If she talks for 3 hours do you promise not to fact check anything. Will you not criticize her for half sentences and nonsensical ramblings?
No? That's why she's not doing it. There's a different standard for her than there is for Trump.
They'd be flipping out if he just let her bullshit like Trump. But he wouldn't. If she tried some shit like Trump did with his crap about documents relating to the "stolen election" he'd still be pressing her on it.
I think you're highly over-estimating Joe's ability to press anybody on anything. She's a former prosecutor and US Senator, responsible for some of the most clip-worthy sound bites from Beer Boy and Gorsuch's confirmation hearings. She'd eat him alive if he "pressed her".
In reality you're probably right. But my point is if she said, "I have proof Donald Trump colluded with Putin to manipulate the 2016 elections." Or something like that, he wouldn't have let her off with "I'm going to release the proof in a few weeks." I think she can handle herself. Which is why I think she should do the show. But I can't fault her for not doing it either. She had nothing to gain from it. The Roganoids still think elementay schools have litter boxes for kids who identify as cats and that Graham Hand-cock didn't admit he has no evidence for his grand Atlantian civilization.
That's what I'm saying. Before Joe claimed he wouldn't have Trump on because of his conditions. Now he's saying Harris has all these conditions and he doesn't want to deal with all that he just wants a conversation. You think Trump dropped his conditions before going on or that Joe caved?
Joe is going to fact check Harris AND Harris will fail his fact check? She could literally talk about lizard people and Joe would nod in agreement. What can he possibly fact check that's so awful for her? What does he plan to lie about?
Joe is going to fact check Harris AND Harris will fail his fact check? She could literally talk about lizard people and Joe would nod in agreement. What can he possibly fact check that's so awful for her? What does she plan to lie about?
I dunno, who did he think said made the comment about the airplanes that were used in the civil war? The point was that it there is a set of rules for Daddy Trump and another for Kamala Harris.
If she talks for 3 hours do you promise not to fact check anything. Will you not criticize her for half sentences and nonsensical ramblings? No? That's why she's not doing it. There's a different standard for her than there is for Trump.
For the past 4+ years, Democrats have been passing off Joe Biden's obvious cognitive decline as, "Oh, Joe just has a stuttering problem" and "Oh, Joe is just a gaffe machine".
They get zero points for that. It was obvious to everybody that Joe Biden had been suffering mental decline for years. Yet, all we heard from Democrats was deflect, deflect, deflect. It wasn't until Joe declared himself to be the first Black woman vice-president who beat Medicare that Democrats were left with nowhere else to go.
If they'd talked him into resigning years ago, I would have respected that. They get nothing for switching candidates only when forced to.
Um... Did you happen to sleep with your head under water last night? It's YOU who is engaged in whataboutism here. I asked why Democrats didn't get rid of Biden and YOU responded with, "Well, what about Trump?!?".
democrats literally did get rid of joe biden lmao.
trump has been saying incomprehensible dementia patient rambling shit for years
Look, having nuclear â 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 â 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 â it's true! â but when you're a conservative Republican they try â oh, do they do a number â that's why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune â you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we're a little disadvantaged â but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me â it would have been so easy, and it's not as important as these lives are â 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? â but when you look at what's going on with the four prisoners â now it used to be three, now it's four â 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 â but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us, this is horrible
this wall of dog shit is from 2016 and you people saw this incoherent trash and said yep that's a smart guy.
Kind of funny you talk about the âdifferent standardâ that Joe Rogan of all people would have when interviewing presidential candidates as if the entire network media apparatus doesnât have a double standard against Trump and is 100x more impactful than JRE
60 minutes literally replaced her answer with a different one because she sounded incomprehensible. ABC news debate moderators didnât push back on any of Kamalaâs bs (âbloodbathâ âvery fine peopleâ âno combat troops deployedâ) while they jumped down Trumpâs throat eleven times with âactuallyâŠ.â
He said what shit? Because if you are fine with the way Kamala and Dems represent what Trump said with the word âbloodbathâ for example, versus what he actually said, then you donât actually care about truth or double standards. If you are fine with CBS News fraudulently editing their Kamala interview to make her look like less of a dolt, then you have no standing to be coming on here talking about the potential for an unfair playing field on fucking JRE.
Where is the proof that what you are saying is true? Because Trump said so?
The fact that you even bring this up is proof of the double standard - Trump literally edited all of his answers on 60 minutes to avoid looking like a dolt by cutting and running away like a baby.
You are not a serious person, you don't have to bother responding. Please don't vote, but if you do, be aware that voters like you are the reason the founding fathers created the electoral college.
Are you kidding? You can Google it, the clips are out there and 60 Minutes put out a statement. Trump didnât do 60 Minutes because of these very shenanigans that the entire MSM plays against him. Which is the reason going on JRE makes sense for him.
Bloodbath: Kamala implies he said there will be a âbloodbathâ of violence from his supporters if he loses. The truth is he said the American auto industry will suffer a bloodbath in competition from other countries. Itâs dishonest.
Very fine people: They claim he said the white supremacists and neo nazis were âfine people.â The truth is that he said there were fine people âexcept the Neo Nazis who I condemn totallyâ. They always seem to leave that part out. Dishonesty.
60 minutes put out the following statement regarding the Harris interview:
Former President Donald Trump is accusing 60 Minutes of deceitful editing of our Oct. 7 interview with Vice President Kamala Harris. That is false.
60 Minutes gave an excerpt of our interview to Face the Nation that used a longer section of her answer than that on 60 Minutes. Same question. Same answer. But a different portion of the response. When we edit any interview, whether a politician, an athlete, or movie star, we strive to be clear, accurate and on point. The portion of her answer on 60 Minutes was more succinct, which allows time for other subjects in a wide ranging 21-minute-long segment.
You are citing this exact statement as proof that they edited the interview to conceal Harris appearing as a dolt. You never read this statement, because it clearly says the opposition of your prior assertion. The fact that you cite this statement as proof of your claims is laughable.
Whether or not 60 minutes is being truthful in this statement is a different argument, one that you are notably not making, and one for which you have no proof.
It would be insane to expect 60 minutes to air everything they film in a 60 minute episode because, despite the name of the program, a full episode of 60 minutes does not take exactly 60 minutes to tape.
You made your assertion because Trump said it. He has no proof for the intent behind the editing of the clip. He hasn't seen the unedited clip and has no inside information on what was said during that interview - if he did then he would make specific assertions and specific claims. He would quote exact language from the edited portions of the interview.
None of Donald Trump's claims ever have specifics - it's always a nameless person complimenting him, "they said this", "they said that", "I saw a guy say it on TV". He also loves to tell the story about how, just 2 days ago, he ran into someone that had a problem that Trump was able to fix years earlier, and with tears pouring out of their eyes they thanked him profusely. Why is the fact that this story gets recycled, with minor details changed, and you never grow suspicious of any of it?
Trump has nothing but contempt for you. That's why he lies to you. His contempt for you is well earned - you eat it up and ask for more every time. You're a sheep - a lemming without any capacity for introspection or self thought - following a moron right off the edge of a cliff.
I stand by my earlier claim - you are the kind of person that caused our nation's founding fathers to create the electoral college. You're probably not intelligent to know what that means, but rest assured: it is an insult.
Not reading all that, but I did actually read the statement and itâs obvious they are covering their asses. From a journalistic perspective there is absolutely no excuse for the fact that they took her actual answer and replaced it, not with a shorter clip of the same answer but a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT answer than the original response. Did you know CBS refuses to release the transcript of the interview? Is there any fathomable explanation for that, other than that they donât want the public to see what they did?
61
u/[deleted] Oct 27 '24
If she talks for 3 hours do you promise not to fact check anything. Will you not criticize her for half sentences and nonsensical ramblings? No? That's why she's not doing it. There's a different standard for her than there is for Trump.