What's new
By:

Kamala Harris for Pres

Just started watching the interview(a little late) and I gotta say I was holding my breath leading up to this but she's doing quite well so far. Waiting for possible word salad, but really hoping she nails it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: PJF
Here’s how the interview went-

Kamala: everything is Trumps fault
CNN: what are you currently doing to fix the problems that Trump has caused?
Kamala: Nothing. I’ve done nothing in 3 and a half years as VP.
CNN: how will you fix these problems when you are president?
Kamala: I’ll implement Trumps laws and policies to fix all of our problems when I become president.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
Safetydan said:
UH OH, somebody give me a word count. I need to know right now who spoke more words in this interview.
Click to expand...
Ya she probably spoke too much. I guess he isn’t a very good hand holder either. If he wasn’t there to hold her hand, what was he there for?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
Isn't is silly when you think about how so much of a political campaign today is just pointless fluff with no real connection to what a politician is supposed to do? It's all just become a reality show of sorts, which perhaps explains to some degree Trump's success.

There are debates like candidates are running to be the president of a high school debate club. Who cares about whether they can debate well or are great orators? Where exactly does this come in as far as president's duties are concerned? Whom exactly will a president debate and to what end? Why is it so important that they are quick on their feet and can come up with immediate retorts? What complex political situation will require that, and why in the world would you want a president making a quick decision entirely on their own in that scenario?

Same thing goes for these interviews. Candidates are asked to defend their policies like they don't have entire teams of advisors coming up with them. And again, they are asked to do it on the spot, which mirrors no real-life situation they are ever going to find themselves in. It's okay if a candidate can't recall exact details of a tax plan or how a particular program will actually work or how they'd handle a foreign leader. They're not supposed to. That's what the civil service is for. That and a whole bunch of other things we want to pretend the president alone will handle.

Who cares who handles themselves better in these setups that have little to do with reality?
 
str8line said:
I missed maybe half of it but she didn't screw up in what I saw. She seemed relaxed.
Click to expand...
She had a major screw up and we'll see if Trump can take advantage of it. This is the line: "Well, let’s be clear: My values have not changed". Her campaign has spent the past month and a half backing away from Kamala's stated positions. She just undid all that work and now Republicans are free to show Kamala's old unpopular positions right next to the newly voiced "My values have not changed".
 
  • Like
Reactions: PJF
JimLes said:
Isn't is silly when you think about how so much of a political campaign today is just pointless fluff with no real connection to what a politician is supposed to do? It's all just become a reality show of sorts, which perhaps explains to some degree Trump's success.

There are debates like candidates are running to be the president of a high school debate club. Who cares about whether they can debate well or are great orators? Where exactly does this come in as far as president's duties are concerned? Whom exactly will a president debate and to what end? Why is it so important that they are quick on their feet and can come up with immediate retorts? What complex political situation will require that, and why in the world would you want a president making a quick decision entirely on their own in that scenario?

Same thing goes for these interviews. Candidates are asked to defend their policies like they don't have entire teams of advisors coming up with them. And again, they are asked to do it on the spot, which mirrors no real-life situation they are ever going to find themselves in. It's okay if a candidate can't recall exact details of a tax plan or how a particular program will actually work or how they'd handle a foreign leader. They're not supposed to. That's what the civil service is for. That and a whole bunch of other things we want to pretend the president alone will handle.

Who cares who handles themselves better in these setups that have little to do with reality?
Click to expand...
At my previous job, when hiring for vacant positions, we created a fairly basic test to go along with the interview. The test was intended to be very easy - just a "Can you handle the bare bones of the job" - something an undergrad should be able to complete without much trouble.

It was shocking how many people nailed their interviews (came off as confident, charismatic, competent), and then proceeded to completely bomb the test.

I don't care about either candidates interview skills at this point, but I'd sure be fascinated to see how they perform on a basic competency test with regards to how the government functions.
 
MT Steve said:
At my previous job, when hiring for vacant positions, we created a fairly basic test to go along with the interview. The test was intended to be very easy - just a "Can you handle the bare bones of the job" - something an undergrad should be able to complete without much trouble.

It was shocking how many people nailed their interviews (came off as confident, charismatic, competent), and then proceeded to completely bomb the test.

I don't care about either candidates interview skills at this point, but I'd sure be fascinated to see how they perform on a basic competency test with regards to how the government functions.
Click to expand...
Are we questioning our process or questioning who among our two candidates would perform the job of president better?
 
MT Steve said:
I'd sure be fascinated to see how they perform on a basic competency test with regards to how the government functions.
Click to expand...
I'm all for that but it will never happen. Every single Supreme Court Justice has taken the LSAT. They've taken a competency test. I'd think that test should be public information that is divulged and discussed in the confirmation hearing, but no. Without exception, their law schools have locked down those old test scores and scrubbed the records from their computers so no one can leak that info. If we can't get competency scores that already exist, there is no way we'll get new testing data released.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top