ADVERTISEMENT

“The first interview” with CNN

What?

The media tells us Kamala and Walz got 100,000 people in a Detroit hangar earlier this month, and the media has told us ever since that Kamala is polling 5-7 points ahead of Trump.

If that's true, then why is Kamala terrified of giving an interview? So much so that her first interview is with CNN and is RECORDED so CNN and Kamala can work together to carefully edit out all her flubs to make her look as good as possilble.

Again, why is all this necessary if she's up by 7 points and everyone loves her?
 
What?

The media tells us Kamala and Walz got 100,000 people in a Detroit hangar earlier this month, and the media has told us ever since that Kamala is polling 5-7 points ahead of Trump.

If that's true, then why is Kamala terrified of giving an interview? So much so that her first interview is with CNN and is RECORDED so CNN and Kamala can work together to carefully edit out all her flubs to make her look as good as possilble.

Again, why is all this necessary if she's up by 7 points and everyone loves her?
Why are you worried about it? Trump has this in the bag. I think.
 
Why are you worried about it? Trump has this in the bag. I think.
The dem machine is worth about 10 million votes on its own. In swing states the Republicans have a massive network. They will need to achieve unprecedented turn out to win. It's why both parties are playing thier base so much. They need people to get to the polls. Who ever motivates thier base to turn out wins. Kamala just wants to keep it close enough to be in the believable margins.
 
And Biden got 81MM "legitimate" votes employing the same basic strategy?

Trump has nothing in the bag.
This. As @purkey said, they are running Kamala because they know they have it in the bag.

2025 is going to be very rough, regardless of the election results. We know if the left can't steal it again, they will then push for nonstop rioting, there's no way they will allow a peaceful transfer of power.

What remains to be seen is how America reacts if another presidential election is stolen. The proclivity for the left is violence, so we know how they will react if Trump wins.
 
This. As @purkey said, they are running Kamala because they know they have it in the bag.

2025 is going to be very rough, regardless of the election results. We know if the left can't steal it again, they will then push for nonstop rioting, there's no way they will allow a peaceful transfer of power.

What remains to be seen is how America reacts if another presidential election is stolen. The proclivity for the left is violence, so we know how they will react if Trump wins.
Right. Big Mike would be heading up the ticket if the fix was not in.

I am finding it harder and harder to envision a Trump inauguration.

The Right is, as you say, a pretty peaceful group. I predict more of the same when this election gets stolen.

I really hope I'm wrong.
 
Right. Big Mike would be heading up the ticket if the fix was not in.

I am finding it harder and harder to envision a Trump inauguration.

The Right is, as you say, a pretty peaceful group. I predict more of the same when this election gets stolen.

I really hope I'm wrong.
This is what happens when people become comfortable. They see their lives being slowly destroyed but haven't become uncomfortable enough to take actions against it. The revolutionary war that was fought to create this country was only supported by about 1/3 of the country. Until people become uncomfortable enough they will continue to sit back and take it.
 
This. As @purkey said, they are running Kamala because they know they have it in the bag.

2025 is going to be very rough, regardless of the election results. We know if the left can't steal it again, they will then push for nonstop rioting, there's no way they will allow a peaceful transfer of power.

What remains to be seen is how America reacts if another presidential election is stolen. The proclivity for the left is violence, so we know how they will react if Trump wins.
 
First rule for a presidential candidate when giving an interview. Do no harm. Harris did no harm in the interview. Thus, the interview was a success.

The only real negative I see with the interview was concerning the optics of the interview environment itself, which Harris had no control over.

I continue to be impressed with how disciplined and skilled Harris is showing herself to be ever since President Biden dropped out.
 
First rule for a presidential candidate when giving an interview. Do no harm. Harris did no harm in the interview. Thus, the interview was a success.

The only real negative I see with the interview was concerning the optics of the interview environment itself, which Harris had no control over.

I continue to be impressed with how disciplined and skilled Harris is showing herself to be ever since President Biden dropped out.
Stay greased. Stay twink.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
First rule for a presidential candidate when giving an interview. Do no harm. Harris did no harm in the interview. Thus, the interview was a success.

The only real negative I see with the interview was concerning the optics of the interview environment itself, which Harris had no control over.

I continue to be impressed with how disciplined and skilled Harris is showing herself to be ever since President Biden dropped out.

Team Harris didn’t have control of every aspect of the totally scripted “interview?”
 
First rule for a presidential candidate when giving an interview. Do no harm. Harris did no harm in the interview. Thus, the interview was a success.
She's auditioning for the role of the leader of the free world.

She needed the interview to be taped, with a friendly media outlet, and she needed her VP there in case she got caught not being able to answer a likely scripted question. Then she likely got to work with CNN to edit the interview before it was aired.

She couldn't have come off looking weaker if she tried. As a Trump supporter, I'm thrilled with how it was handled.
 
She needed the interview to be taped, with a friendly media outlet, and she needed her VP there in case she got caught not being able to answer a likely scripted question. Then she likely got to work with CNN to edit the interview before it was aired.
Is all of this true for Trump too when he sits down with Fox News for an interview, or has a taped interview, or does an interview with Vance on Fox News?

Yeah, go ahead, tell us how all of that is dIfFeReNt lol!

She couldn't have come off looking weaker if she tried. As a Trump supporter, I'm thrilled with how it was handled.
The fact that you are a Trump cultist explains why you think she came off looking weak. She is always going to look weak according to you.

She clearly did not look weak though. It was a good interview for her and did her no harm.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: OUSOONER67
Is all of this true for Trump too when he sits down with Fox News for an interview, or has a taped interview, or does an interview with Vance on Fox News?

Yeah, go ahead, tell us how all of that is dIfFeReNt lol!
Sure. If he never gives an interview, then finally agrees to one, and then stipulates that it cannot be live, it has to be with a friendly host, then yeah, that would make Trump look as weak as Kamala does now.

I can be honest about that. Truth before politics.

The fact that you are a Trump cultist explains why you think she came off looking weak. She is always going to look weak according to you.
What about if she was actually weak? Or do you automatically assume someone is a 'cult' member if they tell the truth about your candidate and you don't want to hear it?

Wouldn't that make YOU the cult member?

Rhetorical question is rhetorical.
 
She was weak enough that several in DC and the media are questioning if she should be the nominee.
I find the irony of wanting to switch candidates at this late date as appalling as to how she became the candidate.
 
Just as expected, you gave us the "it's dIfFeReNt" excuse.

When of course, there is no legitimate difference. Trump does exactly what Harris does, and you celebrate Trump while attacking Harris. You see Trump as strong and Harris as weak.

As I told you earlier, you are sold out and brainwashed.

What about if she was actually weak?
But she wasn't. No more weaker than Trump was when he did the same thing lol!

Or do you automatically assume someone is a 'cult' member if they tell the truth about your candidate and you don't want to hear it?
No. I'm not assuming anything about you. Your posts clearly indicate you are a Trump cultist. Everything you say and do, from claiming there is no way Harris can win without cheating, to your refusal to acknowledge and confront comments by Trump that make you uncomfortable or are hurtful to Trump, to your hope for a civil uprising/war, indicates how much of a Trump cultist you are.

No one has to assume anything about you. You have no problem revealing it yourself.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: OUSOONER67
Just as expected, you gave us the "it's dIfFeReNt" excuse.

When of course, there is no legitimate difference. Trump does exactly what Harris does, and you celebrate Trump while attacking Harris. You see Trump as strong and Harris as weak.

As I told you earlier, you are sold out and brainwashed.


But she wasn't. No more weaker than Trump was when he did the same thing lol!


No. I'm not assuming anything about you. Your posts clearly indicate you are a Trump cultist. Everything you say and do, from claiming there is no way Harris can win without cheating, to your refusal to acknowledge and confront comments by Trump that make you uncomfortable or are hurtful to Trump, to your hope for a civil uprising/war, indicates how much of a Trump cultist you are.

No one has to assume anything about you. You have no problem revealing it yourself.
You're just too defensive about Kamala cause you know she's a weak AF candidate.

I will say this, I love it when she speaks publicly, I think she should do more of it.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT