265
Even Fox News’s Bret Baier Admits Harris Outsmarted Him in Interview
(newrepublic.com)
We really haven't had a Presidential candidate with this caliber of speaking ability since Obama.
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.
“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."
- Dark Kamala
Darkamala?
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.
Here is the full interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80DaR2CVNNk
Thank you @RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world, 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.
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
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.
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.
Exactly how it went the first time someone mentioned springfield ohio to me
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.
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.
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.
google "gaslighting," and look at the GOP over the last 40 years or so
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.
What, like it was hard?
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
this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
265 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19051 readers
3872 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS