Kamala Harris on Face the Nation (1 Viewer)

[SamAndreas]

Kamala Harris is interviewed for 31 minutes on Face the Nation, video and transcript at the link.

The effect was a wide ranging administration policy statement one year into their term in office. It was like Joe Biden was in the room, but he wasn't in the room.

Harris was Presidential.

Full transcript: Vice President Kamala Harris on "Face the Nation," December 26, 2021

The following is the full transcript of an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris that aired Sunday, December 26, 2021, on "Face the Nation."

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Taurus]

Kamala Harris is interviewed for 31 minutes on Face the Nation, video and transcript at the link.

The effect was a wide ranging administration policy statement one year into their term in office. It was like Joe Biden was in the room, but he wasn't in the room.

Harris was Presidential.

Full transcript: Vice President Kamala Harris on "Face the Nation," December 26, 2021

The following is the full transcript of an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris that aired Sunday, December 26, 2021, on "Face the Nation."

www.cbsnews.com

Too bad she has all the animal magnetism of an aluminum flower.

 

[SamAndreas]

Too bad she has all the animal magnetism of an aluminum flower.

What! I'll have you know that you're dissing my girlfriend saying that. Why it was back in 2010 that I announced that she would become the President of the United States someday.

 

[J-DONK]

She just had a major flub with a youtube guy. She probably had a list of the questions beforehand and had time to prepare for this interview in contrast. It was the same issue she had with her campaign. She had a "made by committee" feel to her, and flip flopped a couple of times on key things like M4A.

 

[SamAndreas]

She just had a major flub with a youtube guy. She probably had a list of the questions beforehand and had time to prepare for this interview in contrast. It was the same issue she had with her campaign. She had a "made by committee" feel to her, and flip flopped a couple of times on key things like M4A.

You didn't link to any of that. What's a major flub with a YouTube guy???

Being prepared for an interview is what sets Democrats apart from Republicans. Republican are the ones who are big for flying off the cuff. As well as speculating about whether a Democrat had a list of questions before an interview. As well as deflecting a conversation off to some vague voiced concerns of in the weeds, instead of dealing with an "in the present" discussion.

The Medicaid expansion we already have is better for really poor folks than what M4A would be. Medicare is for seniors for who'm many are fairly well set up as adverse to younger poorer Americans. Many of the elders can survive the doughnut holes in coverage that would sink a poor family with children to raise.

Medicare is not all that great, and it's not designed for all. It's designed for elders with retirement income and savings.



All in all that load of generalized criticism sounds a bit nicer than what Fox News would be dredging from the bottom muck, but it's similar.

 

[J-DONK]

You didn't link to any of that. What's a major flub with a YouTube guy???

Being prepared for an interview is what sets Democrats apart from Republicans. Republican are the ones who are big for flying off the cuff. As well as speculating about whether a Democrat had a list of questions before an interview. As well as deflecting a conversation off to some vague voiced concerns of in the weeds, instead of dealing with an "in the present" discussion.

The Medicaid expansion we already have is better for really poor folks than what M4A would be. Medicare is for seniors for who'm many are fairly well set up as adverse to younger poorer Americans. Many of the elders can survive the doughnut holes in coverage that would sink a poor family with children to raise.

Medicare is not all that great, and it's not designed for all. It's designed for elders with retirement income and savings.



All in all that load of generalized criticism sounds a bit nicer than what Fox News would be dredging from the bottom muck, but it's similar.

This is TYT, the interview starts around :08 seconds in to this clip.

 

[SamAndreas]

This is TYT, the interview starts around :08 seconds in to this clip.

I don't see a clip. But I at least now I know that it was with the young Turk that she ran afoul. I might think it was him who flubbed the interview not her.



That it was not my girlfriend who flubbed the interview would of course be the logical conclusion I would make of that.

 

[SamAndreas]

Now. Apparently, a Newmax body language EXPERT has taken great exception to Kamala Harris' interview on Tuesday.

Reading about it was like reading "blaw blaw blaw,,, blaw blaw."

Kamala’s Interview Was Really Bad, But A Body Language Expert Reveals It Was Even Worse [VIDEO]

The deeper you dive the worse she is...

www.drewberquist.com

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Rightly or wrongly, conventional wisdom has already decided Harris would be a terrible nominee. If the Democrats go with her in 2024 you can pretty much bet your entire savings she loses.

 

[SamAndreas]

Rightly or wrongly, conventional wisdom has already decided Harris would be a terrible nominee. If the Democrats go with her in 2024 you can pretty much bet your entire savings she loses.

A funny thing about conventional wisdom, it's so conventional.

I remember being at a Democrat club meeting in March 2020. They'd written off Joe Biden by then, after forgetting Kamala Harris entirety. We were all watching the debate together, they were not enchanted with anyone that they thought had not already been beaten. They were pinning their last hopes on that New York Republican who was pretending to be a Democrat that cycle, I forget his name.

I created quite a stir when I said Joe Biden's not out, and I think he'll pick Kamala Harris for VP, and then I think they'll win in the general election.

That was gratifying how that all turned out. I called a trifecta at that early date. They gave me a beer for my trouble.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Biden only won the nomination because of James Clyburn and the other candidates then falling in line after South Carolina and overwhelming Bernie's 30ish percent. That said, I don't think Bernie would have beaten Trump in 2020 because the damage to civic discourse had already been done. However, he would have beaten Trump in 2016 with ease.

Whether or not America goes down the road of an autocracy depends on whether the DNC elite can read the tea leaves. You can mark me down as Harris losing to Trump by a significant electoral margin in 2024. It would be doubling down on the Hillary mistake.

 

[SamAndreas]

Biden only won the nomination because of James Clyburn and the other candidates then falling in line after South Carolina and overwhelming Bernie's 30ish percent. That said, I don't think Bernie would have beaten Trump in 2020 because the damage to civic discourse had already been done. However, he would have beaten Trump in 2016 with ease.

Whether or not America goes down the road of an autocracy depends on whether the DNC elite can read the tea leaves. You can mark me down as Harris losing to Trump by a significant electoral margin in 2024. It would be doubling down on the Hillary mistake.

Is that with or without JFK Jr on Trump's ticket?

 

[J-DONK]

Biden only won the nomination because of James Clyburn and the other candidates then falling in line after South Carolina and overwhelming Bernie's 30ish percent. That said, I don't think Bernie would have beaten Trump in 2020 because the damage to civic discourse had already been done. However, he would have beaten Trump in 2016 with ease.

Whether or not America goes down the road of an autocracy depends on whether the DNC elite can read the tea leaves. You can mark me down as Harris losing to Trump by a significant electoral margin in 2024. It would be doubling down on the Hillary mistake.

The DNP is weirdly autocratic in it's primary process. In 2016, HRC almost ran unopposed, and she is still butthurt that Bernie would dare to run against her. In 2020, you had Obama deal making behind the scenes to get everyone to drop out as soon as Biden finally won a state. For all the talk about democracy, they play fast, and loose with the concept of "free, and fair elections" themselves.

On the flip side you have Republicans who if they could make it so only rich WASP could vote, they would. However, Republicans have completely wide open primaries in a Royal Rumble type atmosphere.

I've thought about this more then once if I'm honest. It's such a weird inverse trait shared between both parties.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

The key difference from I can appreciate is that more GOP primaries are 'winner-take-all' style so that even if you're only getting 30ish percent of the vote (like Trump did), you're still amassing a ton of delegates. Also the Democrats have this horrible thing called 'Superdelegates' and basically all of those were pledged to Hillary.

Is that with or without JFK Jr on Trump's ticket?

Why do you think Harris would be a formidable candidate?

 

[SamAndreas]

The key difference from I can appreciate is that more GOP primaries are 'winner-take-all' style so that even if you're only getting 30ish percent of the vote (like Trump did), you're still amassing a ton of delegates. Also the Democrats have this horrible thing called 'Superdelegates' and basically all of those were pledged to Hillary.



Why do you think Harris would be a formidable candidate?

Because she is a formidable candidate. She's from my state and I've been watching her for years.

When she ran early in the primary and then dropped out that wasn't an actual attempt, she was working with Biden then. When she attacked him about the busing issue that was done to help him, not to hurt him. He'd already picked her for VP by then, assuming that by working together they could win that nomination. They did and they did.

She assisted him by dealing with that issue. It was an issue that was going to come up, she gave him early friendly fire rather than have that be enemy fire later on when it would have mattered, and it worked.

As soon as she did that I went from thinking that they might possibly be working together to knowing that they were working together. From that point forward I knew she was the VP candidate, that was months before he "picked" her.

She plays bad cop to Biden's good cop now. You haven't seen her as a lead candidate yet. But I've seen her as a lead candidate, winning two statewide elections in a state with the population comparable to England, France, or Germany.

If she runs for president on her own you will see her move into the lead candidate role, I expect Biden will assist her in that, as she has assisted him.

As will Obama... .

 

[J-DONK]

Because she is a formidable candidate. She's from my state and I've been watching her for years.

When she ran early in the primary and then dropped out that wasn't an actual attempt, she was working with Biden then. When she attacked him about the busing issue that was done to help him, not to hurt him. He'd already picked her for VP by then, assuming that by working together they could win that nomination. They did and they did.

She assisted him by dealing with that issue. It was an issue that was going to come up, she gave him early friendly fire rather than have that be enemy fire later on when it would have mattered, and it worked.

As soon as she did that I went from thinking that they might possibly be working together to knowing that they were working together. From that point forward I knew she was the VP candidate, that was months before he "picked" her.

She plays bad cop to Biden's good cop now. You haven't seen her as a lead candidate yet. But I've seen her as a lead candidate, winning two statewide elections in a state with the population comparable to England, France, or Germany.

If she runs for president on her own you will see her move into the lead candidate role, I expect Biden will assist her in that, as she has assisted him.

As will Obama... .

I have yet to see any proof she is a formidable candidate on the national stage. She polled around 5% until she had a viral debate moment. She rocketed up to 15%, and then spent the rest of the campaign slowly falling back down to 5%.

I think Pete is the closest thing to a pro-corporate empty suit you can get. I have no doubt in my mind, he will beat Kamala in a campaign with them as frontrunners.

 

[SamAndreas]

I have yet to see any proof she is a formidable candidate on the national stage. She polled around 5% until she had a viral debate moment. She rocketed up to 15%, and then spent the rest of the campaign slowly falling back down to 5%.

I think Pete is the closest thing to a pro-corporate empty suit you can get. I have no doubt in my mind, he will beat Kamala in a campaign with them as frontrunners.

If the fact that Harris is Vice President now doesn't register as "proof" satisfying your preconditions, then it is likely that nothing else will.

What you said about Pete, using his first name as well as naming Harris by her first name, and tacking on the "pro-corporate empty suit" comment about Buttigleg suggests to me that names like Sanders and perhaps Warren interest you more.

That's OK I guess.

 

[J-DONK]

If the fact that Harris is Vice President now doesn't register as "proof" satisfying your preconditions, then it is likely that nothing else will.

What you said about Pete, using his first name as well as naming Harris by her first name, and tacking on the "pro-corporate empty suit" comment about Buttigleg suggests to me that names like Sanders and perhaps Warren interest you more.

That's OK I guess.

I mean right now her unfavorable rating is -10? She is a very weak frontrunner. I am progressive, and pro-labor, so I favor Bernie/Liz, but that has nothing to do with thinking Pete will puddle stomp Kamala.

P.S. I used everyone's first names, since you took that as some kind of weird diss.