So Where was the Teleprompter?

[Whyayeman]

So my question, sir, now that you are asking Black supporters to vote for you, why should Black voters trust you after you have used language like that?

This is the only question in the extract quoted. Certainly it is about race, but wasn't the question perfectly justified in the context of that particular interview, which was Trump's allusions to the racial origins of Obama, among others?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don’t know the specific complaints about him to which you were referring.

I can find an article if you like...but while they're written as complaints, they aren't really complaints (do you see what I mean?).

You'll have an article quoting some Republican somewhere as saying the equivalent of "I wish Trump's campaign would stop bringing up race and focus more on Biden/Harris’s economic revord"....which may be a legitimate statement made by an actual Republican.

The article however, will go on to frame this as something that Democrats agree with, Republicans agree with, and the public agrees with....but for some reason the Trump campaign just can't get the message and ignore Harris’ racial identity!!

The implications of this are pretty obvious....Trump's so racist he can't possibly avoid being racist now that Harris, a black and asian woman (an identity that everyone wants to ignore but can't because Trump's just so darn racist!) and the joyous possibilities she brings to the office of the presidency...

In reality...the Democratic Party would love it if he brought up her race and gender more often. This allows them to continue to paint him as a racist, sexist, bigot who has nothing but the worst intentions for minorities because he's a white supremacist....

They would love nothing more than to have Trump continually talk about Harris’s race. They're pretending it's bad....but for them, it's Christmas.

What I will say is that regarding a general critique of him being “obsessed with race”, I think that it’s unfair to levy that charge merely for answering a question about race.

Agreed.

However, I think that it is fair to levy it in response to the comments that initially prompted the question, and in response to his comments about her flipflopping racial identity.

No arguments there....in fact, I think one cam make a legitimate argument as to why his answer was racist if they saw it that way. I'm sure many people did...and I'm sure many people didn't.

I do think his campaign is effectively stuck on messaging because there's almost nothing to critique with Harris. She's got a very short record....no real accomplishments (none of note anyway) and while this may seem to be an advantage for Trump...it leaves his ability to bully and attack her personally very limited.

Instead, he should pivot to attack the party. Attribute everything that voters think is wrong with the nation to Democrats and by extension, Harris. The criminals and terrorists sneaking across the border? Democrats and Harris. The people living in tents and homeless? Harris and Biden's lockdowns. High prices at the store Harris and Biden's economy. Your children being indoctrinated st schools while math a reading scores drop? Harris and Democrats. Point out that they don't even respect voters enough to offer up a bad solution to these problems....they have offered voters nothing. The only way to hold them accountable is to elect Trump...and he's going to go after corruption, insider trading, and end back room deals with Wall Street and activists who rob the taxpayers.

Remind everyone when they call him a liar....they've already lost all credibility. The press just pretends to be objective, they've protected Democrats since 2020. They lied about the vaccines effectiveness, lied about the economy, lied about crime...and most importantly, lied about the president's mental capacity up until everyone saw it during their debate.

That's the messaging he should be running on....make the Democratic Party outline some policies, make them lie about what they said in the past....those things work. The left still believes that they have the public's trust in mainstream media....they aren't actually aware just how badly some media outlets are viewed.

If he can switch messaging....th8s wouldn't be as close. He doesn't even need to say the truth....tell people they want to punish free speech and that's why they label everything that disagrees with them as misinformation. Explain that they lie about the validity of elections the way they lie about crime.

Is it true? Not really....but we're in an age of disinformation. Telling people that the economy is bad and you can fix it may be true...but it doesn't sell as well as the lies do.

That's how he should be playing this. When the other side is trotting Oprah out to speak about how difficult her life is due to racism and sexism....it's obvious that few people genuinely care about the truth.

 

[A2SG]

Its quite sad that democrat voters didnt actually get to pick their candidate this time around .

Except that we did. President Biden was the clear favorite for democratic voters. And everyone knew that Vice President Harris was Biden's running mate, which meant that she'd take over if something happened.

Well, something happened.

-- A2SG, not like she came in from out of the blue...she's been in the White House for Biden's entire term to date....

 

[MrMoe]

Yes, I've seen that. The Daily Show makes a point of poking fun at all politicians. And if one of them says something vaguely new agey then it's all grist for the mill. And if you do poke around and listen long enough to any speech by literally anyone there'll be an opportunity for some light hearted fun 'n' games.

Everyone already knows how these shows work. Some are bias but The Daily Show is more down the middle. You're not really saying anything new here.

But if you want to compare the rhetorical abilities of the two candictates...then we're talking chalk and cheese. Pointing out the odd faux pax by one only emphasises the inabilities of the other.

These aren't odd faux pas as you're trying to spin it. A faux pas is defined as "a significant or embarrassing error or mistake." These aren't mistakes by Kamala but deliberate attempts to sound deep and profound. i.e. a pseudo intellectual.

She seems to have a fixation on time.

 

[Bradskii]

Everyone already knows how these shows work. Some are bias but The Daily Show is more down the middle. You're not really saying anything new here.

You think? Ah well...

These aren't odd faux pas as you're trying to spin it.

Everybody makes them. You won't have an off the cuff speech that doesn't have them. People are extemporising on multiple complex matters for minutes on end with literally millions listening to them. The vast majority of people would freeze completely. If you listen long enough then you'll find Harris saying something that she could have said a little clearer if it was scripted. A little bit more succinct. You'll find repetitive phrases. You'll find a few fillers, a mispronounced word perhaps. Maybe she'll take a side road or two before coming back to the main point. This is par for the course.

But surely you have seen Trump speaking at one his rallies? Surely you must have. The differences between the two couldn't be starker. If someone said 'OK, I agree he's a lousy speaker - but I think he'll be better for the country' then I'd half agree. But for some to put him over as even competent is beyond me. And then to criticise Harris...it just leads to a comparison between the two.

 

[A2SG]

These aren't odd faux pas as you're trying to spin it. A faux pas is defined as "a significant or embarrassing error or mistake." These aren't mistakes by Kamala but deliberate attempts to sound deep and profound. i.e. a pseudo intellectual.

She seems to have a fixation on time.

And Trump's insightful treatise on Gettysburg was a deep, meaningful commentary on military strategy?

"The Battle of Gettysburg, what an unbelievable...It was so much, and so interesting, and so vicious and horrible, and so beautiful in so many different ways—it represented such a big portion of the success of this country. Gettysburg, wow."

-- A2SG, Sun Tzu couldn't have said it better....

 

[Gene2memE]

I like this one:

Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it's true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it's four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible."

And this:

"There are systems that nobody knows about, including you, and we have some systems that nobody knows about."

And this:

"My uncle used to tell me about nuclear before nuclear was nuclear"

 

[Bradskii]

And Trump's insightful treatise on Gettysburg was a deep, meaningful commentary on military strategy?

"The Battle of Gettysburg, what an unbelievable...It was so much, and so interesting, and so vicious and horrible, and so beautiful in so many different ways—it represented such a big portion of the success of this country. Gettysburg, wow."

-- A2SG, Sun Tzu couldn't have said it better....

I'll see you Gettysburg and raise you the War of Independence:

“Our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports...'

 

[Ana the Ist]

You think? Ah well...

Everybody makes them.

True, some make more than others.

You won't have an off the cuff speech that doesn't have them.

These typically aren't off the cuff speeches, they're typically questions from reporters.

People are extemporising on multiple complex matters for minutes on end with literally millions listening to them.

Possibly, if they're in a foreign nation.

The vast majority of people would freeze completely. If you listen long enough then you'll find Harris saying something that she could have said a little clearer if it was scripted. A little bit more succinct. You'll find repetitive phrases. You'll find a few fillers, a mispronounced word perhaps. Maybe she'll take a side road or two before coming back to the main point. This is par for the course.

For someone under pressure....or facing actual responsibilities. Harris had 1 job...and that was to show up and speak to reporters because Biden couldn't.

But surely you have seen Trump speaking at one his rallies? Surely you must have. The differences between the two couldn't be starker. If someone said 'OK, I agree he's a lousy speaker - but I think he'll be better for the country' then I'd half agree.

Nobody is saying he's a good speaker lol.

You and @A2SG are engaging in whataboutism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is the only question in the extract quoted. Certainly it is about race,

Ty...it's not the question that I thought was dishonest but rather the reaction to his answer, this idea that his campaign rhetoric has been obsessed with Harris' race. That answer was trotted out....without context....as some sort of proof of this.

but wasn't the question perfectly justified in the context of that particular interview,

I tend to think that it’s entirely up to the interviewer which questions are justified. The audience may disagree...but the interviewer should know their audience and what they want to know.

which was Trump's allusions to the racial origins of Obama, among others?

I'm not sure he made allusions so much as he made accusations, and he made them regarding citizenship tmk....

However, any criticism of Obama, real or imagined....was often dismissed as caused by racism. It wouldn't surprise me if I'm off or you're remembering it wrongly.

I'd say there's absolutely no justification for citizenship because his mother was a US citizen and that alone gives him citizenship regardless of place of birth.

 

[Whyayeman]

I like this one:

Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you're a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I'm one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it's true! — but when you're a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are — nuclear is so powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what's going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it's four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it's all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don't, they haven't figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it's gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible."

And this:

"There are systems that nobody knows about, including you, and we have some systems that nobody knows about."

And this:

"My uncle used to tell me about nuclear before nuclear was nuclear"

You have to wonder - "Where was the teleprompter?"

 

[Francis 1928]

Except that we did. President Biden was the clear favorite for democratic voters. And everyone knew that Vice President Harris was Biden's running mate, which meant that she'd take over if something happened.

Well, something happened.

-- A2SG, not like she came in from out of the blue...she's been in the White House for Biden's entire term to date....

My point being that the democrat voters didnt get to choose her in the primaries .She was not the favorite among many.Pennsylvania would have wanted their own governor to be pres.Gav in Cal was the favorite there. There were other choices that would have made a better pic.She is the sarah Palin of your party .If you remember in the 08 election,it didnt play out so well.

 

[A2SG]

My point being that the democrat voters didnt get to choose her in the primaries .She was not the favorite among many.

I'm sure. But, given the timing of Biden's stepping down from his reelection campaign, there wasn't time to hold a new round of 50 primaries. At least the party had a procedure for this sort of thing.

Pennsylvania would have wanted their own governor to be pres.Gav in Cal was the favorite there. There were other choices that would have made a better pic.She is the sarah Palin of your party .If you remember in the 08 election,it didnt play out so well.

Well, whatever your views of Kamala Harris, it's a certainty she has more on the ball than Sarah Palin.

Still, if you don't like Harris, you're not obligated to vote for her. And, even though the circumstances of her candidacy are unusual, unprecedented even, she will still face the voters before assuming the office of President. Unlike what happened in 1974.

-- A2SG, so not the most unusual of circumstances...

 

[Hans Blaster]

And Trump's insightful treatise on Gettysburg was a deep, meaningful commentary on military strategy?

"The Battle of Gettysburg, what an unbelievable...It was so much, and so interesting, and so vicious and horrible, and so beautiful in so many different ways—it represented such a big portion of the success of this country. Gettysburg, wow."

-- A2SG, Sun Tzu couldn't have said it better....

July 4, 1863
In the field, Vicksburg, Miss.

Dear President Trump,

It wasn't even the most important US victory in the first week of July 1863.

Your obedient servant,

Maj. Gnrl. U.S. Grant
Commanding
Mil. Dist. Miss.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You have to wonder - "Where was the teleprompter?"

[Irony meter explodes] Since that was from a rally speech, Trump *DID* have a teleprompter loaded with prepared ~20 minute speech and he just added that part anyway.

 

[MrMoe]

Everybody makes them. You won't have an off the cuff speech that doesn't have them. People are extemporising on multiple complex matters for minutes on end with literally millions listening to them. The vast majority of people would freeze completely. If you listen long enough then you'll find Harris saying something that she could have said a little clearer if it was scripted. A little bit more succinct. You'll find repetitive phrases. You'll find a few fillers, a mispronounced word perhaps. Maybe she'll take a side road or two before coming back to the main point. This is par for the course.

What you just described isn't what Kamala is showing in those quotes. Her repetitive phrases like "joy" and "unburdened by what has been" are most definitely deliberate and thought up by her and her campaign. She uses teleprompters, so her words are scripted, at least most of the time. She doesn't mispronounce words like Joe Biden, instead she uses her word salads to sound like she's saying something profound or to dance around answering a question.

To paraphrase a famous quote: “If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with (STAFF EDIT)” It seems Kamala Harris has taken this quote to heart.

But surely you have seen Trump speaking at one his rallies? Surely you must have. The differences between the two couldn't be starker. If someone said 'OK, I agree he's a lousy speaker - but I think he'll be better for the country' then I'd half agree. But for some to put him over as even competent is beyond me. And then to criticise Harris...it just leads to a comparison between the two.

And Trump's insightful treatise on Gettysburg was a deep, meaningful commentary on military strategy?

"The Battle of Gettysburg, what an unbelievable...It was so much, and so interesting, and so vicious and horrible, and so beautiful in so many different ways—it represented such a big portion of the success of this country. Gettysburg, wow."

-- A2SG, Sun Tzu couldn't have said it better....

I have a challenge for you both. From now until election day I want you to defend Kamala without bringing up Trump. See if you can pull it off.

Difficulty level: Easy.

 

[Hammster]

I have a challenge for you both. From now until election day I want you to defend Kamala without bringing up Trump. See if you can pull it off.

We both know how that will work out.

 

[Whyayeman]

Difficulty level: Easy.

This thread is just a snide pop at Harris.

Difficulty level: Easy.

 

[Francis 1928]

I'm sure. But, given the timing of Biden's stepping down from his reelection campaign, there wasn't time to hold a new round of 50 primaries. At least the party had a procedure for this sort of thing.


Well, whatever your views of Kamala Harris, it's a certainty she has more on the ball than Sarah Palin.

Still, if you don't like Harris, you're not obligated to vote for her. And, even though the circumstances of her candidacy are unusual, unprecedented even, she will still face the voters before assuming the office of President. Unlike what happened in 1974.

-- A2SG, so not the most unusual of circumstances...

Sarah was just the closest thing to an example.Probably went a little too low on the rib shot there.I disagree with her on many things.She is smarter than people think .Her years as a prosecutor proved that.I believe her job as boder szar was not good and it may hurt her in election

 

[Bradskii]

I have a challenge for you both. From now until election day I want you to defend Kamala without bringing up Trump. See if you can pull it off.

Thanks, but no thanks. I won't use anything Trump says as an excuse for what Harris says. That's a tactic that I keep calling out time after time. Often to no avail. So what you won't get from me is 'Well, Trump says things much worse, so therefore you can't complain about Harris'. That's not a valid argument. You can complain about Harris if it's a genuine faux pax. You are allowed to point out any mistakes she makes.

But what you will then get is 'She used a superfluous term when she was talking about deadlines? Well, how do you compare that with this?' And you'll get an example of Trump suggesting wind turbines cause bacon prices to go up. That he prefers to be electrocuted instead of being eaten by a shark. That he thinks Hannibal Lector is a great guy. That nobody knows his opponent's surname. That in the War of Independence, you guys took over British airports.

I hope that you uderstand this. It's a campaign between two people. If you want to point out a valid problem with your guy's opponent, then you will have to be prepared to receive some examples in return about him. Often preceded by 'Well, if you think that's bad...'