Kamela Harris reclaims power back from the press corps

[ll74]

The Democratic Party has long made the mistake of flooding the electorate with policy details. Most voters don’t want to know. We want someone in office who will pay attention to the details so we don’t have to.

There doesn't need to be details. But a little more than "I'm going to go after.price.gougers" would be good.

I care about policy details for a few of my pet causes, but I trust Kamala Harris to make the right decision on everything else. And honestly, if it was revealed that she planned to spend billions on expanding highways, I’d still vote for her.

Answering questions doesn't need to be deep in the weeds.

What's odd to me is that the same people who clammer on about how interviews or specifics are bad, are the same ones who insist that the 900 page, detailed document is something that needs to be reported on.

Lol...¯⁠\⁠(⁠°⁠_⁠o⁠)⁠/⁠¯

 

[ll74]

Meh. It’s a two tiered set of expectations.

Trump pretends to do interviews but actually just spews nonsense. And in 8 years he hasn’t provided specifics for any of his threadbare policy proposals. He gets a pass from the media because reasons. He gets pats on the back when he remembers to change his diaper.

He does interviews. His questions are what they are. Harris could easily do something similar and stop the focus on them and even provide more substance to undecided.voters

 

[MajorRewrite]

What's odd to me is that the same people who clammer on about how interviews or specifics are bad

Nobody says interviews or specifics are bad.

are the same ones who insist that the 900 page, detailed document is something that needs to be reported on.

Lol...¯⁠\⁠(⁠°⁠_⁠o⁠)⁠/⁠¯

If a hundred right wing organizations sign off on a detailed plan to fundamentally change the federal government, that obviously is worth reporting on.

lol …

 

[RobDownSouth]

A tough question would be foreign policy specifics. A tough question would be major legislation proposals. A tough question would be addressing secret service issues. A tough question would be getting into the specifics on her price gouging proposal, which lacks anything specific or qualifying.

There's a ton....those are just off the top of my head.

When the campaign dictates.messaging, the public only hears that. Great for short term voter bumps. Not great for additional voters who want more.

Okay I though Harris was pretty damned specific on foreign policy

1. unconditional support for Ukraine (unlike Trump)
2. unconditional support for Israel
3. strong language about getting an Israeli-Gaza ceasefire done now. Enough Netanyahu stalling.
4. What else?

Major legislation?
That really can't be determined until she finds out if she has a Democratic House and Senate.
She wants to codify by law Roe v. Wade, which cannot be done without control of the House and doing away with the obsolete filibuster in the Senate. If she said that publicly and did NOT have a majority in the house or senate than she'd be accused of "not keeping her promises" due to circumstances beyond her control.

Increasing Medicare drug negotiations is huge and I think would have bipartisan support regardless of who controls Congress, and it's worth noting that Trump's Project 2025 is Very Specific about gutting Medicare price negotiation (pharma profits over people, y'know).

The "price gouging" proposal is a non-starter. Too vague and I confidently it'll never pass. She should not have even brought it up. She can't get into specifics on a brand new proposal this close to the election. This has the potential to be an embarrassment on a scale of Trump's "Gonna build a wall AND MEXICO IS GONNA PAY FOR IT". If I were her I'd go full-Trump and blithely dismiss is with "we plan to release a detailed plan in two weeks".

The Secret Service? That's not something that needs to be addressed at the Presidential level. I'd rather see her gut ICE and return them to border control, not Hispanic shakedowns in border states.

Side note: Hey speaking of foreign policy, have you been following the Rare Earth controversy? Trump's policy was "if it's not oil or coal, fuck it" and let China get an absolute lock on the Rare Earth mineral industry during his administraton.

ONE FUCKING MONTH before the 2020 election, Trump realized that the rare element cobalt was critical for two things: "super magnets" needed for ultra-precise onboard missile targeting and extending the range of Tesla EV batteries significantly (a yuge priority for his buddy Elon). So Trump reflexively orders a Chines tariff by executive order, which does jack shit except raise prices.

President Biden has worked tirelessly, specifically with African nations to secure contracts to mine (technically "re-mine") enormous "waste pits" because up until a few years ago cobalt was thrown into waste pits as there was no market for it.

 

[RobDownSouth]

He does interviews. His questions are what they are. Harris could easily do something similar and stop the focus on them and even provide more substance to undecided.voters

Which would inevitably draw unfavorable comparisons. "See they're both equally bad!".
Fuck That.

Until Trump starts answering questions in something other than sound bytes, I applaud Kamela Harris' team strategery of stiff-arming the media.

The double standard starts with Trump

 

[ll74]

Which would inevitably draw unfavorable comparisons. "See they're both equally bad!".
Fuck That.

There are people who already do that. There are people who are waiting to hear more about Harris's policies who don't.

Until Trump starts answering questions in something other than sound bytes, I applaud Kamela Harris' team strategery of stiff-arming the media.

The double standard starts with Trump

There is no double standard. Both candidates should be answering unscripted questions.

 

[ll74]

Nobody says interviews or specifics are bad.

Lol

If a hundred right wing organizations sign off on a detailed plan to fundamentally change the federal government, that obviously is worth reporting on.

lol …

I noticed that whenever i suggest Harris should do an interview, I get deflection to 45. Her actions do not and should not depend on anything he does

 

[RobDownSouth]

There are people who already do that. There are people who are waiting to hear more about Harris's policies who don't.


There is no double standard. Both candidates should be answering unscripted questions.

We agree on what both candidates SHOULD do.

At this point, the only way out that I see to enforce this this late in the game is to strap a shock collar around Trump's neck, with voltage shocks proportionate to the degree of his falsehoods. In the interest of fairness and allowing Trump to live long enough to see the results of the 2024 presidential election, voltage should be limited to a maximum of, oh I don't know, 100 volts?

 

[ll74]

We agree on what both candidates SHOULD do.

Perhaps.

At this point, the only way out that I see to enforce this this late in the game is to strap a shock collar around Trump's neck, with voltage shocks proportionate to the degree of his falsehoods. In the interest of fairness and allowing Trump to live long enough to see the results of the 2024 presidential election, voltage should be limited to a maximum of, oh I don't know, 100 volts?

His non answers are just as valuable as any answers.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Lol


I noticed that whenever i suggest Harris should do an interview, I get deflection to 45. Her actions do not and should not depend on anything he does

I disagree tremendously with you. You're suggesting two completely different standards for the two candidates. That will never fly. You've given up on Trump ever telling the truth (not just you, but a majority of Americans) so you're shrugging your shoulders, while Harris gets subjected to the microscope probe and sentence context analysis.

We saw the "Knives Out" approach of the press when Walz' kid cried onstage. Harris doesn't need that to get her message out.

 

[ll74]

I disagree tremendously with you. You're suggesting two completely different standards for the two candidates.

I don't. I expect both candidates do interviews.

That will never fly. You've given up on Trump ever telling the truth (not just you, but a majority of Americans) so you're shrugging your shoulders, while Harris gets subjected to the microscope probe and sentence context analysis.

I am not qualifying whether people answer questions honestly during the interviews.
Each candidate will do what they want to do during the interviews.

We saw the "Knives Out" approach of the press when Walz' kid cried onstage. Harris doesn't need that to get her message out.

She needs to do an interview to reach a group of voters that she hasn't reached yet. In regards to Trump, his interviews don't have an impact on those voters because those voters already aren't voting for him because they know he is lying.

The voters Harris reaches are currently staying home.

This isn't a fight about equity ....each candidate has different things they need to do to win over voters. It's a much harder chore for Harris. An interview for her is different than an interview for Trump. I have no issue with that ...

 

[Pad_Foot]

How do they write tax policy for not taxing “tips” so companies can’t call parts of their employee’s pay as “tips”??

Lawyers are getting ready to have a field day

Can Congress write dime effective rules to make it impossible to abuse this thought ?
I’ll be happy to go back to 15% tips

Social Security tax? Fine ! Don’t tax my IRA either it’s never been taxed just like the social security savings. Get Social Security to pay its own way !! Stop borrowing against Social Security. Make it a “Lock Box” like gas taxes should be

 

[Lazaran]

"Some people" don’t realize that WE CURRENTLY HAVE A PRESIDENT AND A PRESS SECRETARY who the questions that deserve detailed responses SHOULD, and ARE, being directed to, and SHOULD and ARE being answered by.



“One President at a time” actually means something.



President Biden is CURRENTLY engaged in some high stakes oversight and negotiations involving Israel-Gaza, Ukraine, immigration and border security, the economy, reproductive rights and access to reproductive health services, housing, climate change and climate change related disasters - and relief for those disasters, etc, etc, etc.



Vice President Harris is staying in her lane and supporting her President by NOT answering certain questions in "detail", because her answers could and WOULD be twisted and spun to undermine not only President Biden, but also CANDIDATE Harris. And those “detailed answers” WOULD also be twisted and spun to manufacture wedge issues to divide the Democratic Party at a pivotal moment of the campaign / election cycle: CANDIDATE Harris is answering questions responsibly and appropriately while in her CURRENT, PRIMARY role as VICE PRESIDENT Harris.



Also:

Because Kamala Harris is basically a continuation of the Biden - Harris administration, and because she has made perfectly clear that her policy positions are nearly (neatly?) aligned with President Biden’s, there have ALREADY been plenty of detailed answers provided to many questions on foreign policy, climate change policy, energy policy, healthcare (especially women’s healthcare) policy, immigration and border security policy, housing policy, etc, etc.



The media pundits, talking heads, and "some people" want MOAR “detailed answers” from candidate Harris for their own selfish purposes and agendas, and they are basically saying “Fuck the country and the world, I’m MOAR important”.

FUCK THEM ^ AND THAT ^ !!!



Hope ^ that helps "some people".

 

[jaF0]

The choice is America or MAGAlomania.

 

[adrina]

I think the press has shown that they have more interest in driving the agenda than reporting the actuality of events.

There's not much point in doing a press event as long as that remains the case.

 

[Lazaran]

I think the press has shown that they have more interest in driving the agenda than reporting the actuality of events.

There's not much point in doing a press event as long as that remains the case.

It’s “the corporate media”, so they not only have an interest / motive for “driving the agenda”, but also an interest in / motive for undermining the worker friendly Democratic agenda and promoting the corporate friendly MAGAt "republican" agenda.

 

[jaF0]

I think the press has shown that they have more interest in driving the ratings than reporting the actuality of events.

There's not much point in doing a press event as long as that remains the case.

Fixed.

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Take the money out of 'news' and things may begin to go back towards facts that matter.

 

[adrina]

Fixed.

Reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Take the money out of 'news' and things may begin to go back towards facts that matter.

That's your opinion and while it can be both, I meant agenda. The press is actively pushing narratives. And it's not just for ratings. There is a self serving corporate tax element as well.

I agree about the fairness doctrine.

 

[jaF0]

Ratings feed the news corporation tax elements.

Eyes are money.

Clicks are money.

 

[Lazaran]

Ratings feed the news corporation tax elements.

Eyes are money.

Clicks are money.

It goes faaaaar beyond that ^.

ALL the "non-media" corporations are involved (complicit) in / with the corporate media agenda / narrative, and their advertising dollars and choice of where to advertise are their leverage over the editorial decisions of the corporate media.

The corporate cabal is "all-inclusive".



And then there’s Elmo and "X", etc.

 

[jaF0]

Ratings set ad rates. Kill ratings. Kill ad dollars. Kill outside corporate influence.


'News' should be non-profit.

 

[YDB95]

Harris doesn't want to repeat the errors of the past, notably the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate which Nixon won according to radio listeners but TV viewers saw the sweaty mess of Nixon's face and voted for Kennedy.

Although this is correct, keep in mind that we don't (and at this late date, can't) know that radio listeners rated Nixon higher based on the candidates' answers. For example, listeners could have been put off by Kennedy's accent (even I, who grew up less than a hundred miles from Hyannisport, have always found it a bit much). Or, likelier still, people who didn't own a TV set in 1960 were likely to be older and more rural, thus more Republican except in the deep South (where neither Nixon nor Kennedy did particularly well).

 

[RobDownSouth]

The Democratic Party has long made the mistake of flooding the electorate with policy details. Most voters don’t want to know. We want someone in office who will pay attention to the details so we don’t have to.

I care about policy details for a few of my pet causes, but I trust Kamala Harris to make the right decision on everything else. And honestly, if it was revealed that she planned to spend billions on expanding highways, I’d still vote for her.

This reminds me of the anti-crime bill of 1994, when people demanded solutions to the "crack epidemic". The late Rush Limbaugh hee-hawed daily about "midnight basketball" provisions in the comprehensive bill, which was something like 1/10th of one percent of the program cost.

 

[YDB95]

This reminds me of the anti-crime bill of 1994, when people demanded solutions to the "crack epidemic". The late Rush Limbaugh hee-hawed daily about "midnight basketball" provisions in the comprehensive bill, which was something like 1/10th of one percent of the program cost.

And which did serve a purpose, providing a safe alternative for teenagers who were out and about at night.

 

[butters]

I am sure KH will do interviews when she and her team feel it's the right time.
Demanding or complaining about them in this brief space of time when she/team Harris has been so ridiculously busy is pointless:

she's had to re-evaluate her position from potential second-term Veep to potential first woman (yadda yadda) president of the USA

find a more complete team to support this run at the presidency

ensure the votes from democratic delegates, getting the party to unite behind her when it could have been a total shitshow

evaluate and decide upon her running mate... time-consuming and concluded at lightning speed compared to how things might normally be done and hugely successfully

present herself to the public at the DNC

raise a shit-ton of donations

and still carry out her duties as Veep in the meantime.

it's been just 5 weeks(?) since President Biden made his announcement and the campaign has raised over $540M. The Democratic party is united behind her and the hugely popular Tim Walz.

now is the time to be honing her deeper policies, deciding where she can effectively stamp her own brand on the Presidency and where she will follow through the policies she worked on with President Biden which have also been well-received by the public, such as the Infrastructure and CHIPS bills. Let the dust settle just a little while and you watch, she will grant interviews where they will do the most good for her campaign and reach the voters who want to hear from her. Pacing is everything.