CNN's Acosta To Kamala Harris Campaign: "Would It Kill You Guys To Have A Press Conference?"

How do you feel about anti-trust enforcement? Four companies control 85% of meat processing.

 

Whether or not Harris is intentionally holding off on press conferences, the delay is proving to be advantageous. When I read the comments from Trump supporters on Twitter, the consistent refrain seems to be about her lack of press conferences. The longer she delays, the more this issue drowns out other, more targeted and potentially effective attacks. The air is being sucked out of the room. It's a cool strategy because she can easily quiet the noise with a 45-minute press conference whenever she chooses.

To those undecided voters concerned about this, how many press conferences would satisfy you, and by when? Do the PCs have to be the same quality as the recent trump ones?

She has done rallies, interviews and will soon debate. It is not like she is hiding. The PCs will come.

 

Everyday Trump is becoming more and more unhinged, why get in the way of that if you don't have to?

 

Anti-trust is quite fascinating and complex. Four companies controlling 85% of meat processing is not a monopoly, a quadoplogy maybe? If the companies are colluding with one another, I believe they are already breaking the law. If not and they are artificially inflating prices, one or two of them should theoretically be able to eat the other’s lunch by simply returning to normal pricing. As long as the market is open. I think that is usually the real issue. If there are barriers to entry, then de facto cartels can indeed gouge without penalty, but if the market is open, higher prices should recruit more competition. The problem is that is extremely difficult to tell which is happening. This is why the price controls of the 70s caused the scarcities that they were intended to solve.

 

Appreciate that, should have read your earlier response. Semantics aside, reading what women are going through in Texas and other red states, from a variety of complications that jeopardize their lives and yet are denied abortions even for fetuses with no chance of surviving birth. They had to leave the state for care. The callousness of GOP politicians for woman's health in these states is sickening.
The Plaintiffs and Their Stories: Zurawski v. State of Texas | Center for Reproductive Rights

 

Anti trust legislation wasn’t limited to monopolies and they are absolutely colluding. Here is one example in the food industry.

https://www.just-food.com/news/us-egg-producers-forced-to-pay-us53m-in-price-fixing-case/

Not as difficult to prove as you think. The issue is that nobody wants to chase it.

 

Blame those in elected office. Vote all of them out.

 

I don’t doubt that some companies could be found guilty in the court of law. What I doubt is that any single person can truly understand the factors that undergird prices, thereby making it difficult to truly know when prices have been gouged. Even in your article, the companies’ responses sound plausible. What we do know is that when price controls have been instituted in the past, the result was invariably a shortage of the good. It’s difficult to imagine a national authority being able to get this right without causing any unintended consequences.

Price Controls Were a Disaster in the 1970s. They Would Be a Disaster Today, Too.

 

You raise an interesting question that I am pondering. My wife and I discussed this today. Is there any issue for which the candidate’s position is a vote killer or a vote guarantee regardless of their positions on other things?

In my case, if a candidate agreed with me 100% on everything except that the candidate was pro-choice, would that be a vote killer? Conversely, if a candidate was pro-life, but then the opposite of my views on every other issue would that guarantee my vote? I don’t know, honestly.

Years ago, I asked a friend of mine who is pro-life, but also a lifelong Democrat, how he reconciled the two. He replied he was not a one-issue voter.

In terms of Harris, her pro-choice position is not the only thing where we disagree. Listening to her speech today it was concerning what she’s proposing to do, or at least confusing how she could ever hope to bring it about.

So I’m still pondering this. But I do want to ask you the same question: is there an issue for you in which the candidate’s position would kill your vote or guarantee your vote regardless of their other positions?

 

And no one is proposing that the government actually set prices.

 

Democracy. I'm not voting for any candidate who is adverse to it.

 

Harris and Walz to sit with CNN for exclusive first joint interview since campaign began | CNN Politics

Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz will sit with CNN for their first joint interview on Thursday as Democrats work to broaden their base’s excitement from last week’s Democratic National Convention.

The interview, conducted by CNN’s chief political correspondent and anchor Dana Bash, will air at 9 p.m. ET on Thursday. It occurs as the candidates embark on a bus tour through the battleground state of Georgia and marks the first time Harris has sat with a journalist for an in-depth, on-the-record conversation since President Joe Biden dropped his bid for a second term and endorsed her on July 21.

 

Said it several times before this may once again be a case of being careful what you wish for. After expressing faux outrage that Harris hasn't participated in any interviews or held any press conferences supporters of the defeated former president may have second thoughts considering that the chances are that Harris and Walz will come over much better than Trump did following his recent interviews and/or press conferences.

 

Didn’t she(?) commit to a press conference by the end of August?

 

A multi take pre-taped interview with Dana Bash sure to be hard hitting journalism at it's finest.

 

It is funny that Harris's first interview in almost 40 days since becoming the D nominee will include her VP and not live. Not sure anyone can give a rational explanation for that other than Harris's camp is worried she will say something that will kill her momentum. Any other excuse is just politics. Doesn't give off powerful vibes that is for sure.

 

The callousness I see are the groups who accuse pro-lifers of being unsympathetic or uncaring about these extreme examples. One can be pro-life and sympathetic to the extreme examples - they are not mutually exclusive. If one doesn't understand this, then they are the truly partisan. Furthermore, remember that many of the pro-lifers are WOMEN. This simple fact is often ignored or dismissed. Do these pro-life women not deserve a voice or at least acknowledgment? Are they anti-women? Are they unsympathetic?

 

So any candidate who supports the Constitution is a no-go for you?