Well, the big Harris-Walz interview was a bit evasive
Well, the big Harris-Walz interview was a bit evasive
I wasn't expecting anything Earth-shattering coming out of this given that everyone at Fox News was salivating for fresh meat. Problem is, not having a straight answer for anything now becomes the narrative.
This was not a great look for either of them (as little time as Walz got).
If you haven't seen it, links below:
I think she was clear. So many of these issues are all pandora’s boxes. There is a lot of gray out there right now but I DO feel she is the right person to lead us forward.
21she continues to be vague about her policy on stopping the genocide in Gaza, and that's all I needed to hear, personally.
EDIT: well I got y'all talkin, and that was my main mission.
17And that's as clear as she got the whole time. As least she was answering the question asked in that case.
(As to single-issue Gaza voters, I get it in the "had a close friend who was Palestinian in my 20s" sense, but Trump doesn't give a shit about the Palestinians. Somehow suggesting she's the worse choice in this race on that issue alone isn't even true, regardless of the larger picture. That's not politics or conjecture.)
31Politicians are notoriously evasive, and this particular interview sounded more straight forward than most. Okay, most the honest ones, anyway. I mean: it's easy to say "Read my lips. No new taxes" or "Free IVF" if you've no legitimate plan to fund the government, but if you're not going to make stuff up for the sound bite, you almost have to be evasive. Robust and well considered plans are made by experts and a politician trying to promote a good plan has to boil it down to a couple nebulous basics. Doing anything else means you either bore the audience OR skip a contingency or other minutia such that your critics call you a liar.
Remember when Obama said you'd get to keep your doctor? He was trying to summarize explaining that Affordable Care would not mandate what doctor you could use, but what he didn't say was that Insurance Companies would continue to be able choose what doctors they covered, so Obama's critics said he LIED about keeping your doctor. It was NOT a lie. It was just Insurance companies doing what they always did.
Harris said she would support Israel but the war had to end. If Israeli/Palestinian strife has gone unsolved for 50 years through all sorts of Presidents, I don't expect any U.S. election to change what goes on over there. The U.S. could theoretically stop aiding Israel as it commits genocide, but the realistic outcome of that would be neighboring countries committing genocide on Israelis, and since that's the basic reason the country was invented... maybe that's not the best outcome either. It has been a mess for decades, and I'm not blaming Regan, Carter, Trump, Putin, or Tony Blair for any of the mess with Gaza.
Harris said she would not ban fracking but her values have not changed. I suspect this is because she's come to see no one banned horses when car came along, and no one need ban fracking if there's a better alternative. What she did not specify was the carrots and sticks she might employ to get us to which alternatives. That's fine with me because the tech is changing and the outcome is more important than the method.
Harris said she would enforce laws regarding immigration AND she wanted the tabled border bill on her desk so she can sign it. There's a bunch she could have said there, too, but my point is that again, she wasn't particularly evasive.
10Trump doesn’t give a shit about the Palestinians. Somehow suggesting she’s the worse choice in this race on that issue alone isn’t even true, regardless of the larger picture.
I actually think you're slightly wrong about this. She isn't the worse choice on this issue, because they are functionally identical on this issue. If we have 17,000 dead Palestinian children due to Biden-Harris foreign policy, does it really matter that Trump foreign policy might have led to 20,000+ dead Palestinian children? It's an unconscionable tragedy either way.
2
right, but she is still the better choice in this matter by a wide, wide margin.
Not voting or voting for Trump because of this one issue , important though it is, and allowing a christo-facist authoritarian to assume power as a result seems like a horrible irresponsible take. (Not to mention Trump would only embolden Netanyahu and his cabinet.)
How would abstaining or voting for Trump help the situation in Gaza at all?
14How would abstaining or voting for Trump help the situation in Gaza at all?
That's the neat part, it wouldn't.
7
I found that there were a couple questions I would have preferred very straight answers to, but she knows she doesn’t have the time in that interview to go in-depth on any one topic and anything in the Middle East is always an extremely complex topic to debate.
I’ll still vote for her and she’ll likely win. Assuming you’re an American citizen, if you want to vote for Trump, that’s your right, but you will be voting for a convicted felon, whose policies are limited to “dictators love me” and “my crowd size is bigger” and “I’m not weird, they’re weird.”
I’d rather have an adult in the White House, personally.
8
The money from energy companies dripping from both sides of this interview is disturbingly clear. My only hope is that where CNN is clearly grilling Harris for the interests of their investors (energy companies), Harris' evasive responses are there to assuage the concerns of those investors long enough to get into office. She's talking out of the side of her mouth for someone and probably needs to to get in office. I just hope that at the end of the day she sides with Earth and humanity over evil incarnate. I think she will, but she has to walk a tightrope to get there.
If I'm wrong I'll probably be part of a literal chorus of leftists looking to make it extremely clear that she can be a one-term president if she doesn't find her way to doing the right thing.
2