Harris comes off like an unhinged lunatic during her interview with Brett Baier

[Rebound]

On 10/17/2024 at 7:34 AM, gatomontes99 said:

She basically gave away the election last night. She's down two points nationally. Trump has these pocket voters that don't show up in polls, so he will outperform the polls again. He will have 300+ EC votes.

Maybe. 
Or, maybe he will lose.  

[ironstone]

22 hours ago, robosmith said:

She stood up for herself in the face of Baier's crude and abusive interruptions.

If that's being a b*tch, you need to check your misogyny. I feel sorry for your wife.

She showed up late. Then there was a point where her handlers were waving their arms because they were desperate to stop the interview.

You call Baier's behavior 'crude and abusive'. Would you have used those terms if the candidate was a man?

It's like you're suggesting that a female politician has to be treated with delicacy.

[Rebound]

Mark Cuban gives the PERFECT response to Kamala Harris's Fox interview:

"The beautiful thing about the Bret Baier interview is that Kamala Harris understood and responded to each question.

She used examples of policies. She gave real world context.

When Brett went hard after her. She didn’t call him names. She didn’t quit the interview. She didn’t make things up. She never once complained the questions were tough. She never played the victim card. She didn’t lose her temper. She didn’t take the bait to diminish or talk down to Trump supporters.

She stood up to him with force and never backed down.

He has been the President and campaigning for 9 years. Kamala Harris has caught up to him in just 100 days. That speaks volumes.

It’s why people want to vote for her. That’s why so many Republicans and Independents are supporting her.

She is everything her opponent is not and will never be: strong, smart and measured."

[CdnFox]

58 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Mark Cuban gives the PERFECT response to Kamala Harris's Fox interview:

"The beautiful thing about the Bret Baier interview is that Kamala Harris understood and responded to each question.

She used examples of policies. She gave real world context.

When Brett went hard after her. She didn’t call him names. She didn’t quit the interview. She didn’t make things up. She never once complained the questions were tough. She never played the victim card. She didn’t lose her temper. She didn’t take the bait to diminish or talk down to Trump supporters.

She stood up to him with force and never backed down.

He has been the President and campaigning for 9 years. Kamala Harris has caught up to him in just 100 days. That speaks volumes.

It’s why people want to vote for her. That’s why so many Republicans and Independents are supporting her.

She is everything her opponent is not and will never be: strong, smart and measured."

She's down a little more in the polls again today. That's about 16 days in a row in the swing states that she's lost ground. 

He certainly can't say she's lost yet, she could "Peg out " B the indications are she will continue to fall rather than get stronger.

She is definitely on a trajectory to lose so that interview didn't help. She had better find a way to turn that around

[West]

21 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

She's down a little more in the polls again today. That's about 16 days in a row in the swing states that she's lost ground. 

He certainly can't say she's lost yet, she could "Peg out " B the indications are she will continue to fall rather than get stronger.

She is definitely on a trajectory to lose so that interview didn't help. She had better find a way to turn that around

Garland is holding Bannon hostage even post release date. They've proven they could care less about the law. 

Donnie should be heavily protected over the next few weeks. 

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

Mark Cuban gives the PERFECT response to Kamala Harris's Fox interview:

"The beautiful thing about the Bret Baier interview is that Kamala Harris understood and responded to each question.

She used examples of policies. She gave real world context.

When Brett went hard after her. She didn’t call him names. She didn’t quit the interview. She didn’t make things up. She never once complained the questions were tough. She never played the victim card. She didn’t lose her temper. She didn’t take the bait to diminish or talk down to Trump supporters.

She stood up to him with force and never backed down.

He has been the President and campaigning for 9 years. Kamala Harris has caught up to him in just 100 days. That speaks volumes.

It’s why people want to vote for her. That’s why so many Republicans and Independents are supporting her.

She is everything her opponent is not and will never be: strong, smart and measured."

Did she understand and respond? When asked why she didn't fix immigration she said Trump had been campaigning for 8 years. What does that even mean? She wouldn't answer simple, factual questions like how many illegal aliens crossed our border while she was in office. She tried to filibuster. She lost her cool when Brett tried to get her to answer questions about what she knew and when she knew it regarding Joe's obvious mental decline. It was an objectively bad interview. Good candidates answer hard questions.

[CdnFox]

20 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Did she understand and respond? When asked why she didn't fix immigration she said Trump had been campaigning for 8 years. What does that even mean? She wouldn't answer simple, factual questions like how many illegal aliens crossed our border while she was in office. She tried to filibuster. She lost her cool when Brett tried to get her to answer questions about what she knew and when she knew it regarding Joe's obvious mental decline. It was an objectively bad interview. Good candidates answer hard questions.

Respond isn't the same as "Answer question". 

To be honest I didn't think she did all that badly. I literally thought she did worse in some of the friendly interviews. But it wasn't a great interview. It was obvious she was attempting to dodge the questions and she kept trying to drag it back onto friendly territory butnot quite making it. She also had really horrible body language. She nods her head a lot and that's what dishonest people tend to do when they're trying to convince somebody of something that they know isn't true. Because if you nod your head while you're talking you're physically trying to get the other person to not along with you and agree. It's kind of an old con man's trick and the fact that she does it so often worries me.

Anyway she did not come across as looking like she had very much in the way of answers. I don't think anyone's voting for her that saw that unless they were already planning to and she needed to change a few minds.

He's down again to the polls today, it's obvious that people's opinion of her is getting weaker not stronger

[SkyHigh]

Is this not the perfect example of the polarization we face today, particularly in the US.

The right says "angry black women"

The left says "bias Fox host tries to bully VP"

When the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, SkyHigh said:

Is this not the perfect example of the polarization we face today, particularly in the US.

The US would be better off electing Whoopi Goldberg than Trump.

He's a dodering imbecile, and his economic plan would be ruinous.

[Nationalist]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The US would be better off electing Whoopi Goldberg than Trump.

He's a dodering imbecile, and his economic plan would be ruinous.

Lol...with a brilliant track record with...the economy.

Drill Baby Drill.

[SkyHigh]

24 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

The US would be better off electing Whoopi Goldberg than Trump.

He's a dodering imbecile, and his economic plan would be ruinous.

There are a lot of slimey dishonest politicians that I can understand the low information voters fall for (ted Cruz comes to mind) but I never understood what people see in Trump.

When he first announced he was running, I'll admit I thought it could be an interesting idea, A successful business man running a country that functions essentially like a corporation sounded good, now that's because I believed the Myth that Donald Trump was able to create for himself ( if nothing else, the man is a brilliant self promotor, shameless but brilliant) Then I took the time to read about him, turns out he's not a good business man, in reality his daddy bought him some buildings in new York at a time that the real estate market was low because downtown was pretty run down. Then Rudy came in ( before he went crazy) cleaned it up and property values went up. So nothing he did. Other than that it was just a string of failures, with multiple bankruptcies, including a casino, he bankrupted a casino.

The only successful thing he's ever done on his own is, playing a business man on a scripted T.V show.

Not to mention the complete lack of policy prescriptions even on the things he's been running on for 10 years. The perfect example after claiming it would be easy to replace  Obama care with something cheaper and better, he still only has the concept of a plan.

I guess ignorance love company 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

The US would be better off electing Whoopi Goldberg than Trump.

He's a dodering imbecile, and his economic plan would be ruinous.

Quite possibly but she's not running. The US would definitely be better off electing Donald Trump than Kamala Harris