|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 17, 2024 10:40:05 GMT -8
Your confirmation bias sure isn't helping. And, no, I never edited what you think I may have edited. Replied to the wrong post. "If I'm an undecided voter, that interview did not bring me closer to voting for Kamala, that's for sure. Just like Trump stunk in that last debate they had. That certainly didn't turn voters his way. Did any of this make a difference? No, but it can *confirm* your feelings that you have towards a candidate." (This is confirmation bias.) Not even close. It can simply confirm what you suspected. Not a preconceived biased notion. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 17, 2024 10:48:56 GMT -8
Here's an example of a bad Harris deflection answer. "What about the last three and a half years you were in office?" "Well, Donald Trump has been a politician for TEN years." Not good. Here's the actual question, which if you're going to quote, should be correct. It's a dumb question, the VP doesn't set policy, it's a figurehead position that's mostly a delegate role with very limited powers and actual responsibilities. Baier knows that. It's only a small part of what I would argue isn't even in the top three most disturbing Baier questions. Using Laken Riley's name as a punchline is disgusting. Asking Harris if she would like to apologize to those families is disgusting. Using someone who died as a political prop is dehumanizing behavior. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 17, 2024 10:51:32 GMT -8
Replied to the wrong post. "If I'm an undecided voter, that interview did not bring me closer to voting for Kamala, that's for sure. Just like Trump stunk in that last debate they had. That certainly didn't turn voters his way. Did any of this make a difference? No, but it can *confirm* your feelings that you have towards a candidate." (This is confirmation bias.) Not even close. It can simply confirm what you suspected. Not a preconceived biased notion. It can simply confirm what you suspected....is confirmation bias. Holy $#!+. "The tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories." It's not that big of a deal, but it's what you're explaining here, verbatim. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 17, 2024 10:53:50 GMT -8
And there goes Fox...again.
|
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 17, 2024 10:54:29 GMT -8
Not even close. It can simply confirm what you suspected. Not a preconceived biased notion. It can simply confirm what you suspected....is confirmation bias. Holy $#!+. "The tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories." It's not that big of a deal, but it's what you're explaining here, verbatim. It obviously only pertains to someone who is unbiased. Sheesh. Didn't think I needed to spell that out. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 17, 2024 10:56:18 GMT -8
Confirmation bias is exactly why political discourse goes nowhere. Liberals will claim Harris did a tremendous job in the interview, conservatives will declare her unfit for office, a Communist, a trainwreck, that her political career is over, etc.
Truth is somewhere in the middle, a very wide middle.
|
|
|
|
Post by bnastyaztecs on Oct 17, 2024 10:56:32 GMT -8
Did she ever answer the question of how many illegals have come into the US during her tenure?Yes she did answer the question. " She acknowledged that the American immigration system needed “to be fixed,” while highlighting several times that Trump had blocked a tough bipartisan border security bill, framing Trump as someone who “ preferred to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.” " Baier played a Trump campaign ad that featured remarks Harris made earlier in her career expressing support for using taxpayer dollars for gender-affirming surgeries for prison inmates. He asked Harris if she still supported the policy." "“Under Donald Trump’s administration, these surgeries were available on a medical-necessity basis to people in the federal prison system,” she said, likening his campaign ad to “throwing … stones when you’re living in a glass house.” When asked about issues during the four years with Biden, she doesn't answer.Yes she did: "Baier pressed Harris on how her policies would differ from Biden’s, playing a clip from her recent interview on ABC’s “The View” when she said there was “not a thing that comes to mind” she would do differently than Biden did." “ Let me be very clear, my presidency will not be a continuation of Joe Biden’s presidency.” " She added that she had not spent the majority of her career in Washington, and would bring her own personal and professional experiences as well as “ fresh and new ideas” to the White House." She just pivots to Trump and won't say how she'll solve it, but only blame him. "Harris was impassioned as she sparred with Baier over Trump’s rhetoric, which she said had left much of the public feeling “exhausted.” " You and I both know that he has talked about turning the American military on the American people. … He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him,” she said." www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/five-key-moments-from-kamala-harris-s-heated-fox-news-interview/ar-AA1srsem?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=e34b30c596b547e98f5840ac1ca2e4d3&ei=8The biased only see/hear what their biased minds conjure...Harris went into the interview knowing it was going to be an ambush...the questions by Baier had nothing to do with most American's problems and lives...they were to feed the prejudices of the Fox News audience...Harris withstood the onslaught of bs...countered with facts/truths...flustered Baier...who was leaning forward in an aggressive tone/manner...not landing a punch...Harris showed she has the mental dexterity to lead this nation...meanwhile Trump is bobbing/weaving to avoid such interviews..... No, that's no specific answer to the question. She didn't want to answer the question with a number because it wouldn't taste good coming out of her mouth. That's the facts. He leaned it and talked over her to get her back on track only when she wouldn't answer the question at hand. Instead, she decided to skirt around the answer and deflect back to Trump. That was there for all to see. Most politicians do that. She didn't do very well, but the good thing for Harris voters is that it won't make a bit of difference. I will agree that the biased only see/hear what they want to. Remember that. Baier was pontificating...he asked a question...she attempts to answer the question...when she starts to counter Fox News propaganda...starts telling the audience what they haven't heard...he jumps in to redirects it back to the propaganda...to the "Do you still beat your husband?" questions...Harris didn't go for it...ya'll mad she once again...the DEI/affirmative action candidate...once again...made the so-called superior man...look impotent, weak and feeble to her intellect/confidence...dispelling the narrative..... |
|
|
|
Post by bnastyaztecs on Oct 17, 2024 10:59:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 17, 2024 11:03:47 GMT -8
It can simply confirm what you suspected....is confirmation bias. Holy $#!+. "The tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories." It's not that big of a deal, but it's what you're explaining here, verbatim. It obviously only pertains to someone who is unbiased. Sheesh. Didn't think I needed to spell that out. ...You can keep talking in circles, but what you described twice is confirmation bias. I didn't think that needed to be spelled out, I'm literally just using your words. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 17, 2024 11:07:59 GMT -8
No, that's no specific answer to the question. She didn't want to answer the question with a number because it wouldn't taste good coming out of her mouth. That's the facts. He leaned it and talked over her to get her back on track only when she wouldn't answer the question at hand. Instead, she decided to skirt around the answer and deflect back to Trump. That was there for all to see. Most politicians do that. She didn't do very well, but the good thing for Harris voters is that it won't make a bit of difference. I will agree that the biased only see/hear what they want to. Remember that. Baier was pontificating...he asked a question...she attempts to answer the question...when she starts to counter Fox News propaganda...starts telling the audience what they haven't heard...he jumps in to redirects it back to the propaganda...to the "Do you still beat your husband?" questions...Harris didn't go for it...ya'll mad she once again...the DEI/affirmative action candidate...once again...made the so-called superior man...look impotent, weak and feeble to her intellect/confidence...dispelling the narrative..... Y'all mad because it showed that Harris won't own up to her deficiencies as VP. Y'all mad because likes to skirt around issues. Baier did what any interviewer should do, and that's reeling back in an interviewee who's doing just that. They do it Trump all the time, and deservedly so. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbrothers on Oct 17, 2024 11:14:52 GMT -8
I would guess that 92.9% of Kamala's votes she will get are not for her; just a vote against Trump and party line voters. She gives no confidence to independent voters that she can do the job that needs to be done. It is pretty clear that it will be more of the same and no "turning the page"
When she made the statement about how broken immigration has been over the last decade, it seemed bizarre because 6 of 10 the years were with her, Biden, and Obama.
Most don't believe the BS about Trump blocking the new Boarder Bill in Congress due to the election. She didn't want to hear and comment about the first 2 years of her administration when they had control of the House and Senate where they could do what ever they wanted to fix the Boarder. Just a last minute Bill as a political move.
Attorneys and specifically attorneys that are politicians like Harris can't be trusted, and are mostly crappy business people. It is primarily due to how they value/bill for their time and their Quid Pro Quo deal making. After watching the Fox interview, a key point she made with immigration, and her justification for the open boarder policy she supports is that she will "follow the Federal laws" The creative use of these Federal laws is what allowed the current Administration to give "legal status" to many of these immigrants taking much needed tax dollars away from citizens that need it most. Most reasonable citizens see this as a political strategy of the Democrats. Homeland Security is broken with their mission statements and the FEMA mess.
Is Harris a candidate that is capable of addressing the abuse and misuse of these Federal laws to protect the American People from the immigration problems?
With the massive Federal Debt, is Harris a candidate that will break up Homeland Security's humanitarian missions by pushing that back to the private sector to the likes of the George Soros' and Bill Gates'?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 17, 2024 11:15:05 GMT -8
Baier was pontificating...he asked a question...she attempts to answer the question...when she starts to counter Fox News propaganda...starts telling the audience what they haven't heard...he jumps in to redirects it back to the propaganda...to the "Do you still beat your husband?" questions...Harris didn't go for it...ya'll mad she once again...the DEI/affirmative action candidate...once again...made the so-called superior man...look impotent, weak and feeble to her intellect/confidence...dispelling the narrative..... Y'all mad because it showed that Harris won't own up to her deficiencies as VP. Y'all mad because likes to skirt around issues. Baier did what any interviewer should do, and that's reeling back in an interviewee who's doing just that. They do it Trump all the time, and deservedly so. Fox News mark on display. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 17, 2024 11:36:45 GMT -8
I would guess that 92.9% of Kamala's votes she will get are not for her; just a vote against Trump and party line voters. She gives no confidence to independent voters that she can do the job that needs to be done. It is pretty clear that it will be more of the same and no "turning the page" When she made the statement about how broken immigration has been over the last decade, it seemed bizarre because 6 of 10 the years were with her, Biden, and Obama. Most don't believe the BS about Trump blocking the new Boarder Bill in Congress due to the election. She didn't want to hear and comment about the first 2 years of her administration when they had control of the House and Senate where they could do what ever they wanted to fix the Boarder. Just a last minute Bill as a political move. Attorneys and specifically attorneys that are politicians like Harris can't be trusted, and are mostly crappy business people. It is primarily due to how they value/bill for their time and their Quid Pro Quo deal making. After watching the Fox interview, a key point she made with immigration, and her justification for the open boarder policy she supports is that she will "follow the Federal laws" The creative use of these Federal laws is what allowed the current Administration to give "legal status" to many of these immigrants taking much needed tax dollars away from citizens that need it most. Most reasonable citizens see this as a political strategy of the Democrats. Homeland Security is broken with their mission statements and the FEMA mess. Is Harris a candidate that is capable of addressing the abuse and misuse of these Federal laws to protect the American People from the immigration problems? With the massive Federal Debt, is Harris a candidate that will break up Homeland Security's humanitarian missions by pushing that back to the private sector to the likes of the George Soros' and Bill Gates'? Obama was responsible for the most deportations of any president this century. Trump fans appear to like the idea of mass deportations. www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story%3fid=41715661There are so many inaccuracies here...I'm not sure where to start, but let's start with this. It's a fact that Trump torpedoed the border security bill. That's Republican James Lankford. James Lankford was censured by his own party in Oklahoma for working on the bill. Here's James Lankford again. Here's Republican Dan Crenshaw, saying the exact same thing: Next: It's completely dishonest to frame the argument about the first two years in the manner you did. Biden proposed the U.S. Citizenship Act on his first day in office. It was formally introduced in the House on February 18th, 2021 to fix the "Boarder." Under Senate rules, SIXTY (60) SIX ZERO votes are required for cloture to overcome a filibuster. There was never a majority that allowed Democrats to "do whatever they wanted." It was not a last minute bill, it died in committee at the end of the 117th Congress, after sitting for months. The rest of your post isn't worth addressing. Disgraceful. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecmusician on Oct 17, 2024 11:44:41 GMT -8
Here's an example of a bad Harris deflection answer. "What about the last three and a half years you were in office?" "Well, Donald Trump has been a politician for TEN years." Not good. Here's the actual question, which if you're going to quote, should be correct. It's a dumb question, the VP doesn't set policy, it's a figurehead position that's mostly a delegate role with very limited powers and actual responsibilities. Baier knows that. It's only a small part of what I would argue isn't even in the top three most disturbing Baier questions. Using Laken Riley's name as a punchline is disgusting. Asking Harris if she would like to apologize to those families is disgusting. Using someone who died as a political prop is dehumanizing behavior. Harris jumped into the race precisely because she was VP. It is tough for Harris to separate herself from the ruinous policies of the administration when she has been bragging about being the “last person in the room” during most of Biden’s big presidential moments. Considering the left compares Trump to Hitler on a daily basis, asking Harris for an apology for Lincoln Riley’s tragic death doesn’t seem over the top inappropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 17, 2024 11:56:20 GMT -8
Here's the actual question, which if you're going to quote, should be correct. It's a dumb question, the VP doesn't set policy, it's a figurehead position that's mostly a delegate role with very limited powers and actual responsibilities. Baier knows that. It's only a small part of what I would argue isn't even in the top three most disturbing Baier questions. Using Laken Riley's name as a punchline is disgusting. Asking Harris if she would like to apologize to those families is disgusting. Using someone who died as a political prop is dehumanizing behavior. Harris jumped into the race precisely because she was VP. It is tough for Harris to separate herself from the ruinous policies of the administration when she has been bragging about being the “last person in the room” during most of Biden’s big presidential moments. Considering the left compares Trump to Hitler on a daily basis, asking Harris for an apology for Lincoln Riley’s tragic death doesn’t seem over the top inappropriate. She didn't "jump into the race" - She was nominated by her party's delegates overwhelmingly and was the only logical choice given how the money allocation and DNC governing rules work. Basic, simple explanation. Nobody is comparing Trump to Hitler on a daily basis. Nobody. Quit being a victim of the propaganda machine and gather some independent thought. The two ideas aren't remotely similar, either. Trump's comparisons are perfectly valid when he's quoting Hitler speeches. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Oct 17, 2024 12:02:36 GMT -8
Y'all mad because it showed that Harris won't own up to her deficiencies as VP. Y'all mad because likes to skirt around issues. Baier did what any interviewer should do, and that's reeling back in an interviewee who's doing just that. They do it Trump all the time, and deservedly so. Fox News mark on display. Funny, that's what they would say when Trump got the same treatment. "CNN News on display", or any other outlet not affiliated with Fox. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 17, 2024 12:06:10 GMT -8
Here's the actual question, which if you're going to quote, should be correct. It's a dumb question, the VP doesn't set policy, it's a figurehead position that's mostly a delegate role with very limited powers and actual responsibilities. Baier knows that. It's only a small part of what I would argue isn't even in the top three most disturbing Baier questions. Using Laken Riley's name as a punchline is disgusting. Asking Harris if she would like to apologize to those families is disgusting. Using someone who died as a political prop is dehumanizing behavior. Harris jumped into the race precisely because she was VP. It is tough for Harris to separate herself from the ruinous policies of the administration when she has been bragging about being the “last person in the room” during most of Biden’s big presidential moments. Considering the left compares Trump to Hitler on a daily basis, asking Harris for an apology for Lincoln Riley’s tragic death doesn’t seem over the top inappropriate. Here's how you can disprove this nonsense easily: Trump is barely covered anymore. The New York Times has two articles among dozens that have the name Trump in the headline. Two. As has been said before, his behavior has become so normalized, it's no longer deemed worthy of being news. It's similar on ABC News, a couple of minor articles, that's it. There's no daily Hitler comparisons, there's barely any coverage...at all. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Oct 17, 2024 12:07:44 GMT -8
Fox News mark on display. Funny, that's what they would say when Trump got the same treatment. "CNN News on display", or any other outlet not affiliated with Fox. No? You're just creating excuses that you know are false because of your political leanings. Baier tried to talk over her and dominate her...and he failed. You still haven't addressed the video clip that was edited, either. Trump bulldozed Kaitlan Collins. Bulldozed. Again, there's no real comparison to be found. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbrothers on Oct 17, 2024 12:07:49 GMT -8
I would guess that 92.9% of Kamala's votes she will get are not for her; just a vote against Trump and party line voters. She gives no confidence to independent voters that she can do the job that needs to be done. It is pretty clear that it will be more of the same and no "turning the page" When she made the statement about how broken immigration has been over the last decade, it seemed bizarre because 6 of 10 the years were with her, Biden, and Obama. Most don't believe the BS about Trump blocking the new Boarder Bill in Congress due to the election. She didn't want to hear and comment about the first 2 years of her administration when they had control of the House and Senate where they could do what ever they wanted to fix the Boarder. Just a last minute Bill as a political move. Attorneys and specifically attorneys that are politicians like Harris can't be trusted, and are mostly crappy business people. It is primarily due to how they value/bill for their time and their Quid Pro Quo deal making. After watching the Fox interview, a key point she made with immigration, and her justification for the open boarder policy she supports is that she will "follow the Federal laws" The creative use of these Federal laws is what allowed the current Administration to give "legal status" to many of these immigrants taking much needed tax dollars away from citizens that need it most. Most reasonable citizens see this as a political strategy of the Democrats. Homeland Security is broken with their mission statements and the FEMA mess. Is Harris a candidate that is capable of addressing the abuse and misuse of these Federal laws to protect the American People from the immigration problems? With the massive Federal Debt, is Harris a candidate that will break up Homeland Security's humanitarian missions by pushing that back to the private sector to the likes of the George Soros' and Bill Gates'? Obama was responsible for the most deportations of any president this century. Trump fans appear to like the idea of mass deportations. www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story%3fid=41715661There are so many inaccuracies here...I'm not sure where to start, but let's start with this. It's a fact that Trump torpedoed the border security bill. That's Republican James Lankford. James Lankford was censured by his own party in Oklahoma for working on the bill. Here's James Lankford again. Here's Republican Dan Crenshaw, saying the exact same thing: Next: It's completely dishonest to frame the argument about the first two years in the manner you did. Biden proposed the U.S. Citizenship Act on his first day in office. It was formally introduced in the House on February 18th, 2021 to fix the "Boarder." Under Senate rules, SIXTY (60) SIX ZERO votes are required for cloture to overcome a filibuster. There was never a majority that allowed Democrats to "do whatever they wanted." It was not a last minute bill, it died in committee at the end of the 117th Congress, after sitting for months. The rest of your post isn't worth addressing. Disgraceful. Too much to unpack everything in this post  The Obama immigration policies followed Clinton calling for addressing illegal crossings, I'm sure you can see how outlandish Kamala's response was with the 10 years of problems deflected towards Trump. How ironic that tightening the board with Clinton and Obama became inhumane and xenophobic under Trump? Shame on the hypocrisy. Trump was under attack from day one because the Democrats and Hillary Clinton would not concede the loss in 2016. Please elaborate on your out of left field disgraceful comment. What is that all about, Ryan? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecbrothers on Oct 17, 2024 12:15:58 GMT -8
Harris jumped into the race precisely because she was VP. It is tough for Harris to separate herself from the ruinous policies of the administration when she has been bragging about being the “last person in the room” during most of Biden’s big presidential moments. Considering the left compares Trump to Hitler on a daily basis, asking Harris for an apology for Lincoln Riley’s tragic death doesn’t seem over the top inappropriate. She didn't "jump into the race" - She was nominated by her party's delegates overwhelmingly and was the only logical choice given how the money allocation and DNC governing rules work. Basic, simple explanation. Nobody is comparing Trump to Hitler on a daily basis. Nobody. Quit being a victim of the propaganda machine and gather some independent thought. The two ideas aren't remotely similar, either. Trump's comparisons are perfectly valid when he's quoting Hitler speeches. Ryan, It was a Coronation of Queen Kamala by the Democratic elites. Keep in mind the Democracy of the Primary Elections where the people get to vote for their candidate did not happen with Kamala (0 votes by the people). Before you get on your high horse and preach Democracy, take some time and think about that. |
|
