I'll remind you that axioms are required in order to build understanding. Remembering that everyone has self-interest is one of those axioms. That's all the free education you get for now Tux.... sorry, GTG.
You got it wrong. It was Bret who whined. Fox News’ Bret Baier Whines About Harris After Bad-Tempered Interview https://www.thedailybeast.com/bret-...-of-kamala-harris-after-contentious-sit-down/
Axioms are useful as a foundation, but repeating them over and over doesn't deepen understanding, it just reaffirms what's already clear. Real progress comes from building on those basics, not circling back to them like a one trick pony.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/poli...fox-interview-our-experts-give-their-verdict/ Kamala Harris’s Fox interview: our experts are united in their verdict Kamala Harris’s big Fox gamble did not pay off Kamala Harris’s interview with Fox News on Wednesday night was never expected to be a friendly affair. The network has been consistently hostile to the vice-president since she entered the race in July, and this awkward 30 minutes was no different. There are many within the Harris campaign who thought sitting down with Bret Baier, one of Fox’s most experienced interviewers, was a mistake. But the stakes were too high. With several swing states too close to call, including battlegrounds that Ms Harris needs to win the presidency, she has just three weeks to convince Republicans to vote for her. It is hard to see how Wednesday’s interview achieved that goal. On almost every subject, Ms Harris batted away policy questions and opportunities to push her plan for the White House in favour of slamming Donald Trump. Ms Harris described border security as a “topic of discussion that people want to rightly have”, but then didn’t talk about it. She talked about Trump’s role in blocking Joe Biden’s border deal, and offered no solutions of her own. She was then asked why voters do not trust her to tackle inflation, and she talked about Trump’s economic plan, not her own. A question about transgender operations in federal prisons produced a response about Trump. Even in the most newsworthy section of the interview, about how her White House would differ from Mr Biden’s, Ms Harris suggested she would avoid “the kind of rhetoric coming from Donald Trump”. It is hard to imagine that this strategy was compelling for Fox News viewers, who are almost all likely to think Trump’s policy positions are at the least defensible, more probably laudable. Ms Harris has spent weeks on the back foot, unable to answer detailed policy questions even in softball interviews with Left-wing outlets. When she finally sat down with Fox, she could only attack the man the network most supports. The other theme of the interview, which got heated at times as Mr Baier tried to interrupt Ms Harris, was Mr Biden’s legacy. Ms Harris is stuck with the inheritance of his administration, including a record of high inflation and record border crossings. She must support him and continue the fiction that he is mentally agile, while trying to run a campaign based on a “new generation of change”. Many Republicans will have tuned in to hear Ms Harris face their favourite anchor on Wednesday. After hearing her answers, my instinct is that they will still support Trump. What alternative did Ms Harris offer? Patronising, stuttering, this was a disaster for Harris Kamala Harris is evidently sensitive to criticism over her reticence to take interviews, even with friendly outlets. Well, on Fox, she was ready to prove the critics wrong. Fox News proved it was no friend to Kamala almost instantly, with host Bret Baier immediately questioning the Democratic administration’s handling of illegal immigration. Harris isn’t the first Dem politician to get frustrated at a Fox host, but her brittle demeanour hardly covered her in glory. Refusing to answer how many illegal aliens had entered the US under the Biden administration or to express regret in the termination of the Remain in Mexico policy, Harris instead expressed theatrical exasperation at being unable to “finish the questions” due to interruption – ultimately dodging them entirely. It was a performance worthy of Trump himself. Indeed, Harris could hardly keep the former president’s name out of her mouth, repeatedly attacking his “point-scoring” while avoiding her personal failures to get a handle on the crisis while supposedly serving as “border tsar”. Accusing Trump of political games on border control may be true, but it is hardly a convincing line of attack at the tail end of election season. Voters “want a president who has a plan for the future”. But Harris could hardly get the words out to tell us what hers is. And what was up with Harris’s voice? Her tone wavered like a Pennsylvania independent. It was difficult to believe that this was the same woman who comfortably ran rings around Trump in the first debate. Her nervous stutters and oddly patronising rhetoric (asked by the host if she thought voters were stupid, she drawled “I would never say that about the American people!”) made for painful watching. With an electorate this polarised, even winning over the rare Fox viewer who isn’t a fully signed-up Republican could make a difference. But this interview was a disaster: three weeks out to the election, Harris still looks like an amateur.
I'm circling? I don't have time Tux... either you're a clever child or an AI troll. Either way there's no point in carrying on this conversation.
I win! Woohoo! I am so smart, I am so smart, s-m-r-t... I mean s-m-a-r-t! Or, a 52 year old who did more by the time he was nineteen than most do in two lifetimes..