So Where was the Teleprompter?

[MrMoe]

Yes. It means nonsense. The sentence quoted was not nonsense it simply had a superfluous word. That is not word salad even by its colloquial use.

The superfluous word is what makes the sentence nonsense. Everyone knows the current definition of the word deadline to be something like: the time by which something must be finished or submitted. So when people hear Kamala saying "we should apply metrics that include deadlines around time." To them she's basically saying 'we should apply standards for measuring or assessing something that include finish times around time.' Which is a nonsense statement. i.e. Makes no sense.

 

[Bradskii]

The superfluous word is what makes the sentence nonsense. Everyone knows the current definition of the word deadline to be something like: the time by which something must be finished or submitted. So when people hear Kamala saying "we should apply metrics that include deadlines around time." To them she's basically saying 'we should apply standards for measuring or assessing something that include finish times around time.' Which is a nonsense statement. i.e. Makes no sense.

Is this what we're going to do? Dismantle any given speech by each candidates sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase and word by word? Looking for a grammatical faux pas or a semantic slip up? Some nonsensical utterance? Really?

Do you imagine any given Trump supporter thinking that this would be a good tactic?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The superfluous word is what makes the sentence nonsense. Everyone knows the current definition of the word deadline to be something like: the time by which something must be finished or submitted. So when people hear Kamala saying "we should apply metrics that include deadlines around time." To them she's basically saying 'we should apply standards for measuring or assessing something that include finish times around time.' Which is a nonsense statement. i.e. Makes no sense.

Nonsense us quickly becoming the defining feature of modern left...and it's more than a little troubling.

I work for the federal government. We have a broad set of DEI policies...and trainings....but they're a joke. They're not taken seriously by anyone afaik and they're basically ignored...not followed. I guess I took it for granted this was the same thing for DEI across federal government and it's various departments and agencies. Apparently though....this isn't the case. It appears that a significant portion of agencies take this stuff quite seriously.

I'm sure you saw the head of the Secret Service....I'm sure you remember which agents on Trump's security detail stuck out as badly inept. The head of the Secret Service resigned so fast I can barely recall her face. Now NASA....who was praised not long ago for having this comprehensive DEI plan....has a pair of astronauts stuck in orbit. Elon Musk has to save them....you know, the white billionaire the left hates. They went up into space with the plan of taking a Boeing shuttle with known problems back down. This is serious....I'm not making this up....they decided to ignore the fact that this company has been building flying dumpster fires and killing people who speak up about it in court. It's almost as dumb a decision to let Trump start his speech after a suspicious individual with a range finder was spotted lurking.

I never really had big worries about DEI in the workplace. Enough lawsuits for civil rights violations and enough corporate failure would kill it in the workplace...and it's already started dying. Disney dropped failure after failure and did you see female executive in charge of the Bud Light campaign that destroyed them? Utter incompetence coupled with extreme narcissistic tendencies. Anyone still unsure of DEIs validity should understand it pretty well now that all it's thought leaders are proven fraudsters and con men. Robin D'Angelo? Fraud. Kendi's anti-racism? Scam. BLM? National con. Police shot and killed more people in 2023 than any year before for decades. Obviously they are doing a better job with less officers who have less training....so why didn't people march in the streets? Because they weren't being manipulated into believing in a fake problem.

I saw the NASA DEI training. It said "objectivity" is a concept of white supremacy. Seriously. The scientists were told to accept the entire foundational concept of the scientific methodology is "white supremacy". I guess it's a good thing an African is coming to save them.

I can only imagine what future generations will think when they learn the group of people who wanted to desperately be on the right side of history were sterilizing children, destroying education, creating a system of racial quotas....and pretending to be smart.

This hasn't been a good 4 years for DEI hires. Women who were placed in positions of power....after whining for so long that it was bias and bigotry preventing them from accessing these positions....are failing so badly. Claudine Gay, Harris, Tiffany Heynard, Fani Willis, Bud Light CEO, Disney CEO, Robin D'Angelo and woke prosecutor after woke prosecutor.

It's difficult to list them all. Yet they've all proven it's not bias preventing them from success. It's a total lack of self awareness, narcissism, and entitlement.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That's not what the interviewer said....

She said, "Do you believe that VP Kamala Harris is only on the ticket because she's a black woman?"

Not "People in your camp have suggested/argued/claimed that Harris is only on the ticket because she's a black woman, do you agree?"

According to the transcript I checked, that’s exactly what was asked:

“Some of your own supporters, including Republicans on Capitol Hill, have labeled Vice President Kamala Harris, who is the first Black and Asian American woman to serve as vice president and be on a major party ticket, as a DEI hire. ”

Trump Addresses National Association of Black Journalists

Speaker 1 : Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the 49th Annual National Association of Black Journalists Convention and Career Fair. We are about to begin a ...

www.rev.com

You pointed out that I made a bad faith claim in the OP of another thread not long ago....don't make me do the same here.

Is there something either of them said prior to the question that justifies this rather unique frame you're placing around the question? Or can we just remove the frame as just something you personally read into the question?

Nope. I even checked the transcript before I made my previous response.

 

[JosephZ]

Would it make any difference?

It would be helpful to know the source of such a claim.

 

[Francis 1928]

I noticed throughout Harris' interview with CNN, that she kept looking down; as she was answering the scripted questions; as if she herself was reading a script.

Where do you suppose the teleprompter was hidden from camera view?

I listen to alot of WORD conservative radio.It seems everyone on there hosts and callers thought she was reading.I wouldnt doubt it.Furthermore, I wouldnt doubt it if The liberal station did everything they could to help her.They have all made it very clear for the last 20 plus years that would do almost anything to get liberals elected.

 

[MrMoe]

Is this what we're going to do? Dismantle any given speech by each candidates sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase and word by word? Looking for a grammatical faux pas or a semantic slip up? Some nonsensical utterance? Really?

These aren't grammatical faux pas or a semantic slip ups as you're trying to spin it, this how Kamala normally talks.

Here's a compilation by a left leaning satire show mocking Kamala's nonsensical ramblings.

Do you imagine any given Trump supporter thinking that this would be a good tactic?

This isn't a tactic. The same way pointing out Biden's ramblings and obvious mental decline wasn't a tactic.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I listen to alot of WORD conservative radio.It seems everyone on there hosts and callers thought she was reading.

Conservative talk radio hosts and their idiotic bloviating are part of the reason we have absurd threads like this. Talk hosts aren't incentivized to be correct; they're incentivized to be agitating.

 

[Francis 1928]

Conservative talk radio hosts and their idiotic bloviating are part of the reason we have absurd threads like this. Talk hosts aren't incentivized to be correct; they're incentivized to be agitating.

Well Ide rather listen to them than NPR who sold their soul to democrat party decades ago. And if you watched bits of the interview, you could see she looks down alot sitting low at the table . Its quite sad that democrat voters didnt actually get to pick their candidate this time around .

 

[Whyayeman]

Well Ide rather listen to them than NPR who sold their soul to democrat party decades ago. And if you watched bits of the interview, you could see she looks down alot sitting low at the table . Its quite sad that democrat voters didnt actually get to pick their candidate this time around .

The full broadcast showed that Harris had notes to refer to. Most speakers have some preparation. It is just far too risky not to. I have done a fair bit of public speaking and I would never do it without notes.

It was a lesson learned the hard way when I did my first radio interview and my opposite number read from a tightly written script. Being radio nobody knew but the people in the studio. I never made that mistake again.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Well Ide rather listen to them than NPR who sold their soul to democrat party decades ago.

That speaks poorly of your taste in media. I'd take a conservative journalist (i.e. a real journalist, not a partisan hack) over a far left talk radio host any day.

And if you watched bits of the interview, you could see she looks down alot sitting low at the table .

I watched the entire interview. The notion that her looking at the table implies anything untoward is absurd. There were wide shots, including at the very beginning, that showed the entire table with nothing on it aside from Bash's notes.

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

Howsabout you guys let us Dems worry about that?

The full broadcast showed that Harris had notes to refer to. Most speakers have some preparation. It is just far too risky not to. I have done a fair bit of public speaking and I would never do it without notes.

She undoubtedly prepared for the interview, but it is not correct that Harris had notes. Bash had them, not Harris:

 

[Bradskii]

These aren't grammatical faux pas or a semantic slip ups as you're trying to spin it, this how Kamala normally talks.

Here's a compilation by a left leaning satire show mocking Kamala's nonsensical ramblings.

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.

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.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I listen to alot of WORD conservative radio.It seems everyone on there hosts and callers thought she was reading.I wouldnt doubt it.Furthermore, I wouldnt doubt it if The liberal station did everything they could to help her.They have all made it very clear for the last 20 plus years that would do almost anything to get liberals elected.

Is it that inconceivable that someone who is a trained and experienced lawyer and who has been seeking (successfully) political office for more than a decade is capable of speaking a complex and coherent sentence without it being written down ahead of time? What will you say when she has only a pen and a blank note pad for the debate next week and speaks similarly for most answers. (I will not exclude the possibility that one or more answers will "get out of hand" grammatically, as also happens for experienced politicians and lawyers.)

 

[Hammster]

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.

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.

Tu quoque much?

 

[Ana the Ist]

According to the transcript I checked, that’s exactly what was asked:

“Some of your own supporters, including Republicans on Capitol Hill, have labeled Vice President Kamala Harris, who is the first Black and Asian American woman to serve as vice president and be on a major party ticket, as a DEI hire. ”

Trump Addresses National Association of Black Journalists

Speaker 1 : Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the 49th Annual National Association of Black Journalists Convention and Career Fair. We are about to begin a ...

www.rev.com

Nope. I even checked the transcript before I made my previous response.

Fair enough, I do appreciate that you went as far as providing the actual context and here's the bone I'll throw you...

Yes, since she was speaking specifically about the statements of his Republican colleagues, he definitely chose to make the answer about Harris' race when he simply could have addressed the statements of his colleagues instead.

The one point I'd add is that the interviewer makes it clear this is a follow up question to either his previous answer or her previous question....let's take a look at what that was....

"Mr. President, we so appreciate you giving us an hour of your time. I want to start by addressing the elephant in the room, sir. A lot of people did not think it was appropriate for you to be here today. You have pushed false claims about some of your rivals, from Nikki Haley to former President Barack Obama saying that they were not born in the United States, which is not true. You have told four Congresswoman women of color who were American citizens to go back to where they came from. You have used words like animal and rabid to describe Black district attorneys. You’ve attacked Black journalists calling them a loser, saying the questions that they ask are, quote, “stupid and racist”. You’ve had dinner with a white supremacist at your Mar-a-Lago resort. 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?"

Are we pretending that these are somehow not racial questions? That these are part of an interview that's uninterested in anything racial and instead merely a discussion of Trump's rhetoric and then his colleagues' rhetoric and Trump decided to take a racial angle on his answers?

Yes, I'll agree that the second question is definitely not about Trump's statements or rhetoric and it's definitely about Republican rhetoric on Harris....it's directly linked (by the interviewer) to the first question, which is moreof a series of accusations of racism framed as an interview.

Pretending that the President somehow made his answers racial as if that wasn't the entire focus of the interview isn't just dishonest...it's stupid (and I'm talking about the media response to this answer, nor yours or the many people who implicitly trust the media).

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is it that inconceivable that someone who is a trained and experienced lawyer and who has been seeking (successfully) political office for more than a decade is capable of speaking a complex and coherent sentence without it being written down ahead of time?

It's definitely possible...it just doesn't appear to be the case here.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Tu quoque much?

The whole reason it's become an issue is because of the lack of policy as a strategy by the Dems. They don't want people attacking Harris's lack of ability, her record as VP, or the fact she was a DEI hire (which is the strangest thing since they openly and fully support DEI in hiring, promotions, and educational opportunities).

It's as if they'd prefer people attack her policies. Unfortunately, she doesn't have any of those either....

The poster you're replying to here took the exact same position.

You keep lowering the bar. It's good to see. You keep concentrating on her laugh, the rest of us will listen to policy statements and discuss politics.

You only consider people worthy of the position. If the policies of whoever is left are those with which you disagree then you have nobody to vote for.

This is pretty simple. It's Politics 101.

That's back when he thought she had policy positions....actual plans she stood for she supported.

Now we all know that she doesn't have any of these. She's got no plans, no real positions of note....just generalizations and vague declarations.

I'm sure that people would prefer to discuss her policies. I'm sure people would prefer to weigh their options regarding the only two candidates they can vote for. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party strategy is the same as in 2020 but taken a step further....not only are they hiding the candidate from the media....they're hiding the candidates' policies from the voter. Anyone can project whatever they want onto her as her positions....they've got as much chance as anyone else at being correct.

People shouldn't be upset at voters, or politicians, or media for criticizing anything about Harris. She's been the least transparent candidate of the least transparent campaign in anyone's lifetime. Actual neo-nazis that run for office have been more honest and open than this campaign. There's literally no valid policy criticism that the Democratic Party could make of the Republicans because they literally won't say what their positions are. If they don't think Trump's immigration policies would work.....simply point out that they don't have any stated immigration policies and for all the Democratic voters know, Harris could use the exact same plans as Trump!

Until they state any actual positions every single criticism is valid.....whether it's on her lifestyle or her record. You can write anything onto a blank slate....if they can't point out a reason why it's untrue, then there is no reason dismiss the criticism.

 

[Bradskii]

Tu quoque much?

In this campaign? I keep saying that if you are derogatory about the aspect of one candidate's abilities, and it's generally accepted, then you have to be prepared to have it compared to the other candidate.

And gee, it really doesn't seem like a good idea to me to compare Harris's ability to string a few sentences together to her opponent.

 

[Whyayeman]

Bash had them, not Harris

Ah, yes. My mistake!

 

[iluvatar5150]

Fair enough, I do appreciate that you went as far as providing the actual context and here's the bone I'll throw you...

Yes, since she was speaking specifically about the statements of his Republican colleagues, he definitely chose to make the answer about Harris' race when he simply could have addressed the statements of his colleagues instead.

The one point I'd add is that the interviewer makes it clear this is a follow up question to either his previous answer or her previous question....let's take a look at what that was....

"Mr. President, we so appreciate you giving us an hour of your time. I want to start by addressing the elephant in the room, sir. A lot of people did not think it was appropriate for you to be here today. You have pushed false claims about some of your rivals, from Nikki Haley to former President Barack Obama saying that they were not born in the United States, which is not true. You have told four Congresswoman women of color who were American citizens to go back to where they came from. You have used words like animal and rabid to describe Black district attorneys. You’ve attacked Black journalists calling them a loser, saying the questions that they ask are, quote, “stupid and racist”. You’ve had dinner with a white supremacist at your Mar-a-Lago resort. 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?"

Are we pretending that these are somehow not racial questions? That these are part of an interview that's uninterested in anything racial and instead merely a discussion of Trump's rhetoric and then his colleagues' rhetoric and Trump decided to take a racial angle on his answers?

Yes, I'll agree that the second question is definitely not about Trump's statements or rhetoric and it's definitely about Republican rhetoric on Harris....it's directly linked (by the interviewer) to the first question, which is moreof a series of accusations of racism framed as an interview.

Pretending that the President somehow made his answers racial as if that wasn't the entire focus of the interview isn't just dishonest...it's stupid (and I'm talking about the media response to this answer, nor yours or the many people who implicitly trust the media).

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