The 2020 Presidential Election Tournament

[tmj]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Ellen,

I believe this, too.

But I believe William would change his mind if Harris got in power and started throwing gays in jail left and right over bullshit like she did to blacks in California. People who abuse power like she did get off on it and it's a high they won't be denied later once they get power again.

The gay community is outspoken. Should Kamala Harris get federal power, I can easily see a clash between them once she tells them to shut their goddam mouths when they irritate her and they get louder. And I can easily see what she would do about it once she got pissed. Impertinent bastards. She would put them in their goddam place. And she would goddam make sure they knew who did it and why and wept bitter tears. 

Supporting a person like Kamala Harris is like keeping a pet rattlesnake and petting it on the head once in a while just to show everyone you can. That never ends well.

Michael

Michael
I get that impression too, but people who want an obvious rattlesnake like Harris in a position of power in America are cheerleaders for 'impertinent bastard getters'.
Like the pet owner who eventually gets bit, before the venom affects them they get to enjoy the 'getting' of the impertinent by their pet, they enjoy the illusion of power over the venom.
They blank out on their own susceptibility to the effects of the poison.
A Harris -type power weilder is a poison/cancer for the concept of protecting individuals rights, the trite and colloquial knuckle dragging under pinning of Americanism. And that type is smart enough to know how trite and colloquial the American under pinning is, and how impertinent and intellectually inferior the unwashed are.

[Ellen Stuttle]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I believe this is a fatal blow.

You wrote this about Lee Stranahan's views:

"Lee isn't sure that Biden is going to drop out, but he thinks it likely, and that regardless, based on what happened with Anthony Weiner, this just sank Biden's campaign beyond repair."

What did happen with Anthony Weiner?  (I wasn't following that business.)

 

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here is what I think to add to that. People are saying Hunter is not Joe, etc. etc. etc., but it's quite a stretch to think the American heartleand will elect a president who has a pedophile son and this was covered up by Joe for ages. I don't see how this happens in the reality we live in.

People in the American heartland will be revulsed - but how many of them were going to vote for Biden anyway?

And I think that there are Dems - decent people ones - who will be revulsed.  But folks who are keen on the Clinton and Biden ilk do not care what wrong-doing those people are up to.  Even, the more, the better.  Those folks want dishonest people in power - people who give them scope for their dishonesty.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I wrote: "I don't mean just having thoughts - verbal or other symbolic content parading through one's mental world."

6 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Just to keep it simple, that tells me what you don't mean by what I call thinking in the first sense. That doesn't tell me the name you would use for it, what label you would put on it, what you would call it, which was the question.

The name I use is "symbolic content" (verbal or other).

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

1 hour ago, tmj said:

Michael
I get that impression too, but people who want an obvious rattlesnake like Harris in a position of power in America are cheerleaders for 'impertinent bastard getters'.

I think that William doesn't even see Kamala Harris's "obvious rattlesnake[ness]."

The first time I posted a comment about her being snakelike (earlier on this thread, here), William used the "Confused" icon.  (That icon is no longer available, so his response doesn't show on the post now.)

Ellen

[Dglgmut]

13 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Neither you nor the Orange Man Bad people let go of your story long enough to look and wonder if those people you point the finger at really are as you say. Instead, you look from within your core story out at the world and cherry-pick the items in the behavior of your targets that reinforce your core story.

I'm not pointing the finger. I am trying to understand why they do what they do. Let's identify:

 

Before we identify leftists, we have to identify leftism. I understand leftism as a secular religion, in which God has been replaced by Equality. This is their highest common proclaimed value. They don't actually have to value equality on a personal level, but to be a leftist they must pursue equality. Ironically pursuing equality is an effective way of achieving super-equality, e.g. Bernie Sanders and AOC.

 

In pursuing equality they create villains and victims. White straight men are the villains who need to be made equal. We can see by their actions that the victims are secondary. The way to help the victims is to hurt the villains. This is the religion, but the politics are of broader scope and include allies and opponents. You can be a white ally and a black opponent, it just depends on whether you support equality. To be a good white ally you should self-flagellate; to be a good black ally you should assert your moral superiority.

 

There's a lot of story elements here, but they only explain what, not why. The first cause is pursuing equality, everything else is built on top of that. Why equality? Equality is the most primitive common value. We can use reason to devalue equality, but on an instinctive level inequality bothers us. This isn't to say that leftists really do want equality, but that pursuing equality seems like a no-brainer. It looks good. The worst thing said about people pursuing equality is that they're misguided. There's no risk of being demonized.

 

Now you've got people doing bad things for a noble cause. Some of them are actually intelligent. The question is do they actually believe this story? MSK, you'd say yes. The core story is the first cause and you can get all of your answers there. I say it depends why this story was written. Is this story their way of understanding the world? I say no. They do have stories for that too, but this aspect of themselves is a part of a defense system.

 

The two ideological sides write their stories for different purposes. On one side you've got a story for the purpose of explaining how the world works, on the other you have a story used to justify anti-social behavior. If you challenge the story of the former you are making an intellectual challenge (they've got their facts wrong), if you challenge the story of the latter you are making a normative challenge (your cause is not really noble). This is why leftists have a more aggressive defense system. They have a cause which they use to defend abhorrent actions, challenge the cause and you delegitimize the actions.

 

So I see people being attracted to leftism--the pursuit of equality--not because they think equality is really the highest ideal, but because it's a pretty good excuse for what they really want. The reason the two sides think differently is because one is in denial about their own depravity. They don't want to face it, they'd rather create an outlet. We all have issues, but it is the denial that distinguishes leftists. They can't admit that they want to do bad things, so they can't work on those feelings, and so they write the story.

Quote

Why do they want to keep knowledge from you? I believe one reason is they think knowledge is power and they want the power, but who cares? There are probably many reasons. The one constant they all have is they want you to stay stupid unless you adopt their propaganda. You have to defeat those people if you want to be a powerful protagonist.

This highlights a point of disagreement between us. There is no "they." The ideology is steering the ship. Because the highest value is the lowest common denominator, there is only one possible destination. Societal shifts to the left are systemic.

[tmj]

12 minutes ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

I think that William doesn't even see Kamala Harris's "obvious rattlesnake[ness]."

The first time I posted a comment about her being snakelike (earlier on this thread, here), William used the "Confused" icon.  (That icon is no longer available, so his response doesn't show on the post now.)

Ellen

Ellen

Regardless the chimera reference, do you think people who advocate for a Harris- type American leader are cheerleaders looking for an authoritarian figure to go after their 'enemies'?

 

[Ellen Stuttle]

4 hours ago, tmj said:

Ellen

Regardless the chimera reference, do you think people who advocate for a Harris- type American leader are cheerleaders looking for an authoritarian figure to go after their 'enemies'?

 

I haven't heard anyone actually express enthusiasm for Harris.  University people I know who are close to unanimously cheering for a Biden win want Trump out.  They call him "authoritarian," "Nazi," etc., etc., the anti-Trump litany, but they don't express praise for Biden and they have reservations about Harris' record but say that at least she's big on "climate change."

Other than the university people who live in West Hartford, I don't know what the many West Hartford people who are displaying Biden/Harris placards think of her.

So I lack specifics of anyone who actively wants her as President - except probably William.  I doubt that he's "looking for an authoritarian figure" to go after "enemies."  But I think that he still believes in AGW and is hoping for Harris to do something about it.

Plus I think that he feels a resonance with her personally (whereas I feel instantaneous shuddering antipathy).

If anyone reading knows people who are enthusiastic about Harris, I'd be interested to read their impressions of those people.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

Before we identify leftists, we have to identify leftism.

D,

You have it inverted about as inverted as it gets. But I don't have time to go into right now it except for a few words.

Leftism is not a thing. It's a body of ideas and stories.

People have a universal nature as a human beings. They add those ideas and stories to thinking thinking. The ideology does not add people to itself. Leftism is not a Godzilla monster that eats people or a mist from outer space that turns them into zombies. 

In order to understand how and why a person adheres to boneheaded ideas, you have to understand what a human being is--what he or she seeks regardless of ideology. Only after that is clear is it even possible to find out where the lures and booby-traps and addictions are in an ideology--in fact in any ideology or religion.

Start with the human being, with the law of identity of what humans are, and you will find truth.

Start with the mist from outer space called leftism as an entity separate from human beings and all you get it whatever your little heart dreams up to make you feel good.

But keep working it... 

This is important.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

The name I use is "symbolic content" (verbal or other).

Ellen,

LOL...

(That's a laugh of surprise, a smile of pleasure at seeing the unexpected, not derision.)

We keep talking past each other. I am referring to an activity human beings do--to a verb.

I.e., to think, to walk, to eat, and so on

To "symbolic content" makes no sense to me.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

What did happen with Anthony Weiner?  (I wasn't following that business.)

Ellen,

Weiner liked to get naked and take pictures of his weener in all it's crotch-shot glory and send it to different women over his smart phone. He didn't do it a little. He did it a hell of a lot. He used the moniker "Carlos Danger."

(Like one Congressman who saw the pictures said, and, sorry, I don't remember who, "I've seen more of Anthony Weiner than I ever wanted to see.  )

Weiner was married to Huma Abedin, who is purported to be Hillary Clinton's female lover on the side. In fact, HC was the one who introduced them and suggested Huma marry him. (The Clintons and the people around them have a weird flexible relationship with sex.)

The right was going crazy about Weiner's pictures, but nobody could produce them. Lee Stranahan was right in the middle of this from the start. But nobody could touch him. And Weiner was about as snotty as they came re denials. But they finally got him to resign when the pictures came out. Then he started going in and out of therapy.

And even then, Weiner ran in the primaries for Mayor of New York because of the Clinton machine protecting him. (He lost to Bill de Blasio.)

Then he got caught sexting with an underage girl, and even worse, sexting while in bed with his own kid right beside him. The public went apeshit and there was no way to protect him after that. So he went to jail.

Due to his sexting, the FBI ended up taking his devices and laptop. That's where they found a treasure trove of emails regarding Hillary Clinton (Huma used to send copies of emails to that laptop as backup during her day-to-day as HC's aide) and this exploded during the election with James Comey pompously crapping on himself in public about it. HC blamed losing the election on this (among a gazillion other things).

Weiner is now a registered sex offender. I believe he is still married to Huma, or not--they settled this privately, but they are still seen with each other in public. And Huma is still big buds with HC.

I don't know if Weiner is as horny as he used to be, but he says he is no longer on social media.

 

Now it's Hunter Biden's turn...

Michael

[Dglgmut]

50 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Leftism is not a thing.

Oh, then I guess there's nothing to worry about

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

27 minutes ago, Dglgmut said:

Oh, then I guess there's nothing to worry about

D,

I would look out for actual people, not an entity from outer space called leftism that turns people into zombies.

Real people can be dangerous.

Zapped zombies and the entity that zapped them don't exist except in fiction.

Michael

[Dglgmut]

1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

D,

I would look out for actual people, not an entity from outer space called leftism that turns people into zombies.

Real people can be dangerous.

Zapped zombies and the entity that zapped them don't exist except in fiction.

Michael

You can keep mischaracterizing what I said, but I don't see how that's productive.

It's funny, someone said something similar to you a few weeks ago... "Antifa is just an idea."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

7 minutes ago, Dglgmut said:

You can keep mischaracterizing what I said, but I don't see how that's productive.

D,

Time to let things sink in.

I'm not competing with you.

Be happy...

Michael

[william.scherk]

On 10/21/2020 at 9:35 AM, tmj said:

[D]o you think people who advocate for a Harris- type American leader are cheerleaders looking for an authoritarian figure to go after their 'enemies'?

There is a question asked in some regular surveys of opinion -- whether or not the respondent agrees "that our country should be governed by a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections."

See, for example, "Attitudes on Authoritarianism in America." Emphases added in this brief excerpt.

Quote

[...] While support for democracy generally remains strong in the United States, we find that not all of these conditions for democratic stability are met. The results we report here are distinctive in several respects. The VOTER Survey (Views of the Electorate Research Survey) methodology of repeatedly interviewing the same respondents year after year enables us to assess what few other surveys of democratic commitment are able to do: the consistency of people’s support for democracy over time. The findings we report from the last three years should sound alarm bells to at least a modest decibel.

In our panel survey, fewer than 10 percent of Americans consistently express support for authoritarian alternatives to democracy across three surveys (in 2017, 2018, and 2019). However, one-third (33 percent) of Americans have at some point in the last three years said that they think having “a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with Congress or elections” would be a good system of government. And about a quarter (24 percent) have said at some point that “army rule” would be a good system. Put another way, while fewer than one in 10 Americans consistently supports an authoritarian option, a third of Americans “dabble” in authoritarianism.

The December 2019 VOTER Survey goes further than we have gone in the past, and deeper than most surveys of American public opinion have ever gone, to probe the circumstances in which Americans might support an authoritarian leader’s rejection of checks on their authority. None of the scenarios we present for the president acting unilaterally without constitutional authority elicit opposition from a majority of our sample.

More disturbing still, significant percentages of voters in each party support rejection of the November election results under quite plausible scenarios, such as President Trump alleging illegal voting if he loses, or the Democratic nominee winning the popular vote but losing the general election. And those percentages take on a still more disconcerting hue when we probe the readiness of partisans to turn to violence if their party is defeated. While strong majorities of Democrats and Republicans say there would be no justification for violence, about one in five of both groups say that violence would be at least “a little” justified if the other party wins the 2020 presidential election — including about one in 10 who says that there would be “a great deal” or “a lot” of justification for violence.

This equates to tens of millions of people in a country of 225 million adults. Seen in this light, the spectacle of angry protesters, some of them heavily armed, pouring into the Michigan capitol and then later prompting the legislature to cancel its session becomes a warning sign.

While the mixed picture of support for democracy versus equivocation and skepticism is reassuring in some respects and troubling in others, viewing these numbers in the current political context presents significant cause for concern.

We are in a period of intense political polarization, with levels of political distrust and partisan enmity that rival anything we have experienced in recent memory. At the same time, the country faces its worst public health crisis in a century, its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and widespread protests of racial injustice. All of this is unfolding in an election year in which states are scrambling to expand their capacity to handle large numbers of mailed ballots, and partisan legal funds are growing in expectation of disputes about the election process and its outcomes.

Put sharply, Americans’ commitment to the norms and institutions of democracy shows worrying signs of softness, equivocation, conditionality, or even defection at precisely the moment when our system of self-government most requires mutual restraint and unconditional support.

[...]

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by william.scherk
Grammar

[tmj]

William

Thanks for the data, I’ll look into the group that put it together. But on first blush the study almost makes a Truth and Reconciliation Commission sound a needed salve, eh ?

 

[william.scherk]

 

On 10/21/2020 at 2:04 PM, Ellen Stuttle said:

I think that [William] feels a resonance with her personally (whereas I feel instantaneous shuddering antipathy).

If anyone reading knows people who are enthusiastic about Harris, I'd be interested to read their impressions of those people.

I was sort of charmed by people who remember her time at Westmount high school in Montreal. Harris also reminded me of how many 'South Asians' had been in local, provincial and federal politics. The senator shares a bit of this heritage with Hedy Fry, who represents a downtown Vancouver riding for the Liberal party and has been in Parliament a long time. A tiny outspoken sparkplug of a woman who keeps racking up them communist votes in the West End. I find the individual stories of women who achieved higher offices to be interesting, and generally get a glow on when women of whatever stripe get to higher places (from Nikki Haley to Benazir Bhutto to Michaelle Jean to Margaret Thatcher).

 

Brown ladies in politics in Canada has been a part of normal, that is to say.  I found a couple of the stories of her time in Montreal rather intriguing -- she immediately bailed on a French-language school her mother first put her in, she 'identified as black/Californian,' she ''bridged the gap" between students from the several 'ethnic' areas in Westmount's catchment area, from the former railwaymen's "Little Burgundy" black English-speaking neighbourhood to the Westmount slope's upper-class elites.

A sample or two from these articles about Kamala in Canada might give readers an impression of what her contemporaries thought of her (especially if those remembrances are slightly or largely buffed up given her almost entirely absent remarks about Canada in her book and interviews and so on).

I'd be likely to smile on her for what I hope would be an understanding of some aspects of our country. I don't think she will turn into a psychotic monster version of her teenage Montreal persona, but who really knows, right?

Quote

Toronto Star, Dec 2018 (updated Aug 2020): U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris’s classmates from her Canadian high school cheer her potential run for president by Daniel Dale.

New York Times, Oct 2020: In Canada, Kamala Harris, a Disco-Dancing Teenager, Yearned for Home, by Dan Bilefsky.

LA Times, Aug 2020: Kamala Harris’ time in Montreal: ‘You saw a politician establishing herself’ by David M Shribman

Reuters/Postmedia Aug 2020: Kamala Harris, a Montreal high school graduate, makes history as first Black woman, Asian-American on presidential ticket

UK Independent, Oct 2020: I went to Kamala Harris’s high school. Here’s why that matters, by Nicholas Boston.

Mercury News, May 2019: Why some of Kamala Harris’ biggest fans are in Canada, by Casey Tolan.

 

Montreal Gazette, Feb 2019: Alumna Kamala Harris sparks excitement at Westmount High, by Bill Brownstein.

 

 

Harris also reminds me of a French teacher I had in Grade Nine. He balanced his duty to get most of us prepped for Grade Ten French with helping slower or otherwise 'special' students get where they wanted to go. He helped a couple of French-class haters get past their nausea. He was from Trinidad and Tobago, and was relatively brown for the time and place (Burnaby circa 1974). An achiever, a leader, a great convenor.

He later became a popular mayor of the growing Vancouver suburb next door. Len Traboulay, je vous remercie mille fois.

Canada has had a huge influx of South Asians since Pierre Trudeau's immigration reforms and they are quite the go-getters, it turns out.  British Columbia's first Sikh premier was Ujjal Dosanjh (though he was only a caretaker and did not defend a government during an election). 

If Kamala could cut back on her only-on-Twitter-video facelifting and her psychotic version of Pollyanna, she might get my vote ... I think she woulda made an effective Progressive Conservative MP for Hochelaga had the cards been cut differently.

The snake stuff is so vague it's almost funny.  As concerns her as-yet-unstated desires to do damage to the lives of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender individuals, we will see what happens. How many gay adoptions or marriages did she destroy, how many transgender troops did she ban? I mean, is she to the this side or the that side of, say, Kim Davis?

-- but anyway, yeah, I tend to be puzzled by vague assertions of Harris's special menace to America. A rallying of evidence and argument would go down well, all things considered.

Edited October 22, 2020 by william.scherk
I need to hire an editor. It's a sprawling mess. Later, spelling.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 hours ago, tmj said:

William

Thanks for the data, I’ll look into the group that put it together. But on first blush the study almost makes a Truth and Reconciliation Commission sound a needed salve, eh ?

 

T,

And who would run the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, William or you?

 

When authoritarians like that Voter Study Group purport to study the authoritarianism of essentially the heartland, it's time to think about the Second Amendment and how precious that right is. 

Just so you see that I'm not doing a kneejerk, I took a scratch at that group. I only scratched, I didn't dig.

Their leader is a lady named Alicia Kolar Prevost. Take a look at her bio on the site:

Quote

Alicia Kolar Prevost is Director of the Voter Study Group, an initiative of the Democracy Fund. The Voter Study Group is a collaboration of public opinion experts, analysts and scholars from across the political spectrum whose goal is to help policy makers and thought leaders better understand the evolving views of American voters.

Alicia has devoted her career to the study and practice of campaigns and elections. Before joining Democracy Fund, Alicia was the founding Executive Director of We Vote, a volunteer-driven civic tech startup that is creating a personalized digital voter guide to help voters make decisions based on the policy issues they care about most. Alicia was also the founding Executive Director of Defend Our Future, an initiative of Environmental Defense Fund and a groundbreaking campaign to organize young voters around climate change. Defend Our Future was honored as a "Political Game Changer" by the Pluribus Project, an initiative of the Aspen Institute, for its pioneering work using vote pledges to increase turnout among first-time voters. Alicia has also worked at the Democratic National Committee, where she helped the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee write the rule that governs online voting; the 2004 Democratic National Convention Committee in Boston; the Michigan Democratic Party; and the Institute of Politics at Harvard University. Her first and favorite campaign job was working as staff assistant and driver for the longest-serving member of Congress, John D. Dingell. Alicia has also been an adjunct professor at American University's School of Public Affairs and an instructor and lecturer at the Campaign Management Institute. She is the author of “The Ground Game: Field Organizing in Political Campaigns” in the fifth edition of Campaigns and Elections, American Style, and is co-author of “Walking the walk? Experiments on the effect of pledging to vote on youth turnout”, an analysis of the randomized controlled experiment that she led in the 2016 elections.

Alicia serves on the Advisory Board of the All In Campus Democracy Challenge, an initiative to increase voter turnout among college students.

Alicia has a Ph.D. from American University, an M.P.P. from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, a B.A. from the University of Michigan-Dearborn, and is a Truman Scholar.

Run down all of that and see who is a part of each entity and who funds each. The results will not be pretty, but I guarantee you the enforcement wing of any Truth and Reconciliation Commission will come from those people, and for complicated cases of enforcement, the hidden dark side will come from their hidden dark-side friends.

That's just a scratch. Imagine a dig.

Thanks but no thanks.

After writing all this, it occurred to me you might have been goofing William.

 

Michael

[tmj]

Michael

[tmj]

Check out the Democracy Fund too .

It seems the methodology for their polling passes muster, though not sure I entirely grok their explanations of statistical rigor, but seems legit?( Voter Study Group)

Given their findings are accurate, notwithstanding having not seen the wording of the specific and full study, I'd wager they are interested in gauging the populations' confidence in institutional norms. Though I suspect, given the funding behind them , their usefulness in the findings will be in determining when the confidence level in institutional norms is an appropriate level conducive to fostering radical change.

They have concluded that people in the US are fairly consistently, year over year, not yet ready to throw in the towel and loose the baby with the bath water. That seems to be the gist of their hard data. But some quarters of their ilk are publicly proclaiming the Twitter version of the universe and that a common belief in the 'goodness' of democratic republic is well neigh a la Robert Reich and his call for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Who would try and institute such a thing? Not people like me, people like me refer to those that would go down that road as Them, and people like me don't care much for Them, in fact Them are a danger to people like me.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

52 minutes ago, tmj said:

Michael

Time to face the music, getting older sucks...

At least I caught it at the end.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

23 hours ago, Ellen Stuttle said:

People in the American heartland will be revulsed - but how many of them were going to vote for Biden anyway?

Ellen,

Karens in larger city suburbs and their friends. This is the highest group. And the most vulnerable for Dems to lose in terms of the little girl angle. I expect many to switch and others to stay him.

Millennials. The second largest. These are already divided, but after the mainstream news scatters, I expect most of the pro-Dems to stay home.

A few ball-busters of all ages. These won't probably change regardless of what they were going to do since they're doing the mating game, not politics.  

But people like that.

Michael

[Peter]

12 days to the election.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Sponsored by Liberty Nation, Conservative News Where Truth Matters Thursday, October 22, 2020. The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday, sponsored by Liberty Nation, Conservative News Where Truth Matters, shows that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-eight percent (48%) disapprove. end quote

What a jump for Trump! I am really hoping tonight’s debate is a winner for our great President. The Real Clear Politics map has the Senate at 46-46 with 8 tossups: Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, and South Carolina. The New York Times has Graham from South Carolina up by 5 percent. But Republican Collins is polling poorly in Maine.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This was brutal. President Trump did an interview with Lesley Stahl for 60 minutes and I almost felt sorry for Stahl.

She tried to give him leading questions to get answers she could sew together out of context, she lied to him in his face several times and he told her she was lying, she did practically nothing but Democrat talking points, then at one point she was almost whining about him being so powerful and attacking all the time. She actually went to a little-girl voice.

President Trump was having none of it, but he knew what 60 Minutes was going to do with the footage, so he released the entire raw video on Facebook here. I don't trust Facebook to leave it up. There's also a version on BitChute here, but the account looks like it might be dicey like bigotry-dicey (or not). I don't have time to research it, so I will leave the link as I just did.

Here is a version on Banned Video, Alex Jones's video platform. I trust this video to stay up on this site a hell of a lot more and a hell of a lot longer than on Facebook. The BitChute link will stay up, too, for that matter. But here is the Banned Video version:

See Full 60 Minutes Interview Trump Leaked

btw - If any of you saw this post half-baked, meaning half-filled out, that was because something really funky happened with my browser. There was about a half hour wait between posting what I had already put up just to make sure it was not deleted and what I am correcting right now after rebooting the computer and running a little maintenance. 

This happened a little earlier, too, when I was posting about the Hunter Biden stuff. So I suspect the Internet gods, who want Biden to win, are releasing bots all over to cause mischief.

At any rate, this post is now up correctly.

There is no way 60 Minutes is going to be able to air bullshit anymore. President Trump did about 40 minutes of raw footage between with him and Stahl barking at each other, then he looked at someone off camera and said something like, "I think we've got enough, OK?" And the person off camera said OK and so did Lesley.

Of course the fake news media is saying he stormed out of the interview. But that's false as anyone can now see.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Factba.se has all your Trump needs:

 

Edited October 23, 2020 by william.scherk
Added URL to factba.se