How do you fix the border?
How do you plan to deport illegals?
Stats say illegals commit less crime, why say they are dangerous?
What is plan to lower inflation?
Why do you support tariffs vs free trade?
What are your plans for Israel situation
What are plans for Ukraine
What are plans for China/Taiwan
Abortion is back to the states, no what?
What's are your tax plans
What sucks about Obamacare and how would you improve?
FBI says crimes what's, why do you say they are up?
If after votes counted, will you concede?
Why did you say Kamala is black?
Can you right now right here condemn white supremacy?

These are basically all the possible questions that can be asked? Come up with a 2 minute intelligent articulate response for each. It not the hard. I can do it. The last 3 questions trigger the media and opponents because he's never clear and screws up by saying something like "stand back and stand by." On the illegals question he mentioned cats and dogs being eaten but forgets to name the Georgia girl Laken Riley. It was a big deal earlier this year. There was the Houston girl that was murdered a couple months ago. I don't even remember her name but would if Trump said it.

What would the polls be without so many unforced errors. Biden destroyed himself. Trump should have destroyed Kamala.

Bearpitbull said:

---

Rocag 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.

---

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.

If ABC was giving out the questions beforehand lets see the evidence that shows it.

---

This crowd watched Harris pummel an unprepared Trump and calls her dumb. When did we become the excuse or living in an imaginary world party. Why not just say... our candidate is a lazy moron but he's our moron and I'm voting for him because even in that condition, he's better than putting the left in charge. They fix problems that don't exist and make problems that do exist worse! Coming up with fake reasons he lost has to be turning off the handful of dummies that haven't seen enough to make a choice.

---

We

So now even that ten minute interview was edited?

Quote:

---

The above exchange can be seen online by going directly to ABC 6's website. Guess who didn't see it? That would be the network's television audience. According to Tom Elliott, who runs Grabien, a media service that archives news coverage, ABC 6 and Taff made an astonishingly dishonest edit to the interview before playing it on the nightly news.

Specifically, the above word salad was completely cut out of the interview, and instead, a later portion was spliced in. In the recording of the live broadcast, you can hear Taff ask the question posed in the above excerpt, yet the answer Harris is shown giving was not her actual answer in the interview.
Here is the comparison between the actual interview and what ABC 6 put on air.

---

Maybe someone has already mentioned this, but the rambling answer Kamala Harris gave last night on inflation is not what @6abc actually aired. Instead they edited her response so that it went straight to her "policies." Compare/contrast the two clips below pic.twitter.com/WYAytYmx9i

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) September 14, 2024

Quote:

---

It is one thing to cut out specific exchanges of a long-form interview to provide highlight coverage for a news broadcast. It is another to present a question and then chop off the real answer to make a politician look better. What Harris said was embarrassing and irrelevant. ABC 6 should have aired that or not aired the exchange at all.

By the way, guess who owns ABC 6? It's not a standalone affiliate with independence. Rather, it is directly owned by ABC News' parent company:

---

LINK

aggiehawg said:

---

So now even that ten minute interview was edited?

Quote:

---

The above exchange can be seen online by going directly to ABC 6's website. Guess who didn't see it? That would be the network's television audience. According to Tom Elliott, who runs Grabien, a media service that archives news coverage, ABC 6 and Taff made an astonishingly dishonest edit to the interview before playing it on the nightly news.

Specifically, the above word salad was completely cut out of the interview, and instead, a later portion was spliced in. In the recording of the live broadcast, you can hear Taff ask the question posed in the above excerpt, yet the answer Harris is shown giving was not her actual answer in the interview.
Here is the comparison between the actual interview and what ABC 6 put on air.

---

Maybe someone has already mentioned this, but the rambling answer Kamala Harris gave last night on inflation is not what @6abc actually aired. Instead they edited her response so that it went straight to her "policies." Compare/contrast the two clips below pic.twitter.com/WYAytYmx9i

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) September 14, 2024

Quote:

---

It is one thing to cut out specific exchanges of a long-form interview to provide highlight coverage for a news broadcast. It is another to present a question and then chop off the real answer to make a politician look better. What Harris said was embarrassing and irrelevant. ABC 6 should have aired that or not aired the exchange at all.

By the way, guess who owns ABC 6? It's not a standalone affiliate with independence. Rather, it is directly owned by ABC News' parent company:

---

LINK

---

Once again, this is why Elon is the most important person in the world. There's no way this gets the run it does without his platform to highlight the shenanigans the dems pull with the legacy media over and over again.

Anyone who watches both clips should come away with two VERY clear points:

• Kamala is not a serious person and is in WAY over her head
• Legacy media is completely and utterly in the tank for the left

Not only do they edit clips to make Dem candidates look better they also edit clips of Trump to make him look worse.

Only play the "fine people on both sides" clip and never play the "I'm not talking about the Neo-nazis or skinheads, who I denounce completely."

Edit his meeting with the PM of Japan so it looks like he overfed with koi fish when the PM dumped his can of fish food first and Trump was simply emulating him.

Yet people on this thread won't even acknowledge there is a possibility ABC gave her the questions in advance or some type of cheat sheet.

It is very obvious ABC News is in the tank for Kamala.

Rocag said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Rocag 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.

---

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.

If ABC was giving out the questions beforehand lets see the evidence that shows it.

---

You expect cheaters to admit they cheated...really?? Now, who looks stupid??

---

Literally no evidence has been presented that shows anyone at ABC provided the Harris campaign with the debate questions in advance. Nothing. That hasn't stopped nearly everyone on this thread from immediately accepting the accusation as true.

But somehow I'm the ridiculous one here.

Literally the only argument is: "Well I think Harris is dumb so if she showed up at the debate well prepared she must have cheated."

---

You're not going to get evidence. It will never see the light of day. Again, the evidence is in her answers. Compare her impromptu answers to a plethora of questions to her answers during this debate. Either this debate was the anomaly and she was prepared, focused, and coherent or she knew the questions in advance. At some point, critical thinking needs to occur.

"Ignore the evidence of your eyes and ears was their final, most essential command." 1984

You can blame the moderators and debate all day if the earrings were speakers.

At the end of the day Trump had a ton of openings to hit her with and he flubbed them.

MSCAg said:

---

You can blame the moderators and debate all day if the earrings were speakers.

At the end of the day Trump had a ton of openings to hit her with and he flubbed them.

---

Perhaps if Trump were given the questions in advance he would have done a better job of "hitting her" when she gave him the openings?

BuddysBud said:

---

MSCAg said:

---

You can blame the moderators and debate all day if the earrings were speakers.

At the end of the day Trump had a ton of openings to hit her with and he flubbed them.

---

Perhaps if Trump were given the questions in advance he would have done a better job of "hitting her" when she gave him the openings?

---

Not to mention that he wouldn't ever get further questioned or "fact-checked" even once as she gets grilled by the mods…yet get the chance to have his responses teed up for him.

Because that's what she got and enjoyed last week.

In the end though, all it did was tell the middle of the electorate that the MSM isn't worth listening to. Thank God for Elon!!

Quote:

---

Perhaps if Trump were given the questions in advance he would have done a better job of "hitting her" when she gave him the openings?

---

If he'd spent 2 hours of prep with a high school debate teacher, he'd have had the questions in advance too.

And if he knew how to control himself, push on moderators, and not get baited, he would have DESTROYED her.

But he doesn't know how to do any of those things, and he couldn't pretend to for 90 minutes. Which was all he had to do.

20ag07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Perhaps if Trump were given the questions in advance he would have done a better job of "hitting her" when she gave him the openings?

---

If he'd spent 2 hours of prep with a high school debate teacher, he'd have had the questions in advance too.

And if he knew how to control himself, push on moderators, and not get baited, he would have DESTROYED her.

But he doesn't know how to do any of those things, and he couldn't pretend to for 90 minutes. Which was all he had to do.

---

So, here's where we are, it's OK they gave her the questions to prep for and assured her she wouldn't be challenged, because Trump should've known what he was going to be asked and should've known they were going to press him about having regrets about J6 and lie about what he said in his speech or lie about the "Good people on both sides" or badger him about Obama care. That makes it all good.

SMH

BREAKING.🚨

ABC News whistleblower swears under penalty of perjury that the Kamala Harris campaign dictated the terms of the questions during the presidential debate.

Furthermore, the Harris campaign insisted upon live "fact checking" of Donald Trump during the debate.

ABC… pic.twitter.com/vRvaOdgUln

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) September 15, 2024

Bearpitbull said:

---

Rocag 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.

---

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.

If ABC was giving out the questions beforehand lets see the evidence that shows it.

---

This crowd watched Harris pummel an unprepared Trump and calls her dumb. When did we become the excuse or living in an imaginary world party.

---

Pummeled him so badly that every poll taken said Trump won and national voting polls shifted 2 points in Trumps favor. What a beat down

Let's see what Speaker Johnson does!


Also, release the secret recordings!

I've been skeptical of this one but Susan Crabtree is no hack partisan joke.

Actually all the pages are included in the tweet above.

— Susan Crabtree (@susancrabtree) September 15, 2024

Wow.

Note how she answered or didn't answer questions. Typically no direct and on point answer. This tactic is used so that nothing said can be used to pin down a position and allows them to seem in control.

Wait for it…. 😂🔥 pic.twitter.com/umtyEBaaWb

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 13, 2024

HOLY SHLIT https://t.co/96r6vdffRZ

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 15, 2024

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.

---

Election interference

Rocag said:

---

I don't feel the need to speculate without actual evidence being presented. All I've seen so far is a tweeted allegation.

---

I'm sure you still refuse to believe don't you? Even after all the precedents of this happening before. And people like you vote, scary.

She also named topics that should not be addressed....and they were not!

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

She also named topics that should not be addressed....and they were not!

---

That's almost as damning...they hit Trump with everything they thought was a winning Dem topic and never asked her about topics that any "unbiased" journalist would ask, ESPECIALLY how long she knew Biden was in poor health mentally as she stated on multiple occasions how sharp he was and how in control he was of meetings.

If you're a Democrat how can you not be embarassed that the person who would become Commander-In-Chief has to have her debate completely rigged for her. Absolutely pathetic.

So dumb that people will believe this redacted "affidavit" is legitimate, and not a fake thing after the fact.

If such a person was so concerned that they had facts, that they needed to go get an "affidavit" THE DAY BEFORE the debate, then why wouldn't this have been released to the Trump campaign, so they could 1) adjust, 2) pull out, 3) release beforehand.

Mhmmm. If it was real, it would have happened before, given the dates of the clearly fake "affidavit".

Wow

You're going to pull a muscle with these mental gymnastics

"the totalitarian government, known as the Party, instructs citizens to reject the evidence of their own eyes and ears"

How is that mental gymnastics? Name one thing that wasn't true?

If it was legitimate, it would have been released before the debate, at which time it allegedly existed.

20ag07 said:

---

So dumb that people will believe this redacted "affidavit" is legitimate, and not a fake thing after the fact.

If such a person was so concerned that they had facts, that they needed to go get an "affidavit" THE DAY BEFORE the debate, then why wouldn't this have been released to the Trump campaign, so they could 1) adjust, 2) pull out, 3) release beforehand.

Mhmmm. If it was real, it would have happened before, given the dates of the clearly fake "affidavit".

---

It's equally dumb to believe that Kamala called a city manager about claims that animals were being eaten in that city manager's town before the debate...but, you do you

aggiehawg said:

---

Yet people on this thread won't even acknowledge there is a possibility ABC gave her the questions in advance or some type of cheat sheet.

It is very obvious ABC News is in the tank for Kamala.

---

And absolutely no surprise at all. I'm surprised there are people surprised that ABC did a premeditated hatchet job. I'd been shocked if they hadn't. Its what the MSM does these days.

20ag07 said:

---

How is that mental gymnastics? Name one thing that wasn't true?

If it was legitimate, it would have been released before the debate, at which time it allegedly existed.

---

Good Komrade! Reject the evidence of your eyes! Believe only the Doublethink the Party tells you to believe

So a person signs an affidavit stating these things, swears to be willing to testify before Congress, putting their own life at risk (yes heels will have them killed) mind you, sends copies , certified copies that is, to themselves and others for proof during investigation, but it's fake because their name is redacted. That's a lot of effort for fake.

Mental gymnastics on full display for you to protect your commie leader, and my Orwell quote about your totalitarian party telling you to ignore the truth with your own eyes seems very applicable to people such as you

They've done it before. Hard to say "no way" when they have actually done it.

Here's the thing.

I'm not a dem, and will vote Trump, even though I think he's running a terrible campaign.

I also just don't fall flat on my face over clear hoaxes and deny the logic of why they are clear hoaxes.

Clear hoax? Really?

Quote:

---

So a person signs an affidavit stating these things, swears to be willing to testify before Congress, putting their own life at risk (yes heels will have them killed) mind you, sends copies , certified copies that is, to themselves and others for proof during investigation, but it's fake because their name is redacted. That's a lot of effort for fake.

---

You also don't know what fake is.

You've seen nothing that says that a real person has sworn to testify before congress, and has sent any certified anything to anyone.

You've seen a nameless faceless document that hasn't been verified by ANYONE, saying that they did that, which no one can verify that. And they chose NOT to do that before the debate.

Mhmmm. Smells legit.