That's valid. But they're hardly the only ones. So you would — so you would push that legislation again? One of your campaign themes is, “We’re not going back.” But I wonder what you say to voters who do want to go back when it comes to the economy specifically because their groceries were less expensive, housing was more affordable when Donald Trump was president. Meanwhile, pointing out that giving the president a say in interest rates is a huge change ... that's a challenge? It's simply a fact that Vance agreed with.
Very reasonable post. The three separate parts of the Harris interview were I believe 8-10 minutes in length - will go back to verify; so, we will see if your “17 minute” claim is accurate. It may be. EDIT: Time for Vance interview: 22:49 Time for Harris interview: 27:01 (total of three separate parts of 8:14, 8:30, and 10:17 in length). Further, this would mean that the interruptions/challenges per minute were even MORE unfavorable to Vance. Separately - why were there three separate interview slices for Harris? As a baby boomer it could be that the candidates both needed to go to the bathroom a couple of times; but, it is curious that Vance is queried for 22:49 straight and we get the edited and sliced up interview of Harris in three pieces. As stated previously, I am biased toward the Right. And, I specifically went into this project using relatively objective metrics as I wanted to see how it turned out. For those who think the media is "fair" and/or "unbiased" toward the political parties - with over 85% acknowledging party affiliation toward the Democrats - this should challenge that view.
The majority of the questions to Harris were Trump talking points including a racially coded one. It's exactly why the Democratic campaign is choosing to bypass the MSM of which almost every company now has a Trumper CEO.
Been feeling really bad about failing to address OPs concerns about bias in the media. Will strictly adhere comments to that subject. OP, do you feel like this potential display of bias by a single interviewer is worse bias, or.....the largest cable news network* having to pay a $1 billion settlement for broadcasting a traitor's lies about fake election fraud that they admittedly knew were false? * And others
That's certainly going to be true in the broader sense of the campaign. And has been with Trump since 2016. In the two interviews in question, I don't think it was a matter of falsehoods as much as allegations. Vance questioned whether Harris and other Democrats were 'anti-child.' He questioned the sincerity with which Walz hugged his wife. And Bash questioned him about it. How could she not? Did Harris or Walz say stuff like that about Trump or Vance?
The interrupting is the biggest give away. Let a person speak. Or if you're going to be that difficult, be equally as difficult with the other side. Especially if said other side has their sidekick next to them for support.
Thanks for asking. All the examples I gave were follow up questions from Bash to Vance after he had made a claim. There were less follow up questions to statements Harris made. The two examples I gave that were not were contained in the very first question and one later on First: "...since the Democratic ticket changed to Harris, you guys seem to be struggling a little bit..." It's a statement contained in the question that puts the person on the defensive immediately. that's a challenge Second: "...my next question, and I cannot believe I'm asking this is...is Kamala Harris black"? Okay - I'll let that one go; but, Bash had a final one after Vance had said how Trump will say something within context and "the media lies" and Bash responded "...there aren't media lies..." so, we'll call it even and keep it at 13 challenges.
Vance was responding to Bash's question about him being called "weird" by Walz. Vance's response was that he thought it weird that - at the height of their political career, with an enthusiastic crowd cheering them on, the two VP candidates interacted with their wives in completely different ways: Vance - hugged his wife. Walz (per Vance as I did not see this) - stuck out his hand to shake hers and then awkwardly hugged his wife. So, Vance gave an example of what he thought was weird behavior by Walz and perfectly normal behavior by himself. At that point Bash challenged him saying "you're saying Tim Walz doesn't have affection for his wife?" Are you kidding me? Bash took an example, a snippet of life that Vance appropriately used as the situations were comparable and challenged Vance about the love/physical relationship his opponent has with his spouse. Seriously? She took it in a wholly different direction. Hmmmm...maybe she posts on TooHot
Thanks for playing. Looks like one more perpetuates the stereotype. They just can't help it. Pretty sad really.
Did Vance talk about the political candidate who serially cheats on his wife and bangs porn stars while she's with the newborn? Or did he stick to the super important stuff, like what they publicly do on stage in front of thousands of people?
As you can see here. CF has come to debate in good faith only to be presented with the utter hospitality and respect we can expect from the holier than thou crowd. It's truly an honor that they can bestow their wisdom upon us with such grace and tact.
Don't you think it gets a bit old to constantly rag on the other side, accusing them of being unhappy, unpleasant, condescending, even "liberals are the worst" .... and then accuse them of being holier than thou? And, yes, CF is attempting a solid conversation.
I think we know those answers though, don't we? Ya think maybe Vance ignored that he's campaigning with a porn-star banging serial adulterer, while he hypocritically criticized Walz for.......how he publicly interacts with his wife? Just maybe? Ya think maybe YOU ignored those facts while you highlight this to illustrate your deep deep concern over that bad ole Walz? Hypocritical at all?
LOL. Good faith. I think that when we hear complaints of media bias from a supporter of "news" networks that knowingly lie to their audience to the point that they have to pay a $1 billion settlement........"hypocritical" is a far more accurate descriptor to use than "good faith." And to your other point; yes, indeed. One side is most definitely "holier" than the side that supports "news" networks that knowingly lie, and a candidate who enacted a criminal conspiracy to disenfranchise 10s of millions of voters by overturning an election. I love it when you use the "holier than thou" line. Because it's true.
The better approach for Vance would have been to laugh off the 'weird' claim because it is pretty silly. Instead, he compared how he and Walz hugged their wives. Pretty personal stuff. "I gave her a big hug and a kiss, because I love my wife." And then he pointed out that that Walz didn't do the same. Bash didn't bring up the affection angle, Vance did. And he continued with " So, I think that what it is, is two people, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, who aren't comfortable in their own skin." That's pretty basic insult stuff. You mentioned Bash's question about whether Vance considered Harris to be black. Trump made that a pretty big deal. It's not some obscure little comment that Bash dug up to zing him.
