Did 60 minutes stack the deck for Kamala?

[AZRWinger]

Race hate.

There is no evidence of this.

Nonsesnical right-wing bullshit.

You have not provided any evidence.

Evidence?


More baseless right-wing babbling bullshit.

Look over the linked article.

Harris '60 Minutes' interview faces backlash over edits

Kamala Harris' "60 Minutes" interview with CBS is facing backlash over edits during one question. An early release clip that was posted to social media shows Harris responding to a question differently than what aired on the broadcast.

www.nbcnews.com

It completely debunks your complaints.

 

[brianpatrick]

Pareidolia is a phenomenon wherein people perceive likenesses on random images. There was nothing random in CBS wholesale replacement of Princess Kamala's marginally coherent answer.

I note the definition of post production editing doesn't include what CBS did wholesale replacement of Princess Kamala's ridiculous answer.

More lame whataboutism.

60 Minutes aired Princess Kamala's murky response as part of a promotion of the interview. There is nothing idiotic about pointing out the KGB propaganda tactic of replacing Princess Kamala’s response to make her appear coherent. That's not editing, that’s election interference.

You are simply denying the evidence.

Insulting me doesn't excuse what CBS did to bail out Princess Kamala.
Are you repudiating the favorite Democrat talking point that misinformation threatens democracy? Or, are you just ignoring CBS creating disinformation?

That's right, the problem isn't CBS KGB like disinformation. It's the Bad Orange Man and the deplorables. Can't make a reasoned argument so just blame political opponents.

I for one am glad Kamala has become a Princess and the anointed one. This ensures her win in November.

 

[jaypatriot]

Don't you have any faith in Donald? Can he not stand on his own merit? Why the effort to knock someone down if you have confidence in your candidates ability?

Knocking down the opposition is what political parties do prior to a critical election. Is that strange to you?
Why do you think Democrats paid $1 million for the utterly false Steele dossier? Why do you think 51 "intelligence operatives" all declared the Hunter laptop was Russian disinformation? Because they believed it ?
Those lies were designed to knock down the opposition prior to 2016 and 2020 because that is what political parties do.

 

[jaypatriot]

I for one am glad Kamala has become a Princess and the anointed one. This ensures her win in November.

She is the ordained princess and anointed by the Democrat party.
How else could she have risen to the top of the ticket so close to November? On her own merits?
SHould they care that OLd Joe was sidelined when Joe thought he was in a position to beat Trump?

 

[brianpatrick]

She is the ordained princess and anointed by the Democrat party.
How else could she have risen to the top of the ticket so close to November? On her own merits?
SHould they care that OLd Joe was sidelined when Joe thought he was in a position to beat Trump?

Yeah, Trump still hasn’t regained his legs after that political uppercut. It was brilliant strategizing on the part of the Democratic Party.

 

[jaypatriot]

Yeah, Trump still hasn’t regained his legs after that political uppercut. It was brilliant strategizing on the part of the Democratic Party.

You're right. The initial enthusiasm (and joy) of Kamala's honeymoon is wearing off. Their initial strategy has worked brilliantly.
Now voters are going to learn what she is really like.
She is a Left-of-center Bernie Sanders with lots of plans to tax the people to pay for her proposed Progressive programs.

 

[brianpatrick]

You're right. The initial enthusiasm (and joy) of Kamala's honeymoon is wearing off. Their initial strategy has worked brilliantly.
Now voters are going to learn what she is really like.
She is a Left-of-center Bernie Sanders with lots of plans to tax the people to pay for her proposed Progressive programs.

She’s right of center. All viable American politicians are except Sanders, and he is just barely left of center.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Sigh, deliberate ignorance on your part.

Harris '60 Minutes' interview faces backlash over edits

Kamala Harris' "60 Minutes" interview with CBS is facing backlash over edits during one question. An early release clip that was posted to social media shows Harris responding to a question differently than what aired on the broadcast.

www.nbcnews.com

In the text for the linked video NBC news reports "two different answers" were used. This is common, widely reported information.

Your continued ignorance on how media works is understandable, because most people don't work in the industry. Now, what we don't know is whether the answers were different because she was re-asked the question and coached on how to answer it, or they edited down a longer response. No one is debating that the two are different, but to allege it's something as ridiculous as "misinformation" or even worse "election interference" is an entirely different thing. By the way, you still haven't defined how any of this is either of the two things you claim they are, which leads me to think you're just parroting things than making an actual argument.

The rest of your post dissolves into insignificance once the facts are known.

Oh not at all. They're the details required in making a rational argument, and that you fail to address any of them or even make a half decent argument makes it clear you don't have one.

 

[jaypatriot]

She’s right of center. All viable American politicians are except Sanders, and he is just barely left of center.

It is hard to deny she is a Leftist based on her voting record:

Kamala Harris is extremely liberal — and the numbers prove it​

by Mark P. Jones, opinion contributor - 08/08/24 11:00 AM ET
Harris’s roll call record places her on the far-left ideological edge of this cohort of Democratic senators (53 senators to the left of the median Democratic senator).
Roll-call votes represent only one of several different metrics that can be utilized to evaluate the ideological orientation of politicians. In the case of Harris, based solely on the votes which she cast during her four years in the Senate, rigorous extant academic analysis locates her as one of the Senate’s very most liberal members, with a voting record substantially to the left of virtually all Senate Democrats, past and present.

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...s-extremely-liberal-and-the-numbers-prove-it/​

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Look over the linked article.

Harris '60 Minutes' interview faces backlash over edits

Kamala Harris' "60 Minutes" interview with CBS is facing backlash over edits during one question. An early release clip that was posted to social media shows Harris responding to a question differently than what aired on the broadcast.

www.nbcnews.com

It completely debunks your complaints.

I looked at it and NBC has an ad-blocker harassment tool, so I did not get to see much.

 

[eohrnberger]

Not at all, or have you not heard of "every problem is an opportunity?"

Not always.

There are always issues with economic growth, and we're witnessing this in all of the growing US cities where the cost of living has gone up because more people moved to these places. New businesses and housing developers don't just magically drop money in areas, they need to know they're investing in places where there are customers. So there is often a lag from when new people show up and when cost of living/housing scarcity become an issue.

In the case of Springfield, the demand for housing is now bringing in developers. Some of the areas Haitians have moved to were neglected, and they repurposed neglected homes and improved the area by setting up businesses. When this happens, the demand for more increases, but that takes time and like I said above, there's a period where there are pain points. The bottom line though, is the growth is an overall positive, especially if the city was heading in the other direction. The other thing to note is the Haitians built up their community, which is exactly in the spirit of the "American Dream." Odd that some have an issue with that.

You appear to be only looking at the things that you want to look at, what you claim to be upsides, and none of the downsides.

None of the above. You make a poor comparison, and then double down with the nativist nonsense that's as old as this country. Of note, is none of the issues in Springfield have to do with the ethnicity. Ethnic enclaves have always been a point of contention, most notably Benjamin Franklin's disdain for German immigrants whom he felt didn't adapt to our ways and were a bad influence on American culture. This has been the same song and dance routine in this country for every wave of immigrant group that's come to our shores. Odd that historical point you either missed, escapes you, or are purposefully ignoring.

Right. And France doesn't have any problems with ethnic enclaves and the US won't either. </sarcasm>
I think that's blind belief based on nothing.

 

[LouC]

Seems rumors are flowing ... <snipped>

I let rumors flow on down, I got a special floor drain where they go and disappear.

Life is so much better since I had that installed.

 

[eohrnberger]

Not at all, I'm simply rejecting your poor attempt to deflect using it as cover. I also can't help but notice you've yet to provide an alternative theory as to why Springfield, OH was suddenly the target of bomb threats agains the very same people referenced during the debate.

A lack of an alternative theory doesn't immediately make the theory you want to be the case.

This doesn't help your argument either, because if this is indeed the case, then they chose Trump's false claim as the target of action since it defined the location and group.

Incorrect, since in this very thread I've already expressed that but notice you have said absolutely nothing about the overheated rhetoric Trump continues to use, and has added lies and misinformation as the cherry on top.

Bbbuuutttt TRUMP!!!!

The whole "Trump can say what he wants because DEMONCRATS BAD!" is getting old, and mainly because

As far to the extreme left the Democrat progressives have dragged the rest of the party, yes, that's bad.
There is nothing redeeming in liberal / progressive public policies, which they will implement by the force of the government gun to your head if given the chance, given the political power to do so. It is now more true than ever, scratch a liberal or a progressive, find a totalitarian tyrant.

it's now more on Trump than it is anyone else.

This is your predisposition from the onset. Congrats, you got the conclusion that you've pre-ordained.

Incorrect.

Well, no. Exactly correct.

I pointed out the chasm of difference between your comparison and the incident in question.

This chasm in your mind only.

If you provided a well thought out argument on why the rhetoric was even loosely the cause, I would certainly consider its merits, but you've done nothing of the sort and conveniently ignore one of the shooters (Crooks) researched both candidates and left nothing to indicate why he was carrying out the assassination.


Yet you have failed to provide anything that makes the connection you're positing. Please, enlighten me on how they are connected.

Nope, and this is evidenced by the city itself trying to work through the issues with state help. I've been to loads of town meetings whenever new projects are in development, and there's often a mix of reasonable concerns and unreasonable ones. The officials are the ones who have to choose which ones are action items and which ones aren't, it's the price of living in communities.

Again, you appear to be only looking at the things that you want to look at, what you claim to be upsides, and none of the downsides.

 

[AZRWinger]

Your continued ignorance on how media works is understandable, because most people don't work in the industry. Now, what we don't know is whether the answers were different because she was re-asked the question and coached on how to answer it, or they edited down a longer response.

Oh okay, it's not that CBS News, a supposedly impartial reporter of facts, made a wholesale replacement of her response to help their favored candidate, that's just how the industry works as an extension of the Democrat party. The answers are different because CBS replaced her rambling nonsense used in the promotion with a response edited to be more coherent. The idea that the response in the promotional spot was too long for the full interview is absurd.

No one is debating that the two are different, but to allege it's something as ridiculous as "misinformation" or even worse "election interference" is an entirely different thing. By the way, you still haven't defined how any of this is either of the two things you claim they are, which leads me to think you're just parroting things than making an actual argument.

Get a dictionary if you don't know what simple terms like election interference and misinformation mean

Oh not at all. They're the details required in making a rational argument, and that you fail to address any of them or even make a half decent argument makes it clear you don't have one.

Deflections from CBS news producing misinformation to interfere with the election aren't details. The denial of what they did based on some convoluted demand for more irrelevant details or definitions for common terms isn't a rational argument it floundering about to excuse blatant partisanship.

 

[eohrnberger]

Oh okay, it's not that CBS News, a supposedly impartial reporter of facts, made a wholesale replacement of her response to help their favored candidate,

that's just how the industry works as an extension of the Democrat party.

Yes, that's exactly how the MSM industry works now (and for quite some time already), hence calling them the Dem's MSM propagandists and smear machine is exactly accurate and an accurate characterization of the MSM behaviors, as the public record documents.

The answers are different because CBS replaced her rambling nonsense used in the promotion with a response edited to be more coherent. The idea that the response in the promotional spot was too long for the full interview is absurd.

Get a dictionary if you don't know what simple terms like election interference and misinformation mean



Deflections from CBS news producing misinformation to interfere with the election aren't details. The denial of what they did based on some convoluted demand for more irrelevant details or definitions for common terms isn't a rational argument it floundering about to excuse blatant partisanship.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Not always.

I never said always, but it's a question of outlook because problems present the opportunity to redefine the status quo and improve. In this case, the problem is one of the growth the city is experiencing catching up to the resources needed to support a growing and thriving community. I suppose it would have been easier to just leave run down neighborhoods alone to deteriorate I suppose.

You appear to be only looking at the things that you want to look at, what you claim to be upsides, and none of the downsides.

Nope, and I've specifically addressed the downsides of growth, but much like my comment above, it's a question of outlook. As a family business owner, my wife and I have had to adjust to the significant increase of new customers. A big part of our problem is addressing the requests for additional hours to accommodate the new post pandemic work schedules. Now, we could whinge that it sucks people are demanding more from us and it will require rethinking scheduling and staffing, OR we rise to the occasion because we realize the additional customers and the revenue they bring is a net benefit even though it will take effort to adjust. Perspective is a big part of how one manages problems.

Right. And France doesn't have any problems with ethnic enclaves and the US won't either. </sarcasm>
I think that's blind belief based on nothing.

I never said it doesn't or that new immigrant groups won't cause disruption and conflict at some level, but that is par for the course with migration no matter where you are. The history of immigration is replete with stories of new migrants being poorly received and stuck in the lower classes and poverty ridden neighborhoods until they get settled and sort themselves out. Every European immigrant group you can think of that came to the US experienced this at some level.

Each of those groups faced nativists who whinged about the culture changing, and crime, and a host of other things. Now that same immigrant groups that were decried as being ruinous to the social fabric, are an essential part of it. The Irish, the Italians, European Jews etc. all faced the same critiques you're making. All faced different challenges and struggles, and all have managed to establish themselves and contribute to the culture of the country.

 

[ElChupacabra]

A lack of an alternative theory doesn't immediately make the theory you want to be the case.

I didn't think you'd have anything. On the one hand you refuse to see the direct correlation between what Trump said and what happened to the very same people and town he mentioned, but then posit that the two shooters for whom there is no evidence of a connection to the rhetoric that's supposedly inspired them is supposed to be plausible.

Bbbuuutttt TRUMP!!!!

I think you can muster a better deflection than that trollish nonsense. It's understandable why you'd want to avoid the obvious hypocrisy.

As far to the extreme left the Democrat progressives have dragged the rest of the party, yes, that's bad.
There is nothing redeeming in liberal / progressive public policies, which they will implement by the force of the government gun to your head if given the chance, given the political power to do so. It is now more true than ever, scratch a liberal or a progressive, find a totalitarian tyrant.

...and now a non sequitur.

This is your predisposition from the onset. Congrats, you got the conclusion that you've pre-ordained.

No, and that should be obvious because I critiqued Democrats resorting to that kind of rhetoric as being equally bad. Yet you do no such thing for the other party doing this.

Well, no. Exactly correct.

If you're just going to be obtuse, then that's something best done alone, so I'll leave you to it.

This chasm in your mind only.

Then you should be able to frame out the similarities and build an argument to support, yet you spend more time with retorts that do no such thing.

Again, you appear to be only looking at the things that you want to look at, what you claim to be upsides, and none of the downsides.

Not at all, and I have already stated both sides of the issue, but you only want to look at the downsides and stay there because that's the only way your narrative works.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Oh okay, it's not that CBS News, a supposedly impartial reporter of facts, made a wholesale replacement of her response to help their favored candidate, that's just how the industry works as an extension of the Democrat party. The answers are different because CBS replaced her rambling nonsense used in the promotion with a response edited to be more coherent.

Since you have nothing (yet) to support any of this, it's just whinging. If transcripts are released and we see there was any kind of retake of the answer or her being coached on what to say, then you'll have an actual point. You make claims here you have no way of supporting because so far you cannot prove whether the intent was to help Harris or simple editing for time. Without that, it's just:

The idea that the response in the promotional spot was too long for the full interview is absurd.

Not at all, and for reasons I've already explained. Now if we had access to the full run time of the interview (including segment lengths) then we'd have a better idea of how much editing was done and where.

Get a dictionary if you don't know what simple terms like election interference and misinformation mean

I know what they both mean, but am trying to get you to explain how they apply here, since it's such a far reach that I'm hoping you know what they actually mean and how this does not apply.

Deflections from CBS news producing misinformation to interfere with the election aren't details. The denial of what they did based on some convoluted demand for more irrelevant details or definitions for common terms isn't a rational argument it floundering about to excuse blatant partisanship.

Until you explain your rationale for how this would be election interference, your whinging has little value.

 

[DrewPaul]

Don't you have any faith in Donald? Can he not stand on his own merit? Why the effort to knock someone down if you have confidence in your candidates ability?

Harris campaign is all about attacking Trump 7/24. How many posts do you see in DP extolling Harris virtues or accomplishments or her positions on policies that have all changed since she was handed the nomination?

 

[Ginger Ale]

Harris campaign is all about attacking Trump 7/24. How many posts do you see in DP extolling Harris virtues or accomplishments or her positions on policies that have all changed since she was handed the nomination?

Shutting down his lies is not attacking Trump. I get it, they hate fact checks, they've made that abundantly clear!

I see you all calling her a whore for her position, and questioning her identity all the time. GMAB!

 

[AZRWinger]

I looked at it and NBC has an ad-blocker harassment tool, so I did not get to see much.

You don't know how to do an internet search?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Harris campaign is all about attacking Trump 7/24. How many posts do you see in DP extolling Harris virtues or accomplishments or her positions on policies that have all changed since she was handed the nomination?

Trump is a child-raping scumbag.

Defending him is a bad look.'

 

[AZRWinger]

Since you have nothing (yet) to support any of this, it's just whinging. If transcripts are released and we see there was any kind of retake of the answer or her being coached on what to say, then you'll have an actual point. You make claims here you have no way of supporting because so far you cannot prove whether the intent was to help Harris or simple editing for time. Without that, it's just:

There it is the "intent" excuse so popular for excusing Democrat illegal and unethical behavior. Worked for Hillary and Kim Jung Biden both. Now, it's offered as an excuse for CBS news disinformation and election interference.

Thanks for cartoon confirmation of just how unserious your claims are.

Not at all, and for reasons I've already explained. Now if we had access to the full run time of the interview (including segment lengths) then we'd have a better idea of how much editing was done and where.

Right, the plain truth of showing the 2 radically different responses created by CBS news without additional, probably unattainable "evidence" you want to use as a pretext for denying the obvious.

I know what they both mean, but am trying to get you to explain how they apply here, since it's such a far reach that I'm hoping you know what they actually mean and how this does not apply.

No, you are trying to deflect from the blatant disinformation and election interference of CBS news. It's not a reach of any kind, just compare the 2 different versions of same Princess Kamala responses. Why the denial in the face of the facts?

Until you explain your rationale for how this would be election interference, your whinging has little value.

CBS news deliberately substitutes a response to a question to help.a candidate in an upcoming election. The facts are undeniable but you demand "rationale". Nothing but denial.

 

[mike2810]

Harris campaign is all about attacking Trump 7/24. How many posts do you see in DP extolling Harris virtues or accomplishments or her positions on policies that have all changed since she was handed the nomination?

Have you watched Trump's campaign ads? Pretty much attacking Harris 24/7.
- Don't recall many Trump supporters extolling VP Pense accomplishments when Trump was President.
All politicians change some of their positions on policies from time to time.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Clearly Kamala Harris was again given aid by the media. The two versions of her answer to a question about influencing Israel's Prime Minister appear in the article below.

Kamala Harris Campaign Distances Itself From ‘60 Minutes’ Edit Controversy: ‘We Do Not Control CBS’ Production Decisions’

Kamala Harris' campaign distanced itself from the '60 Minutes' edit controversy, saying: 'We do not control CBS's production decisions.'

variety.com

Yes, I saw the original version where she was either frozen like a deer in headlights, or she gave some garbled responses that had little to nothing to do with the questions.

Apparently 60 Minutes did several "takes" and edited the product to make Harris seem more intelligent than she actually is.