She looked like a kid who couldn't contain her happiness for having all of the answers. It was not her real reaction.
Harris was fed the questions
15,515 Views |
187 Replies |
Last: 5 days ago by aggiehawg
The issue as to whether or not Harris needed the questions in advance and needed assurance that she would not be fact checked is irrelevant in elections for homecoming queen.
However, if someone running for president of the United States needs a hat kind of handholding for a relatively benign debate, she would be completely incapable of negotiating with leaders of foreign countries.
The issue should be a huge story that the media should investigate thoroughly. Unfortunately, the media only toes the line for democrats and really doesn't care about selecting the most capable leader for the country.
However, if someone running for president of the United States needs a hat kind of handholding for a relatively benign debate, she would be completely incapable of negotiating with leaders of foreign countries.
The issue should be a huge story that the media should investigate thoroughly. Unfortunately, the media only toes the line for democrats and really doesn't care about selecting the most capable leader for the country.
Even with prep and having the questions she didn't answer because she knows her policies (current policies) are not popular.
Spot on. Also knowing they were going to "fact check" Trump and lie about the true facts was a huge advantage as well.MouthBQ98 said:aggiedent said:
There wasn't a single question asked that the folks prepping Harris and Trump wouldn't have expected. Both of them should have had answers ready for every single question.
It's such a ridiculous excuse.
Knowing there would be no objection on the facts from moderators gives incentive to boldly lie or spin or be loose with the facts without reservation. That is an advantage if the opponent doesn't have that assurance.
First the moderators were "fixed". Then Harris was given the questions ahead of time. Then her earrings were claimed to be earbuds. The conspiracy nonsense never stops with the MAGA crowd. At some point, you would think that they'd be embarrassed by their gullible nature. As long as there are excuses for Trump, you can bet they'll buy into it. What's especially sad is that the questions that were asked were so predictable. There were no big surprise questions. How can people allow themselves to be so played, I don't understand. Trump failed bigly. No one had to cheat, he's just that bad. END OF STORY.
dreyOO said:aggiedent said:
There wasn't a single question asked that the folks prepping Harris and Trump wouldn't have expected. Both of them should have had answers ready for every single question.
It's such a ridiculous excuse.
I'll tell you why it matters. Kamala is not very smart on her feet. But when she had scripted responses for specific questions that she RECOGNIZED , she was able to at least pretend to be coherent. Without that huge aid, she would have stumbled and bumbled the word salad answer after answer.
Of for God's sake.
If she was able to answer some random question on the safety of Thorium reactors, I'd agree.
But let's be honest here. These were basic questions. Questions that both candidate's teams HAD to know were likely to be asked. I'll guarantee you both candidates were prepared for every question asked.
The only difference was Harris managed to get under Trumps skin (probably another sign of good preparation) and got him sidetracked off what was important.
It's that simple. Put the conspiracy crap back in the closet.
Leftys DESPERATELY trying to pretend that ABC didn't help Kamala in a underhanded and in fact cheating manner
Anyone who thinks she wasn't given the Qs is too stupid to breathe. She quickly had a canned response to every Q .
Maybe you want to rewatch the debate and be critical this time.aggiedent said:dreyOO said:aggiedent said:
There wasn't a single question asked that the folks prepping Harris and Trump wouldn't have expected. Both of them should have had answers ready for every single question.
It's such a ridiculous excuse.
I'll tell you why it matters. Kamala is not very smart on her feet. But when she had scripted responses for specific questions that she RECOGNIZED , she was able to at least pretend to be coherent. Without that huge aid, she would have stumbled and bumbled the word salad answer after answer.
Of for God's sake.
If she was able to answer some random question on the safety of Thorium reactors, I'd agree.
But let's be honest here. These were basic questions. Questions that both candidate's teams HAD to know were likely to be asked. I'll guarantee you both candidates were prepared for every question asked.
The only difference was Harris managed to get under Trumps skin (probably another sign of good preparation) and got him sidetracked off what was important.
It's that simple. Put the conspiracy crap back in the closet.
Just sayin'.
Then what's your explanation for this?
Very basic question of how to make life more affordable.
Kamala is asked what specific plans she has to bring down prices. She says she grew up in a middle class neighborhood with lots of people who cared about their lawns. Holy hell, this is a mess: pic.twitter.com/dko1xMlt5G
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) September 13, 2024
Very basic question of how to make life more affordable.
That's the exact same answer she gave during the debate.
Reminds me of my high school Spanish class. The teacher told us what questions we'd be verbally asked so I memorized the answers to all of them. It's just that I really sucked at Spanish and had no idea what she was asking me when the time came.
When she asked me what I liked to do for fun, my immediate answer was "I like eating cheese and crackers".
Clearly, she has a few memorized lines that she'll pull out of the bag no matter what the question was
When she asked me what I liked to do for fun, my immediate answer was "I like eating cheese and crackers".
Clearly, she has a few memorized lines that she'll pull out of the bag no matter what the question was
Philip J Fry said:
Then what's your explanation for this?Kamala is asked what specific plans she has to bring down prices. She says she grew up in a middle class neighborhood with lots of people who cared about their lawns. Holy hell, this is a mess: pic.twitter.com/dko1xMlt5G
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) September 13, 2024
Very basic question of how to make life more affordable.
FFS. Can she answer a FING question from ANYONE??
FTR, let's review the timeline of that specific exchange.
The question to to Harris. "But my question to you tonight is why did the administration wait until six months before the election to act and would you have done anything differently from President Biden on this?"
Kamala replies by saying what a wonderful prosecutor she was, makes the false statement that Trump caused Republicans to not pass the Democrat "border" bill, (which in actuality was more a Ukraine funding bill) and then immediately pivots to Trump's rally sizes.
When it gets kicked to Trump, the question is "...why did you try to kill that bill and successfully so? That would have put thousands of additional agents and officers on the border." (FACT CHECK: Trump killing the bill was a MSM/Democrat narrative. True, Trump opposed the bill, but it was a bad bill that Cruz and others were already on record of being opposed to.)
Here's where Trump took the bait. He should have pointed the conversation back to why Kamala didn't answer the original question, but instead he went down the rabbit hole of his rallies. Shrewd move by Kamala & her team, but rehearsed and doesn't answer the question. He does get back to immigration, and uses the Springfield cat story to illustrate the troubles mass immigration is causing in the US.
Immediately David Muir goes to fact check trump on the pet story, saying that ABC had reached out to the Springfield CIty Manager and was told there's no credible of specific claims of pets being harmed. AND HERE'S WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING.
#1. That's a false fact check. ABC is relying on the response of a single City official to attempt to debunk the pet story, saying they specifically reached out to him to get a response. QUESTION: Why would they do that? My guess it was a setup on ABC's part. Is that journalism now? Make one phone call to a city manager, and use that person's response to determine the truthfulness of a claim. No other investigation. No interviews of the individuals who spoke at the city council meeting giving personal testimony. Sorry, but this is a setup, plain and simple. Evidenced by:
#2. Rather than following up with Harris that she had not at all answered the original question to her, Muir redirects to Harris: "Vice President Harris, I'll let you respond to the rest of what you heard."
So Muir is perfectly fine with the derail of the original question regarding the administrations' handling of immigration, in favor of piling on Trump on a disputed claim. ANY moderator worth their salt (or not incredibly biased) would have asked the question again and gotten the discussion back on track.
"These are the facts, and they are undisputed." Capt. Jack Ross
The question to to Harris. "But my question to you tonight is why did the administration wait until six months before the election to act and would you have done anything differently from President Biden on this?"
Kamala replies by saying what a wonderful prosecutor she was, makes the false statement that Trump caused Republicans to not pass the Democrat "border" bill, (which in actuality was more a Ukraine funding bill) and then immediately pivots to Trump's rally sizes.
When it gets kicked to Trump, the question is "...why did you try to kill that bill and successfully so? That would have put thousands of additional agents and officers on the border." (FACT CHECK: Trump killing the bill was a MSM/Democrat narrative. True, Trump opposed the bill, but it was a bad bill that Cruz and others were already on record of being opposed to.)
Here's where Trump took the bait. He should have pointed the conversation back to why Kamala didn't answer the original question, but instead he went down the rabbit hole of his rallies. Shrewd move by Kamala & her team, but rehearsed and doesn't answer the question. He does get back to immigration, and uses the Springfield cat story to illustrate the troubles mass immigration is causing in the US.
Immediately David Muir goes to fact check trump on the pet story, saying that ABC had reached out to the Springfield CIty Manager and was told there's no credible of specific claims of pets being harmed. AND HERE'S WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING.
#1. That's a false fact check. ABC is relying on the response of a single City official to attempt to debunk the pet story, saying they specifically reached out to him to get a response. QUESTION: Why would they do that? My guess it was a setup on ABC's part. Is that journalism now? Make one phone call to a city manager, and use that person's response to determine the truthfulness of a claim. No other investigation. No interviews of the individuals who spoke at the city council meeting giving personal testimony. Sorry, but this is a setup, plain and simple. Evidenced by:
#2. Rather than following up with Harris that she had not at all answered the original question to her, Muir redirects to Harris: "Vice President Harris, I'll let you respond to the rest of what you heard."
So Muir is perfectly fine with the derail of the original question regarding the administrations' handling of immigration, in favor of piling on Trump on a disputed claim. ANY moderator worth their salt (or not incredibly biased) would have asked the question again and gotten the discussion back on track.
"These are the facts, and they are undisputed." Capt. Jack Ross
So with respect to my post above, I'll stipulate for argument's sake that perhaps Kamala was not given the specific questions ahead of time, if you'll stipulate then that the strategy was something along the lines of "Ok, Kamala, when they ask you an immigration question, regardless of what it is, respond by saying you were an incredible prosecutor, attack Trump on the immigration bill, and see if you can get him to bite on something silly like his rallies, as we know that he'll take that personally."aggiedent said:dreyOO said:aggiedent said:
There wasn't a single question asked that the folks prepping Harris and Trump wouldn't have expected. Both of them should have had answers ready for every single question.
It's such a ridiculous excuse.
I'll tell you why it matters. Kamala is not very smart on her feet. But when she had scripted responses for specific questions that she RECOGNIZED , she was able to at least pretend to be coherent. Without that huge aid, she would have stumbled and bumbled the word salad answer after answer.
Of for God's sake.
If she was able to answer some random question on the safety of Thorium reactors, I'd agree.
But let's be honest here. These were basic questions. Questions that both candidate's teams HAD to know were likely to be asked. I'll guarantee you both candidates were prepared for every question asked.
The only difference was Harris managed to get under Trumps skin (probably another sign of good preparation) and got him sidetracked off what was important.
It's that simple. Put the conspiracy crap back in the closet.
Maybe it's an effective redirect, but I'm not interested in a President who is only good at redirecting and deflecting questions. If she answered that way in a real job interview, she'd never get the job.
And any interviewer worth a damn would give her an opportunity to try again to answer the question, rather than accepting the deflect and moving on to something else.
jrdaustin said:So with respect to my post above, I'll stipulate for argument's sake that perhaps Kamala was not given the specific questions ahead of time, if you'll stipulate then that the strategy was something along the lines of "Ok, Kamala, when they ask you an immigration question, regardless of what it is, respond by saying you were an incredible prosecutor, attack Trump on the immigration bill, and see if you can get him to bite on something silly like his rallies, as we know that he'll take that personally."aggiedent said:dreyOO said:aggiedent said:
There wasn't a single question asked that the folks prepping Harris and Trump wouldn't have expected. Both of them should have had answers ready for every single question.
It's such a ridiculous excuse.
I'll tell you why it matters. Kamala is not very smart on her feet. But when she had scripted responses for specific questions that she RECOGNIZED , she was able to at least pretend to be coherent. Without that huge aid, she would have stumbled and bumbled the word salad answer after answer.
Of for God's sake.
If she was able to answer some random question on the safety of Thorium reactors, I'd agree.
But let's be honest here. These were basic questions. Questions that both candidate's teams HAD to know were likely to be asked. I'll guarantee you both candidates were prepared for every question asked.
The only difference was Harris managed to get under Trumps skin (probably another sign of good preparation) and got him sidetracked off what was important.
It's that simple. Put the conspiracy crap back in the closet.
Maybe it's an effective redirect, but I'm not interested in a President who is only good at redirecting and deflecting questions. If she answered that way in a real job interview, she'd never get the job.
And any interviewer worth a damn would give her an opportunity to try again to answer the question, rather than accepting the deflect and moving on to something else.
I think your first paragraph is an excellent explanation of what happened during the debate. And since it was a political debate (which in my experience are generally lacking in substance anyways) and not a job interview, because he kept biting on the silly stuff, worked in her favor.
When there are 20-30 questions that could possibly be asked, and you know that it will only be 6 of those questions, it helps to focus on JUST those six....aggiedent said:
There wasn't a single question asked that the folks prepping Harris and Trump wouldn't have expected. Both of them should have had answers ready for every single question.
It's such a ridiculous excuse.
Easier to memorize 6 answers than 30....
"Lets see the evidence that the Hunter Biden laptop was real"Rocag said:Yeah, I can't remember any question asked of either candidate that was unexpected or a "gotcha" question in any way. All topics they should have seen coming if they did any preparation at all.aggiedent said:
There wasn't a single question asked that the folks prepping Harris and Trump wouldn't have expected. Both of them should have had answers ready for every single question.
It's such a ridiculous excuse.
If ABC was giving out the questions beforehand lets see the evidence that shows it.
If she took a **** in your living room, you'd complement her on the size of the turd, and still vote for her
You think the ABC crew fact checked both candidates equally? You think the ABC moderators were unbiased? What does the "evidence" of your ears and you eyes tell you?
Of course it did. She had the support of the ABC moderators, who were helping her score irrelevant political points rather than DOING THEIR JOB and informing the American people what they will get should Harris win the presidency. This wasn't a debate generally lacking in substance. It was a debate devoid of substance from the Democrat side.aggiedent said:jrdaustin said:So with respect to my post above, I'll stipulate for argument's sake that perhaps Kamala was not given the specific questions ahead of time, if you'll stipulate then that the strategy was something along the lines of "Ok, Kamala, when they ask you an immigration question, regardless of what it is, respond by saying you were an incredible prosecutor, attack Trump on the immigration bill, and see if you can get him to bite on something silly like his rallies, as we know that he'll take that personally."aggiedent said:dreyOO said:aggiedent said:
There wasn't a single question asked that the folks prepping Harris and Trump wouldn't have expected. Both of them should have had answers ready for every single question.
It's such a ridiculous excuse.
I'll tell you why it matters. Kamala is not very smart on her feet. But when she had scripted responses for specific questions that she RECOGNIZED , she was able to at least pretend to be coherent. Without that huge aid, she would have stumbled and bumbled the word salad answer after answer.
Of for God's sake.
If she was able to answer some random question on the safety of Thorium reactors, I'd agree.
But let's be honest here. These were basic questions. Questions that both candidate's teams HAD to know were likely to be asked. I'll guarantee you both candidates were prepared for every question asked.
The only difference was Harris managed to get under Trumps skin (probably another sign of good preparation) and got him sidetracked off what was important.
It's that simple. Put the conspiracy crap back in the closet.
Maybe it's an effective redirect, but I'm not interested in a President who is only good at redirecting and deflecting questions. If she answered that way in a real job interview, she'd never get the job.
And any interviewer worth a damn would give her an opportunity to try again to answer the question, rather than accepting the deflect and moving on to something else.
I think your first paragraph is an excellent explanation of what happened during the debate. And since it was a political debate (which in my experience are generally lacking in substance anyways) and not a job interview, because he kept biting on the silly stuff, worked in her favor.
Maybe that's another difference between Dems and Republicans. I DO view the debates as a job interview. Apparently Dems seem to only care about the production value and the optics. Respectfully, that's a dangerous metric to use to evaluate/select your leaders.
She certainly had a set of memorized answers and just hit "play" on the closest question whether it answered it or not (almost always not), knowing she was in the friendly confines to not be called on it. And knowing there would be no challenging ones or curveballs.
Leaves ABC plausible deniability to say they didn't give her the questions, but whether she formally got them or not, they were on the same page of how this would go down - she knew no surprises and no pushback. So just prepare some speeches for the obvious.
Leaves ABC plausible deniability to say they didn't give her the questions, but whether she formally got them or not, they were on the same page of how this would go down - she knew no surprises and no pushback. So just prepare some speeches for the obvious.
You have waaaayyyyy more intestinal fortitude than I have to be able to rewatch that farce perpetrated by ABC.aggiehawg said:This.Maroon Dawn said:
It actually makes Muir's statement make more sense
"We didn't TECHNICALLY give Kamala the exact questions, just some "sample" questions that openly telegraph what topics will be asked!"
And yes, being assured you won't be fact checked and your opponent will changes the whole strategy to what we saw: Kamala refusing to answer questions and instead going full bore on attacking Trump with debunked sound bites that we saw instead
When I rewatched the debate the next morning, it became even more obvious what was happening.
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
" Maybe that's another difference between Dems and Republicans. I DO view the debates as a job interview. Apparently Dems seem to only care about the production value and the optics. Respectfully, that's a dangerous metric to use to evaluate/select your leaders."
Ok……..fine……….how did Trump do in this job interview?
I mean, we know what he thinks about how amazing his rallies are. We know that after 8 years since he first became president he "has a concept of a plan" to replace Obamacare. We know they're eating cats in Springfield.
Yeah………I think he'd have gotten passed over for a secretaries job, never mind President of The United States.
And just FYI, I'm a Republican that has voted for every single repub presidential candidate since 1980. Missed not a single one. Difference is, I can be honest with myself. As bad as he kicked Biden's ass in the first debate, he was miserable in this one. No excuses……he sucked.
Ok……..fine……….how did Trump do in this job interview?
I mean, we know what he thinks about how amazing his rallies are. We know that after 8 years since he first became president he "has a concept of a plan" to replace Obamacare. We know they're eating cats in Springfield.
Yeah………I think he'd have gotten passed over for a secretaries job, never mind President of The United States.
And just FYI, I'm a Republican that has voted for every single repub presidential candidate since 1980. Missed not a single one. Difference is, I can be honest with myself. As bad as he kicked Biden's ass in the first debate, he was miserable in this one. No excuses……he sucked.
Did she want Ranch or Vinaigrette dressing with that answer.Philip J Fry said:
Then what's your explanation for this?Kamala is asked what specific plans she has to bring down prices. She says she grew up in a middle class neighborhood with lots of people who cared about their lawns. Holy hell, this is a mess: pic.twitter.com/dko1xMlt5G
— Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) September 13, 2024
Very basic question of how to make life more affordable.
(In my past life I would say she is stoned out of her mind.)
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
jrdaustin said:Of course it did. She had the support of the ABC moderators, who were helping her score irrelevant political points rather than DOING THEIR JOB and informing the American people what they will get should Harris win the presidency. This wasn't a debate generally lacking in substance. It was a debate devoid of substance from the Democrat side.aggiedent said:jrdaustin said:So with respect to my post above, I'll stipulate for argument's sake that perhaps Kamala was not given the specific questions ahead of time, if you'll stipulate then that the strategy was something along the lines of "Ok, Kamala, when they ask you an immigration question, regardless of what it is, respond by saying you were an incredible prosecutor, attack Trump on the immigration bill, and see if you can get him to bite on something silly like his rallies, as we know that he'll take that personally."aggiedent said:dreyOO said:aggiedent said:
There wasn't a single question asked that the folks prepping Harris and Trump wouldn't have expected. Both of them should have had answers ready for every single question.
It's such a ridiculous excuse.
I'll tell you why it matters. Kamala is not very smart on her feet. But when she had scripted responses for specific questions that she RECOGNIZED , she was able to at least pretend to be coherent. Without that huge aid, she would have stumbled and bumbled the word salad answer after answer.
Of for God's sake.
If she was able to answer some random question on the safety of Thorium reactors, I'd agree.
But let's be honest here. These were basic questions. Questions that both candidate's teams HAD to know were likely to be asked. I'll guarantee you both candidates were prepared for every question asked.
The only difference was Harris managed to get under Trumps skin (probably another sign of good preparation) and got him sidetracked off what was important.
It's that simple. Put the conspiracy crap back in the closet.
Maybe it's an effective redirect, but I'm not interested in a President who is only good at redirecting and deflecting questions. If she answered that way in a real job interview, she'd never get the job.
And any interviewer worth a damn would give her an opportunity to try again to answer the question, rather than accepting the deflect and moving on to something else.
I think your first paragraph is an excellent explanation of what happened during the debate. And since it was a political debate (which in my experience are generally lacking in substance anyways) and not a job interview, because he kept biting on the silly stuff, worked in her favor.
Maybe that's another difference between Dems and Republicans. I DO view the debates as a job interview. Apparently Dems seem to only care about the production value and the optics. Respectfully, that's a dangerous metric to use to evaluate/select your leaders.
Hollywood is so infused in the Democrat party it's all play acting all the time!
a pathetic excuse for a journalist.jrdaustin said:
FTR, let's review the timeline of that specific exchange.
…,,,
So Muir is
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
aggiedent said:MouthBQ98 said:aggiedent said:
There wasn't a single question asked that the folks prepping Harris and Trump wouldn't have expected. Both of them should have had answers ready for every single question.
It's such a ridiculous excuse.
Knowing there would be no objection on the facts from moderators gives incentive to boldly lie or spin or be loose with the facts without reservation. That is an advantage if the opponent doesn't have that assurance.
Why is it, that every single time Trump loses/gets out performed/looks bad/etc.; there is always a host of excuses as to why it's not his fault? Usually because somebody cheated the poor man.
It's just getting farcical.
Do you remember what Donna Brazil did?
This is on Trump and really any republican for agreeing to these stupid rigged debates on the major networks with "journalists". Fool me once, fool me twice, but damn fool me for 56+ years? Trump never should have agreed to it and played the Democrat game of hiding in his town halls and interviewing with friendly media while leaving the muttering vegetable brained VP to hide from the media.
I or any reasonably informed person could easily provide a more honest and informed debate than any of these over the last few years buy that was never the point.
One last thing, in this format if the same question cannot be asked of or to both candidates it likely should not be asked. I guess this is too much to hope for in our Jerry Springer culture.
I or any reasonably informed person could easily provide a more honest and informed debate than any of these over the last few years buy that was never the point.
One last thing, in this format if the same question cannot be asked of or to both candidates it likely should not be asked. I guess this is too much to hope for in our Jerry Springer culture.
Interviews have got to grow some balls and follow her blah blah blah bs with:
That's wonderful, but my question was name 1 or 2 specific way you would reduce prices.
Or
Great, but did you hear my question because it was specific.
That's wonderful, but my question was name 1 or 2 specific way you would reduce prices.
Or
Great, but did you hear my question because it was specific.
aggiedent said:MouthBQ98 said:aggiedent said:
There wasn't a single question asked that the folks prepping Harris and Trump wouldn't have expected. Both of them should have had answers ready for every single question.
It's such a ridiculous excuse.
Knowing there would be no objection on the facts from moderators gives incentive to boldly lie or spin or be loose with the facts without reservation. That is an advantage if the opponent doesn't have that assurance.
Why is it, that every single time Trump loses/gets out performed/looks bad/etc.; there is always a host of excuses as to why it's not his fault? Usually because somebody cheated the poor man.
It's just getting farcical.
They already admitted to doing it for Hillary is it so hard to believe after watching the way the moderators performed and after hearing that one of them was Harris' sorority sister that they did not repeat the performance?
Why would they do anything to make her look bad?
Philip J Fry said:
Why would they do anything to make her look bad?
I guess you have a point. She isn't going to agree to interviews with any other than non friendlies.
Anyone could've predicted what questions would be asked. Harris had dozens of pre memorized responses for any question. This is called debate prep.
Again- an even moderately skilled debater could have turned that back on those mods after spending about 2 hours of prep with your local high school teacher who just coaches UIL debate teams.
The thing that's gonna disappoint the tin-foil hatters: If a "signed affidavit" (which there is no party to send one to) existed, it would have already been released.
There's no reason to wait until the weekend, if it allegedly exists and has been viewed.
The thing that's gonna disappoint the tin-foil hatters: If a "signed affidavit" (which there is no party to send one to) existed, it would have already been released.
There's no reason to wait until the weekend, if it allegedly exists and has been viewed.
aggiedent said:
There wasn't a single question asked that the folks prepping Harris and Trump wouldn't have expected. Both of them should have had answers ready for every single question.
It's such a ridiculous excuse.
Hello, someone who's never debated anyone or probably done any public speaking in his life.
As said above, the Steele Dossier says hello. Tackle that one first then get back too usOpalka said:
First the moderators were "fixed". Then Harris was given the questions ahead of time. Then her earrings were claimed to be earbuds. The conspiracy nonsense never stops with the MAGA crowd. At some point, you would think that they'd be embarrassed by their gullible nature. As long as there are excuses for Trump, you can bet they'll buy into it. What's especially sad is that the questions that were asked were so predictable. There were no big surprise questions. How can people allow themselves to be so played, I don't understand. Trump failed bigly. No one had to cheat, he's just that bad. END OF STORY.
Featured Stories
See All
Potential of a 300-yard three-peat would be a Texas A&M first
by Olin Buchanan
46:01
15h ago
6.4k
6:32
11h ago
1.4k
12:32
16h ago
3.8k
RetvrnAg
is this funny banter or someone who needs to be blown up?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
7