Harris Slammed Over Disastrous Solo Interview With Local Station

[probinson]

Yeah. Why not? I'm showing you he has the runs on the board. You wanted to know who might have a track record and I gave you one. Harris has her wing man who has been doing this type of thing. He's the ideal guy.

So they have a plan. They have the basic details. And they have a guy who has done this thing through in his state from start to finish. That box is most definitely ticked.

If Harris wins, let's come back to this topic in a year or so and see if they actually had a "plan" or if it was just empty campaign promises.

 

[probinson]

High interest rates are the primary tool for cutting inflation at the moment. What they're describing isn't really a thing unless they plan on tacking inflation by other means like raising taxes.



Is that really a problem?



What do you think "support for first-time buyers" means? That's exactly what Harris' $25k plan is - "support for first-time buyers".

Perhaps you've mistaken my posting of the Republican Party platform on affordable housing as suggesting that I think it's a good "plan". I was just posting it for informational purposes.

Also, I have no idea what "support for first-time buyers" means (and neither do you), because it doesn't say. I will say that a $25k handout is a heckuvalot of "support".

 

[Bradskii]

If Harris wins, let's come back to this topic in a year or so and see if they actually had a "plan" or if it was just empty campaign promises.

You've already agreed that they have a plan. You can't argue against a policy that they don't have. I think what you are trying to say is that in a year's time we can check to see how well it's working. And then we'll judge her on that. And as she won't be in competition with anyone for any given position in doing it, there'll be nothing to compare it to. It'll stand or fall on it's own merit.

As it stands now however, it's only a policy proposal. Same as the GOP's on the same matter. How does one know which they prefer? Well, gee. I guess they'd have to compare them to make a decision. At least that's how I would do it. I don't know how you might.

 

[probinson]

You've already agreed that they have a plan. You can't argue against a policy that they don't have. I think what you are trying to say is that in a year's time we can check to see how well it's working.

Um, no.

What I'm saying is let's see if anything has even been implemented.

And then we'll judge her on that. And as she won't be in competition with anyone for any given position in doing it, there'll be nothing to compare it to. It'll stand or fall on it's own merit.

Ah. So the plan can only be judged on its own merit when not in an election season? Alrighty then.

 

[Bradskii]

What I'm saying is let's see if anything has even been implemented.

Well, we can't judge how effective it is if it hasn't.

Ah. So the plan can only be judged on its merits when not in an election season? Alrighty then.

You can judge it's potential on merit, certainly. But to decide which you'd prefer, then how you do it without comparing it to the other option is beyond me. This has already been explained to you. More than once. The bolding was in the original.

As I said, you judge each plan from each candidate on it's merit and then compare them.

 

[probinson]

Well, we can't judge how effective it is if it hasn't.

You can judge it's potential on merit, certainly. But to decide which you'd prefer, then how you do it without comparing it to the other option is beyond me. This has already been explained to you. More than once. The bolding was in the original.

Your inability to discuss a candidate on their own merit is bizarre to me. You always end up at some form of, "Well, at least it's not as bad as Trump." This allows you to not acknowledge any faults or shortcomings in your preferred candidate.

I guess we just have different mindsets. I've never been much of a fan of whataboutisms in these types of discussions, and it's your modus operandi. I suppose that's why our discussions always end up here.

 

[Bradskii]

Your inability to discuss a candidate on their own merit is bizarre to me.

I was the one who showed you what the details were. You're obviously not reading what I'm writing. I said earlier precisely what you're accusing me of not doing. Here's two paragraphs of me actually 'discussing a candidate on their own merit' - or at least one of their policies. And even telling you at what point I decided that it had merit.

This was just yesterday, a few posts ago. And you accuse me of not doing it? How is that possible?

If Harris says she'll do something to help the housing crisis then I'm basically happy with that. But I'd like to take it a little deeper by asking how. So she says she'll have 3 million new homes built in her first term. OK, that sounds good. But...maybe a little more? So she says the government will partner with builders to ensure that they are built. That's good - they'll encourage builders by some means to build on land that will be either acquired or released by either federal or state governments.

Do I need to go any deeper? Do I need to know how tax incentives to builders will work? How much they'll be depending on where the houses are built? What size houses they'll be? Is the infrastructure included in the costings? I mean, there are literally dozens of questions I could ask, but do I need to get that deep in the weeds on one single aspect of the election? From what I've been told, that box gets a tick.

 

[probinson]

I was the one who showed you what the details were.

Um, no. In my very first post in this thread I summarized what Harris said in her interview. You didn't show me (or anyone else) anything more than that, because there is nothing more than that to show.

 

[Bradskii]

Um, no. In my very first post in this thread I summarized what Harris said in her interview. You didn't show me (or anyone else) anything more than that, because there is nothing more than that to show.

So you were the first to bring them up. That doesn't excuse you claiming that I never discussed them and debated them on their own merit. I did precisely that. And further to that I had explained that that was the way one should approach a policy position. Determine if you think it's worthwhile on it's on merit and then compare it to the opposition to see which is the better option.

 

[probinson]

So you were the first to bring them up.

Yes. Are you going to retract your false claim that you showed me the details?

That doesn't excuse you claiming that I never discussed them and debated them on their own merit. I did precisely that.

Not really. You just repeated what I summarized in my first post and said it sounded good to you and that it got a "tick" from you. Not exactly hardcore analysis.

And further to that I had explained that that was the way one should approach a policy position. Determine if you think it's worthwhile on it's on merit and then compare it to the opposition to see which is the better option.

If you say so.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes. Are you going to retract your false claim that you showed me the details?

You did. I was wrong to say I did.

Not really. You just repeated what I summarized in my first post and said it sounded good to you and that it got a "tick" from you. Not exactly hardcore analysis.

It was explained at what level individuals thought they might want to decide the pros and conns of a policy on its own merit. The detail that you might need is your own matter.

If you say so.

I obviously did. More than once. And I think I've said more than enough on this matter.

 

[probinson]

You did. I was wrong to say I did.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

It was explained at what level individuals thought they might want to decide the pros and conns of a policy on its own merit. The detail that you might need is your own matter.

I will acknowledge that you have said that one should evaluate a policy proposal on its own merit but your approach in this discussion doesn't seem to agree.

You apparently see this as a two-step process. "Evaluate" (I'm using that term quite loosely) the proposal on its own merit, and then compare it. Personally, I see no value in your second step when talking about the pros and cons of a stated proposal. What some other proposal will or won't do does not in any way affect the individual merit of the proposal you're evaluating. All it really does is creates a way to say, "Eh, this proposal isn't great, but at least it's a teensy bit better than the other one". Then the focus becomes not on the inherent issues in the policy proposal, but that it's at least marginally more appealing than the other one.

Like I said, we apparently have different approaches when it comes to how to objectively evaluate campaign promises (because, let's be real, that's what all of these "proposals" are right now). By definition, one cannot evaluate something on its OWN merit if they are comparing it against something else.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Here's the interview with 6 Philadelphia. 11 minutes. Judge for yourself instead of listening to biased spin doctors.

Action News anchor Brian Taff's full interview with VP Kamala Harris

Full Interview: Vice President Kamala Harris sat down one-on-one for an exclusive interview with Action News anchor Brian Taff on Friday.

6abc.com

She was articulate and consistent.

Well that was edited.

Clearly a question or two got snipped from the final cut. The last 15 seconds or so doesn't have the background noise present throughout the interview.

Upsides- she didn't promise the moon. She's not saying that she's going to fix the economy, get crime under control, fix education, fix the border crisis.....

But she's offering tax credits. Who for?

1. Families with dependent children.
2. Small business owners.
3. First time home buyers.

These don't help me specifically, but I'm certainly not against them. However....

Given her administration's record on covid relief funds (record fraud) and the vast amount of welfare already being handed to illegals....I'm not sure she's even interested in both allocating these things to US citizens and people who aren't running scams. That's the upside. These aren't the worst ideas if kept vague and nonspecific....it's the details I'm concerned about.

The downside. She seems really nervous for an 11 minute interview with nobody. I mean....does she understand the sort of people she will need to negotiate with? Articulate? Sure. Consistent? Yeah...consistently off topic. The first question was give us some details on how you intend to fix the economy.....and it's 2 minutes of rambling about some fictional home life before a policy is even mentioned....and there's very little detail.

In case anyone is not paying attention...the result of putting a stuffed suit with the lights off upstairs in WH is all of our enemies seeing a green light to attack.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Harris is doing a mini filibuster.

That's one way of looking at it. She dodged the questions of "how are you different from Biden" and "can you think of a reason Trump has supporters?"

And I'm paraphrasing.

Let's be clear...that was the right move. She isn't really different from Biden....she won't be running things just like Biden currently isn't.

If she said "Trump's clearly more brave than me"....since I'm nervous about a one-on-one interview for 11 minutes and he's got people trying to shoot him. That's not going to fly.

And you can see the wheels turning as she tries to balance the interests and demands of a diverse voting coalition thats more than half of the country.

????

Most of her current voters were the same voters she had when it was announced she was taking over the ticket. You're not entirely wrong, she does have a diverse coalition....

Big pharma
Multinational investment firms
Big business
Banking
And unsurprisingly, the institute of both public and higher education.
Establishment Media

The identity group voters just think they're on the same team. The feminists, gays, trans, are not on the same team. Jews and Muslims and black people aren't on the same team. In fact, black people and anyone...including the indigenous people they claim....aren't on the same team. The white pseudo-socialist liberal isn't an ally of anyone.

The reason these companies signal to the left that they're on your side is because....like you....they believe it's an actual team that supports each other and shares values. That's not the case though.

Whether or not she understands it....Harris is the uniparty trying to retain its grip. It was less obvious when each side could pretend to have different views and she wouldn't be bragging about having 200 Republicans on her side.

In reality though, the reason why Obama was every bit as disappointing as GW Bush is because every 4 years....they're told what to do and how to do it. All the donors are lined up on one side....and Trump's getting shot at. Harris spent most of this interview trying to convince people she's got middle class working roots. This doesn't take Columbo to figure out.

Want something different? Change the system so we dont penalize alt party voters with the spoiler effect.

RFK tried to run....as an alt candidate under the Democratic Party. He was barred from debates. He was scrubbed off ballots. The only places he was allowed to be on the ballot were states he was more likely to take Trump votes. He knows the score...he opted out.