Kamala's Fox interview was a disaster!!
- Thread starter mitchell76
- Start date
I see, so an educated individual in the field of economics knows nothing?? Isn't O'leary the last dragon most who would do a pitch wanted to get involved with?? Isn't O'leary suspected of driving his boat drunk, killing someone and letting his wife take the fall albeit found not guilty but money goes a long way to win a case. This is the guy you will believe but that makes sense since you support a felon like Trumpy.
Here is another interesting one for you, another staunch very right Republican throwing caca at Trump. Gee, I wonder why so many of his own who know him better than you and I can't stand the narcissist.
Stupid...ill-tempered': McConnell reportedly unloads on Trump in new book
Nobody cares about the opinions of washed up neocons. You're stuck in the 90s and early 2000s.
Further... it always comes with the caveat of selling a book.
Do you not see how you're duped by this silly stuff?
Quit expecting squeegee to be intelligent. He;s intellectually handicapped
ah yes when all else fails turn to conspiracy theories.
He specifies who the "enemies" are.
Brett Baier even apologized and admitted he played the wrong clip, didn't he?
So you and K Douglas are both fine with sending the military to "deal" with Adam Schiff and the Pelosis and all those Democrats Trump deems a suitable target?
Good to know.
I thought it was great that he did. Somebody on his staff is in trouble. Baier doesn't seem like an easy-going, oh-well mistakes happen kind of boss.
Then you can contrast Baier's reaction to that of CBS and 60 minutes.............
Last edited:
Trumpland is one giant scurrilous book. Fine. We all got it.
We want someone to write about Biden's last year. Now that book will sell.
However, Democrats as a group appear to have a more disclipined code of silence. Trump is not a darling of the Republican establishment so he's an easier target. A Republican operative's post-Trump career will not be affected too much by taking digs in a book.
With a Biden book, somebody might break and want to make a cash grab. A tell all of who was engineering the cover-up, the abrupt switch to Kamala, Kamala's troubles with the Biden team and so on. There will certainly be a big, first out of the gate advantage for the first book.
Last edited:
I haven't seen a clip of Trump specifically saying he would use the military to deal with Schiff and/or Pelosi. Schiff is a very objectionable character, but that's about it.
I have seen more of the heavily edited clips. The typical politically-charged clips where the commentator does most of the talking over Trump snippets. The clips are generally long on the commentator's interpretation and inference to feed red meat to their audience.
That's my view, too, now that I've seen it.
Fox is on by default in lots of places.
The average dedicated Fox viewer might be a MAGA cultist, but there are probably lots of people who just sort of bounce off it as a general news source occasionally and that is probably the audience she was trying to reach.
Trump can barely do friendly interviews anymore.
He has been pulling out of more and more appearances.
But he's always avoided hostile interviews if he can.
To be fair, most politicians do - there isn't a lot of benefit in "hostile" interviews. You get much better discussion from an interviewer who really wants to learn something than from hostility. Even "adversarial" can often result in a stalemate where nothing of substance gets discussed.
It is almost all downside for a politician to do a hostile interview.
We should normalize "tough, but fair" interviews, but those don't generate viral soundbites.
Foreigners, specifically, as I am sure someone else has pointed out by now.
Americans can't bet on polymarket. So it is just what foreign gamblers think (or want to project) about the US election.
The complete disrespect Elon has for the people on X is kind of impressive.
It may even be true, given what he's turned it into, but it is kind of breathtaking to see someone who so obviously thinks his audience are idiots just make it clear he thinks they are sheep he can manipulate.
Funny many of the reviews, like the debate reviews, were written before the event. One R congressman blamed his intern for releasing his statement on how Vance destroyed Walz a few hours prior to the debate lol.
Trump is getting destroyed even by friendly interviewers. Its clear Trump has literally no idea what he is talking about. No idea how tariffs work, the advantages of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, the importance of an independent Fed, etc etc. He's just making shit up like the kid doing the class report who didn't do the readings.
Trump is getting destroyed even by friendly interviewers. Its clear Trump has literally no idea what he is talking about. No idea how tariffs work, the advantages of the US dollar as the world's reserve currency, the importance of an independent Fed, etc etc. He's just making shit up like the kid doing the class report who didn't do the readings.
Last edited:
This is a problem across mainstream media in particular.
Most of them feel their job is to generate gotcha questions and viral clips.
Some also think their job is to get reactions about what the other candidate said about them or to catapult talking points.
It's a shit show.
This is not a FOX-specific problem, this is a "modern broadcast political news" problem.
Look how many people kept dismissing Harris's interviews because they weren't done in exactly that style.
In that light -- "get stuff to attack her on" -- she did very well.
If you thought this would be an interview to discuss real issues and get answers, you were going to be disappointed.
That wasn't his assignment and I don't think anyone should have expected it to be.
Harris's podcast with that Call your Daddy person was more insightful and informative than any interview she has done with a major network, from what I can tell.
The Univision town hall that Trump did was as well, because it wasn't journalists trying to get stuff for their reel, it was people wanting to find out information.
Yes, but fewer than Trump.
They are harder to secure and so the Secret Service doesn't like them
Trump seems to like outdoor rallies in general, but he also has lots of problems with indoor menus due to his history of not paying his bills.
It's probably a bit of a chicken or the egg problem as to which came first.
That's not quite correct.
They get more cautious when they think the downside is greater than the upside.
When you are ahead and have things in the bag, everything is more downside, so candidates give fewer interviews.
(This is also why front runners tend to want to limit debates.)
But it really is just downside/upside.
Trump has been a disaster in his latest appearances.
That's in friendly environments for the most part (clearly putting him in a townhall on Univision was an error by the campaign).
Keeping him out of places he can fuck things up is good strategy.
It is running out the clock.
But it might just mean they think it is close and he can fuck things up, not they they like their position and are protecting a lead.
We really can't say.
A position I stand by.
They wouldn't be "matching wits" with him.
You're all just proving my point.
Peterson would be going in with an agenda to humiliate the person and make it into a media circus.
Who would want to put up with that shit?
