Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
New Republic - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for New Republic:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://newrepublic.com/post/187245/kamala-harris-fox-news-bret-baier-roasted-interview
Obama had "the audacity of hope", where Harris has "The audacity of this asshole lying to my face".
The audacity of this mo.... former president.
Daughterfucker.
Unfortunately, a majority of comments I've seen online on that interview say Harris couldn't stop talking about trump or couldn't answer any question she was asked. Absolutely amazing to me the difference here.
google "gaslighting," and look at the GOP over the last 40 years or so
Almost as though these interviews and debates don't really matter. They're just fuel for a barrage of bot-powered social media spam and talk radio/podcast spin.
My father-in-law will periodically pop in to hang out. He listens to right-wing radio and has friends who are hooked on it, and he will ask these very bizarre pointed questions about why Harris/Biden are doing XYZ. And all I can respond with is "They're not doing that. That's totally manufactured. Here's proof." He'll acknowledge it. But then he'll come back a week later with another nonsense allegation.
I want to say "Just Google this shit before you ask", but then I Google it myself and find a wall of right-wing hysterical talking points based on how my father-in-law phrased the question.
I appreciate you posting that. My late ex fil did the same thing. Had a total conspiracy minded friend. Was always awkward I had to be the one to say "No, Trudeau didn't do that."
At least he was nice and respectful about it. My cousins on the other hand... well, I get very high at family gatherings now.
The best way to counter such stuff - instead of disagreeing right away and making their defenses pop up, just ask them where the facts are for the claim. If they say it's something they heard or read, ask where those sources got their info. Letting them dig further helps to show how valid or invalid what they say might be, it might plant a bit of doubt for the next time they run across something that is designed to be accepted without evidence. Maybe. I mean, that's all we can do really, help them be more critical thinking, even if by accident.
Letting them dig further helps to show how valid or invalid what they say might be
The problem with this approach is that it requires critical thinking.
If they "see it on the internet on Jimbo's blog" they believe that is equally believable to "its posted on nasa.gov". I attribute some of this to technology getting really good at some things that it makes those that don't know how technology works that other unbelievable things are also real.
A more modern part of it is that if you Google the phrases they use, you get more of the same. And the YouTube/Twitter algorithms will show you similar content to what you've already been shown. Both of these work to appear as multiple, independent sources, even if it's really just a bunch of right-wing nutjobs repeating the same, completely fabricated talking points.
I kind of wanted Harris to ask in the interview, "How many transgender inmates are there, Brett? Dozens? And how many of them want surgery? One? Three? I'd rather spend our time talking about issues that affect more than three Americans."
This isn't an issue that the President should be spending her time on. This isn't an issue the viewers should be spending their time on. She'll follow the law, and that's all that needs to be said on that subject. Unless you want to talk about why it keeps coming up, to be divisive and hateful.
Both of these work to appear as multiple, independent sources, even if it’s really just a bunch of right-wing nutjobs repeating the same, completely fabricated talking points.
This is where critical thinking comes in. As in "I'm seeing this same language multiple places. Who are these sources saying it? Do I trust them? Do they post other things that are also all copies of one another? With who they are do they have a motivation to distort the truth or outright lie?"
I kind of wanted Harris to ask in the interview, “How many transgender inmates are there, Brett? Dozens? And how many of them want surgery? One? Three? I’d rather spend our time talking about issues that affect more than three Americans.”
This would have been amazing, but I don't know if would resonated the way it should with the intended audience. We know this is the same crowd that largely believes even one abortion by one person is too many.
Exactly how it went the first time someone mentioned springfield ohio to me
Does your partner hate Fox News (or talk radio in this case) for stealing their father from them?
Mine does.
Edit to add: so much so that she often wonders aloud if there's a chance she and all the others can sue Fox for ...something. I wish they could. I wish the people of the USA had some means of redress for all the harm Fox news has caused by irresponsibly masking angertainment and calling it news.
She definitely couldn't answer the questions asked. She tried, but got talked over when it became clear it wasn't going the direction wanted from Fox.
That's what I was seeing. I got annoyed with the interviewer more than once in the first five minutes.
I am almost certain at this point that most if not all of those comments you see under the YouTube video are just troll farms from Russia, China, and North Korea.
Bret didn't even give her 10 seconds to respond at times. Some of the questions were loaded questions with 2 negative answers. She tried to explain multiple times where a policy or problem started (in the trump term for example) and that came off as her talking only about Trump. Overall, it was mostly what would be expected with a dem on Faux.
What, like it was hard?
Hard to get them to admit
Watched it earlier today and I’m happy to say she kept him in line by repeatedly shutting down his slimy tactics of “ask question, don’t wait for her to answer, something something Biden/Harris plan, ask next question before she can answer even the first one”.
She literally said on camera, “You aren’t even letting me answer the question” to which he eventually did finally shut the fuck up, but while still trying to “gotcha” her the whole time.
He eventually went as far as showing a clip of Trump denying his poisonous rhetoric of wanting to use the USA military on its own citizens, to which she replied “the clip you just played was not the clip of him saying his nasty rhetoric, you and I both know that”.
Kick their fucking teeth in this election, everyone!
I love it when she scolded him for his shenanigans and he replied "Yes, Madam" like a little schoolboy.
His tone changed significantly after that.
I agree that he was pretty hostile but it's Fox News. To be expected.
But she's the sitting Vice President. "Yes, madam Vice President." or at least "Yes, ma'am./madam." is the appropriate way to reference her though.
That was just disgusting to watch. Nice to know what their normal viewers are like.
I tried to find a copy of the interview, but it was just edits. Cut edits. When she says or he says. Another trick of Fox to obfuscate and make it seem one way than another. Just break it up and put it out of context.
I haven't watched it yet but it looks like this might be the full interview:
Nah, that's another cut up with very little of the interview
Here is the full interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DaR2CVNNk
Thank you @[email protected], I appreciate you dropping that link here. Wow.. it's been two minutes and I'm already taken aback here.
It gets better. It takes her a minute to realize exactly how much of a partisan hack he's trying to be.
I did watch it. Wow. He seemed almost apologetic at the end but, idk. He was an asshole as a ‘journalist’. She came with good receipts, and didn’t allow herself to be strung along. Smart!
I'm hoping it was ridiculous enough that a few Fox News viewers will recognize exactly how hard Fox is putting their thumb on the scale.
I think you give too much credit, but, as an American with hope for reason and sanity, I’ll continue to try and hope for the lost of us too.
If it hits one in two hundred viewers, that moves the needle. It doesn't take much.
“Great job by Bret Baier in his Interview with Lyin’ Kamala Harris,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social before ranting about Trump Derangement Syndrome. “Again, congratulations to Bret Baier on a tough but very fair interview, one that clearly showed how totally incompetent Kamala is. For the good of our Nation, her inferior Cognitive ability must be tested at once!”
Lol ok.
"I'll do it if you do it, Donny. Anytime. Anywhere."
Darkamala?
We really haven't had a Presidential candidate with this caliber of speaking ability since Obama.
I mean, yeah, but that's because the others were literally below the average.
Yeah Biden was never a good speaker even when he was younger lol that's not really a great comparison
Tbf, we haven't had a candidate who spoke without septogeriatric dementia creeping in since Obama.
I thought the motivation of an interview was to reach the truth or reveal information about topics the interviewee hasn't addressed. I personally wouldn't say "outsmarted" regarding an interview conducted in good faith.
Saw the opening part on Colbert. Holy shit I'm surprised at what is considered journalism these days. If anything, she came out on better because she took all the bullshit and still managed to retain her composure and got her points in as well. Let's see trump do the same without whining.
Fox has never been considered journalism, not even by Fox.
Yep, they are an "entertainment" network.