I'm fine with Harris being vague on Israel/Palestine. After all, as important as that conflict is to the world, it is not what this election is about here in the USA. Any substantive statement she might make on this issue might force these protestors to go through with their threatened protest vote or non-vote. Instead, she made them thi…
I'm fine with Harris being vague on Israel/Palestine. After all, as important as that conflict is to the world, it is not what this election is about here in the USA. Any substantive statement she might make on this issue might force these protestors to go through with their threatened protest vote or non-vote. Instead, she made them think seriously about whether Trump was the better pick on this issue and all others. In short, she told them the right way to think about their issue and the election.
I think I basically agree, but here's where I pause: Do we want this practice to be the exception or the rule? Because in general, I think it's probably better if candidates address major issues head-on rather than dodging them. Let the people know what they're voting for. But then again, I can also see why that could be undesirable.
The issue, I think, is that the speaker in a setting like this gets to decide the agenda. She can decide an appropriate time & place for that specific policy statement, and likely yet a different time & venue if actually holding a discussion about it.
Hijacking someone's event is theatre, not a discussion of an issue. Obvi that's the point of public protest but a protester can't assume every speaker will fall into that game.
It’s her event, her outreach to everyone there. She also took time to meet with them before. I wonder if they realize that trying to hijack her event doesn’t bring anyone to their point of view.
Amen. There is no free speech right to shout down or interrupt speakers. Your free speech right is the right to speak out, not to stop others from speaking.
I know you know this: if we had two normal candidates with actual knowledge and experience with the issues, and actual policy opinions they could talk about, I would totally agree with you. But we don’t. As you so eloquently wrote, Harris was reframing this into something to agree on, and that is that the most important goal here is to make sure Donald Trump doesn’t get back in the presidency.
Exactly! She's staying focused on the mission, the only mission right now: Defeat Trump. Anything else is a distraction. We can have policy discussions once there are two normal parties again and not just one.
Ben, you are being super naive. You want to "let the people know what they're voting for"? LOL! The American have become child-like in their understanding of the world and its nuances and complexities. They engage in magical thinking. (The Bulwark community excepted.) If a candidate were to actually level with the American people about all the hard choices we face, that candidate would never win. So I think it is actually better if a candidate runs on values and critical thinking as opposed to specific policies. And that is what Harris and Walz are doing now.
As far as this specific instance, I think the most important thing is that Harris beats Trump. Everything, EVERYTHING, else is a sideshow. So let's keep the most important thing as the most important thing.
You are assuming that both sides are dealing in Good Faith. Which they are not. Donald and Roger learned Bad Faith from their mentor Roy Cohn.
Donald has no core policy, no closely held positions other than whatever he thinks is in his selfish personal interest in the moment. Every word is deception. He doesn't give a shit about the economy, the border, abortion, Palestine, Israel or any other policy he claims to be passionate about.
He doesn't even really want to do the job of President. Do you really believe that a 78 year old, mentally defective, criminal conman wants to show up and work in the Oval Office every day? All Donald wants to do is play golf and cheat so he can claim he's the club champion. MAGAs and pundits who think he actually cares about anything he says are conned.
Good Faith and Bad Faith pass each other like ships on the ocean. Which is why the debates are a joke. Kamala speaks Good Faith and Donald speaks Bad Faith.
While avoiding prison is his major reason for wanting to win this election, it's also true that he has a fetish for violence. He would love to be able to stoke unrest, and then send in the troops to kill people.
The New York Times and the other major media platforms report Donald's policy stances and pronouncements as though they are real. They have a financial incentive to give the impression that Donald is a legitimate candidate who actually believes in his stances on the issues of the day.
If. If Donald was, in truth, a low IQ, criminal conman, who has no true policy positions, would they reveal it? Or would they back up his con with daily "news" on Donald's phony proposals and statements?
Donald was for overturning Roe v Wade. And then he wasn't.
Donald was for improving the immigration system. And then he wasn't.
Donald was for Project 2025. And then he wasn't.
Donald was for election integrity. And now he's rigging the system.
Donald told Time Magazine he would hunt down, arrest, imprison and deport 20 million men, women and children. And the Press treats this campaign promise as legitimate. It's repeated in the RNC Platform:
What if. What if Donald is just a low IQ criminal conman who has no policies or honest positions on anything? Future historians look at us and wonder how we fell for his bullshit con game money scam for so long.
Read Judge Engeron's 92 page ruling for insight on the man that Donald really is.
Wait a minute. Are you saying Donald is not a Republican? He's sure not a Democrat. Are you saying he's a Trump World, MAGA Cult, Pro-Putin, Pro-Orban, frontman for the autocrats and billionaire oligarchs? And he doesn't really care about America and Americans?
Sure looks that way. See Anne Applebaum's new book Autocracy, Inc.
It seems to me that getting into a discussion with protesters in the middle of a speech is the road to chaos. If it's a press conference, you answer questions. Stopping to answer statements yelled from members of the audience in the middle of a rally or speech doesn't work. Harris handled it perfectly. Respectful, but firm.
I think the only realistic policy is one that can’t be said out loud. Continue supporting Israel but find a way to get Netanyahu out of there. Someone (not Harris or anyone on the campaign) needs to loudly ask why Netanyahu gets to speak to congress for a second time and yet he hasn’t invited a Democrat to speak to the Knesset? He had Elise Stefanik speak there in May. Why not Chuck Schumer?
Revealed preference would seem to suggest that, whatever they might claim, the American people hate candor from their elected officials and are ready, willing, and able to punish anything that might constitute "straight talk." Basic rule of economics; the supply will always shift to meet the demand.
As a previous commenter suggested; Harris has already stated her views here on Gaza,Israel and her disapproval of Bibbi. They are well known and are the same as Biden's.
I think this is one of the underappreciated impacts of Trumpism; maybe we will mention a policy, maybe we will tell jokes or speak about fictional characters, maybe we won't debate.
I'm fine with Harris being vague on Israel/Palestine. After all, as important as that conflict is to the world, it is not what this election is about here in the USA. Any substantive statement she might make on this issue might force these protestors to go through with their threatened protest vote or non-vote. Instead, she made them think seriously about whether Trump was the better pick on this issue and all others. In short, she told them the right way to think about their issue and the election.
I think I basically agree, but here's where I pause: Do we want this practice to be the exception or the rule? Because in general, I think it's probably better if candidates address major issues head-on rather than dodging them. Let the people know what they're voting for. But then again, I can also see why that could be undesirable.
The issue, I think, is that the speaker in a setting like this gets to decide the agenda. She can decide an appropriate time & place for that specific policy statement, and likely yet a different time & venue if actually holding a discussion about it.
Hijacking someone's event is theatre, not a discussion of an issue. Obvi that's the point of public protest but a protester can't assume every speaker will fall into that game.
So well said! Completely agree.
I have organzied events which others have attempted to hijack, and I considered it to be theft.
It’s her event, her outreach to everyone there. She also took time to meet with them before. I wonder if they realize that trying to hijack her event doesn’t bring anyone to their point of view.
As Adam Kinzinger suggested and I agree. I don't like these interruptions of any speaker (at any time) with any dumb rhyming slogans.
Amen. There is no free speech right to shout down or interrupt speakers. Your free speech right is the right to speak out, not to stop others from speaking.
Yeah that chant makes it worse.
If your slogan’s a rhyme
I aint got the time!
😊
Love it! The only time I was entertained by such is when Mohammed Ali did It!
genuine GOAT more ways than one!
I know you know this: if we had two normal candidates with actual knowledge and experience with the issues, and actual policy opinions they could talk about, I would totally agree with you. But we don’t. As you so eloquently wrote, Harris was reframing this into something to agree on, and that is that the most important goal here is to make sure Donald Trump doesn’t get back in the presidency.
Exactly! She's staying focused on the mission, the only mission right now: Defeat Trump. Anything else is a distraction. We can have policy discussions once there are two normal parties again and not just one.
Ben, you are being super naive. You want to "let the people know what they're voting for"? LOL! The American have become child-like in their understanding of the world and its nuances and complexities. They engage in magical thinking. (The Bulwark community excepted.) If a candidate were to actually level with the American people about all the hard choices we face, that candidate would never win. So I think it is actually better if a candidate runs on values and critical thinking as opposed to specific policies. And that is what Harris and Walz are doing now.
As far as this specific instance, I think the most important thing is that Harris beats Trump. Everything, EVERYTHING, else is a sideshow. So let's keep the most important thing as the most important thing.
You are assuming that both sides are dealing in Good Faith. Which they are not. Donald and Roger learned Bad Faith from their mentor Roy Cohn.
Donald has no core policy, no closely held positions other than whatever he thinks is in his selfish personal interest in the moment. Every word is deception. He doesn't give a shit about the economy, the border, abortion, Palestine, Israel or any other policy he claims to be passionate about.
He doesn't even really want to do the job of President. Do you really believe that a 78 year old, mentally defective, criminal conman wants to show up and work in the Oval Office every day? All Donald wants to do is play golf and cheat so he can claim he's the club champion. MAGAs and pundits who think he actually cares about anything he says are conned.
Good Faith and Bad Faith pass each other like ships on the ocean. Which is why the debates are a joke. Kamala speaks Good Faith and Donald speaks Bad Faith.
While avoiding prison is his major reason for wanting to win this election, it's also true that he has a fetish for violence. He would love to be able to stoke unrest, and then send in the troops to kill people.
All Donald Trump wants to fo is escape prison
Trump's other mentor is V. Putin.
The New York Times and the other major media platforms report Donald's policy stances and pronouncements as though they are real. They have a financial incentive to give the impression that Donald is a legitimate candidate who actually believes in his stances on the issues of the day.
If. If Donald was, in truth, a low IQ, criminal conman, who has no true policy positions, would they reveal it? Or would they back up his con with daily "news" on Donald's phony proposals and statements?
Donald was for overturning Roe v Wade. And then he wasn't.
Donald was for improving the immigration system. And then he wasn't.
Donald was for Project 2025. And then he wasn't.
Donald was for election integrity. And now he's rigging the system.
Donald told Time Magazine he would hunt down, arrest, imprison and deport 20 million men, women and children. And the Press treats this campaign promise as legitimate. It's repeated in the RNC Platform:
https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/
What if. What if Donald is just a low IQ criminal conman who has no policies or honest positions on anything? Future historians look at us and wonder how we fell for his bullshit con game money scam for so long.
Read Judge Engeron's 92 page ruling for insight on the man that Donald really is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/documents/f203be39-020c-4f82-a423-96aa20c08e3a.pdf?itid=lk_inline_manual_3
Wait a minute. Are you saying Donald is not a Republican? He's sure not a Democrat. Are you saying he's a Trump World, MAGA Cult, Pro-Putin, Pro-Orban, frontman for the autocrats and billionaire oligarchs? And he doesn't really care about America and Americans?
Sure looks that way. See Anne Applebaum's new book Autocracy, Inc.
It seems to me that getting into a discussion with protesters in the middle of a speech is the road to chaos. If it's a press conference, you answer questions. Stopping to answer statements yelled from members of the audience in the middle of a rally or speech doesn't work. Harris handled it perfectly. Respectful, but firm.
I think the only realistic policy is one that can’t be said out loud. Continue supporting Israel but find a way to get Netanyahu out of there. Someone (not Harris or anyone on the campaign) needs to loudly ask why Netanyahu gets to speak to congress for a second time and yet he hasn’t invited a Democrat to speak to the Knesset? He had Elise Stefanik speak there in May. Why not Chuck Schumer?
Revealed preference would seem to suggest that, whatever they might claim, the American people hate candor from their elected officials and are ready, willing, and able to punish anything that might constitute "straight talk." Basic rule of economics; the supply will always shift to meet the demand.
As a previous commenter suggested; Harris has already stated her views here on Gaza,Israel and her disapproval of Bibbi. They are well known and are the same as Biden's.
I think this is one of the underappreciated impacts of Trumpism; maybe we will mention a policy, maybe we will tell jokes or speak about fictional characters, maybe we won't debate.