet search engine?

Your claim, your duty to provide evidence for it.

An unbiased Manhattan jury?

Yup. Such things are possible. That's what voie dire is for, after all. And, let's not forget, there are many Trump supporters in NYC. He did get 38% of the vote there last election...so, statistically, it's entirely possible to have many Trump supporters in the jury pool.

In 2019 when Trump is President and indicates he will run for a second term, Carroll suddenly claims an event that allegedly happened ~30 years ago now needs to be adjudicated? Does that pass your smell test?

The timing doesn't affect the fact that a jury found Trump did what he was charged with doing...and he continued to do it during the trial. Trump was his own worst enemy in that case. You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want...but the jury saw the evidence, and Trump's defense, and they found him guilty. As did a second jury.

The case is under appeal. Stay tuned.

Granted, but I gotta say, it doesn't look good for Trump, His counterclaim has already been dismissed, and the judge ruled that the charge of rape was "substantially true."

Dem judge summarily delivers his judgement in a case prosecuted by another Dem.

So? The jury decided the verdict, it wasn't a bench trial. And if you want to claim the jury was entirely biased against Trump, you'll have to provide evidence for that claim. And explain why Trump's legal team was completely incompetent during voie dire.

The case is under appeal. Stay tuned.

Granted. But, I'm curious....excepting your opinion that Trump didn't do what a jury unanimously decided he did, after hearing both the evidence presented and Trump's defense, what legal or procedural errors do you think exist sufficient to overturn this verdict?

As I have a life, let's continue this exchange after the November election decides whether your claims have sufficient validity in determining the voting public's confidence in Trump.

Well, if the past is any clue, Trump has never had a majority of Americans vote for him in any election...so, I guess we'll have to see.

-- A2SG, assuming there are no shenanigans afoot, of course......

 

[Bradskii]

Considering is a choice.
How do you think the decision of whether to consider someone or not is not a choice? Decision/choice=same thing.

Both definitions found with a simple Google search.
Decision defined: "a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration."

Choice defined: "an act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities."

And yes, it is a decision that is being made: Decision 2024 – NBC Los Angeles

Oh, good grief. I think that it was blazingly obvious I was talking about a choice between two candidates.

 

[A2SG]

Since we live in a secular culture rather than a theocracy, we can't be expected to vote for leaders as if it was a theocracy. People like to bring up the "lesser of two evils" idea, but I think the "lesser of two less-than-perfect people" is more accurate. And yes, policies are what are going to affect our lives after the election than the individual's morals.

Gee, I have to say, as someone who lived through the Clinton years, that seems quite a different take than the right wing took back then. Odd, isn't it, how time changes things?

-- A2SG, or, maybe, it's as simple as "it's okay if my guy does it, but not if your guy does it"....

 

[KCfromNC]

Considering the binary choice, what's the alternative? A woman who hasn't received a single primary vote, who wants to make abortion the main priority in her campaign, who has already left the border unsecured and allowed countless deaths to happen as a result, and lied to us about Biden's condition, and has been involved in decisions that has led to high inflation, and has no problem with young children in school being exposed to porn and transsexual ideology?

Weird how a post needs to resort to making stuff up about a candidate to try and make its case.

 

[o_mlly]

So yet again, immoral behaviour such as we have seen is to be ignored.

I'll ignore hers if you ignore his. Seems fair.

 

[o_mlly]

Seems there are well respected and experienced economists who disagree with you ...

It's always a good idea to read the article cited before posting. The article agrees with me. Stimulating demand in the face of a supply problem is exactly what not to do.

Misjudgments of the economic effects of covid-era fiscal programs are one potential explanation of the failure to forecast the subsequent inflation. Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) forecasts of inflation changed little between the September 2020 and June 2021 iterations of the Survey of Economic Projections, and the Committee continued to expect that inflation would return close to the Fed’s 2 percent target by 2023, despite congressional passage of a bill in December 2020 that included $900 billion for covid relief and the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan signed by President Biden in March 2021. These two programs came on top of the $2.2 trillion CARES Act, passed in March 2020 and signed by President Trump, which had already strengthened firms’ and households’ balance sheets and increased future ability to spend. Overall, as a share of GDP, the headline costs of these three covid-era fiscal packages were about 4-1/2 times the size of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), enacted in response to the 2008 financial crisis and the ensuing recession.1​

​

Indeed, some early analyses of the American Rescue Plan using standard fiscal multipliers concluded that the additional federal spending would indeed overheat the economy, possibly leading to higher inflation (Blanchard, 2021; Edelberg and Sheiner, 2021).​

​

This sectoral demand shift was augmented by increases in overall consumer spending driven by supportive monetary and fiscal policies. On the supply side, global supply chains and transportation networks were disrupted by pandemic-induced shutdowns, constraining production in key sectors, and even those industries not affected by such problems were in many instances pushed to the limits of their capacity. The combination of an increased demand for goods and limited supply resulted, not surprisingly, in sharp rises in prices in a number of sectors.​

​

Ultimately, as many have recognized, the inflation largely reflected strong aggregate demand, the product of easy fiscal and monetary policies, excess savings accumulated during the pandemic, and the reopening of locked-down economies. ​

See you after the election.

 

[Aldebaran]

Oh, good grief. I think that it was blazingly obvious I was talking about a choice between two candidates.

And I thought it was obvious that I was as well.
But anyway, I'm glad we had this chat.

 

[Pommer]

So yet again, immoral behaviour such as we have seen is to be ignored. That may be the way you work. It certainly isn't mine.

My view of this political phenomenon goeth thusly:

In 2016, the nation’s polls assured the American electorate that President Hillary Clinton was a foregone conclusion, it would take Divine intervention (a bona fide “miracle”) for Donald Trump to win election.

Lo, and behold, Trump won!

If Donald Trump has been chosen by God, (as evidenced by his win in ‘16), then anyone who believes in this God really has no choice but to stick with Trump, no matter what!

It’s not so much a political stance, as it is an absolute commitment to faith in one’s Deity to “use” this imperfect vessel to set our nation upon a course that more closely adhere’s to this Deity’s will.

As I see it, this is valid “political opinion” to hold.

 

[Bradskii]

I'll ignore hers if you ignore his. Seems fair.

That's a nonsensical position. You are saying that if you think someone you don't support has done something immoral then that will excuse literally every immoral thing that someone you do support has done.

So is there some sort of system where we can submit our actions to be weighted against someone else's, thus cancelling them out? Gee, this is going to come in awfully handy in this forum.

Have you sinned? I guess if you have then all mine can now be ignored. I didn't know it was that easy.

 

[Bradskii]

My view of this political phenomenon goeth thusly:

In 2016, the nation’s polls assured the American electorate that President Hillary Clinton was a foregone conclusion, it would take Divine intervention (a bona fide “miracle”) for Donald Trump to win election.

Lo, and behold, Trump won!

If Donald Trump has been chosen by God, (as evidenced by his win in ‘16), then anyone who believes in this God really has no choice but to stick with Trump, no matter what!

It’s not so much a political stance, as it is an absolute commitment to faith in one’s Deity to “use” this imperfect vessel to set our nation upon a course that more closely adhere’s to this Deity’s will.

As I see it, this is valid “political opinion” to hold.

Divine intervention seems to be something of a moveable feast. Trump wins? Divine intervention. Trump loses? Umm...well there must be some hidden reason. Who are we to understand God's will.

 

[Aldebaran]

That's a nonsensical position. You are saying that if you think someone you don't support has done something immoral then that will excuse literally every immoral thing that someone you do support has done.

So is there some sort of system where we can submit our actions to be weighted against someone else's, thus cancelling them out? Gee, this is going to come in awfully handy in this forum.

Have you sinned? I guess if you have then all mine can now be ignored. I didn't know it was that easy.

You seem to believe that any wrong done by Trump disqualifies him from consideration, while any mention of Kamalla's wrongs are to be swept aside and ignored. Is that your position? (That's a question--just in case you automatically respond with the usual "stop putting words in my mouth!")

 

[Bradskii]

You seem to believe that any wrong done by Trump disqualifies him from consideration...

No, not 'any wrong'. I have never indicated that whatsoever. I have constantly listed some of the totality of wrongs that should disqualify him. It's not just one thing that he has done. It's not just one comment that he has made. It's the whole catalogue of wrongs. They're next to impossible to list because in the first instance there are so many. And in the second he keeps adding to them on a daily basis.

Some things considered individually would certainly disqualify him. Without doubt. But all of them? I am at a complete loss as to how people, in this forum especially, still try to excuse his behaviour.

 

[Aldebaran]

No, not 'any wrong'. I have never indicated that whatsoever. I have constantly listed some of the totality of wrongs that should disqualify him. It's not just one thing that he has done. It's not just one comment that he has made. It's the whole catalogue of wrongs. They're next to impossible to list because in the first instance there are so many. And in the second he keeps adding to them on a daily basis.

Some things considered individually would certainly disqualify him. Without doubt. But all of them? I am at a complete loss as to how people, in this forum especially, still try to excuse his behaviour.

First of all, nobody really knows if he even did most of the things he's accused of. Much of it is clearly motivated by political hatred from is opponents. As for legal convictions, they are highly suspect considering how they came about. Also, if you watch the MSM coverage of Trump and Harris, it's all too easy to see the bias, which makes most of the things they report about him highly questionable. When we hear enough of it, it just has a hollow ring to it when you hear so many dumb accusations.
Trump is undoubtedly the most investigated president in history. If he was all that terrible, we would know about it by now.

 

[Bradskii]

First of all, nobody really knows if he even did most of the things he's accused of.

Yeah, we do. Again, read Jack Smith's brief. There's so much in there that it's not possible to deny it.

 

[Aldebaran]

Yeah, we do. Again, read Jack Smith's brief. There's so much in there that it's not possible to deny it.

So if "Jack Smith" says enough things, it must be true?

 

[Bradskii]

So if "Jack Smith" says enough things, it must be true?

No. If the evidence says enough things then it must be true. Read the brief. You can get back to me about what you find is problematical. If Trump loses the election, he'll be going to jail. I know that and I think that you might realise it.

 

[Aldebaran]

No. If the evidence says enough things then it must be true. Read the brief. You can get back to me about what you find is problematical. If Trump loses the election, he'll be going to jail. I know that and I think that you might realise it.

Only if you add an apostrophe "S" to it.