You enjoy looking for imprecise comments and I have a special knack for making them. :)

You also have a penchant for lumping people into categories and claiming to be a mind reader regarding their feelings and general knowledge. For the record, I do not "enjoy" looking for those things, I'm just trained that way because details matter... so it's all just a part of being me. Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. ;)

The point I was trying to make about abortion rights and reproductive freedom is that this issue has economic implications.

To be factual, the point you were "trying to make" was in regard to "reproductive rights" and "freedom," which you've now actually altered to "abortion rights" and "reproductive freedom," which definitely helps add some clarity.

Surely you can agree with that, right?

A thousand times yes. I have commented multiple times in this very forum that forced-birth laws are an unfunded monetary mandate on women and their families, specifically on lower income Americans. Brett Kavanaugh's daughter won't be forced to have her rapist's baby, poor women in the South, however, will.

Forcing birth on a girl/woman in America with an unwanted pregnancy or who was raped by a date, a relative, a stranger, making her a victim twice isn't what I would consider "freedom," and it sure as hell isn't free of charge.

Two things for anti-abortionists:

* Don't want abortion for yourself? No one can force you.
* Don't want abortion for anyone else? Mind your own damn business.

The point I was trying to make about abortion rights and reproductive freedom is that this issue has economic implications. Surely you can agree with that, right?

Right. And, you could add reproductive rights and freedom to that list, as well.

Your comment was that Republicans "have proven time and again that they only have one economic policy," and I commented that you could let that idea of yours go because it's incorrect and then pointed out multiple other Republican economic policies beyond their usual lowering taxes, but I would definitely not add "reproductive rights" and "freedom" to the list of Republican economic policies.

And, the vice president would be wise to talk more about all of these essentially economic policy distinctions between Democrats and Republicans, too.

"Talk more"? Heh. And, Elizabeth Miller "would be wise" to pay better attention. :)

Seriously!!!? I HAD been giving you way more credit than that. Or, maybe I just watch CNN more than the rest of the gang here. Heh.

So it seems you were judging one journalist based on an entire network full of them, which is generally not something I do, but I have been known to make exceptions for those like Alex Jones. I've definitely seen better interviews out of Dana Bash.

That right there is some of the clearest evidence as to why Republicans (and the Conservatives here in Canada) are trusted more than Democrats (and Liberals) as better stewards of the economy by most Americans (many, if not most, Canadians but that trend line ain't lookin' good).

Oh, I see you're also factoring in the feelings of Canadians.

Sigh. The context of my comment which you highlight here was clearly not restricted to the wildly anticipated (CNN) Harris interview.

Not restricted to the interview regarding America's presidential election and now apparently not even restricted to the United States, for that matter.

This comment, in its entirety, really surprised me by its lack of rumination and apparent reliance on the capacity of broadcast journalists to adequately query a subject, especially in the context of a political campaign.

This is really grasping deep, Elizabeth... "lack of rumination" and "apparent reliance"? On "broadcast journalists"!? Based on a comment about a single interview!? *laughing* *give me a minute* *nope, can't stop*

This ridiculous proclamation of yours based on one comment combined with your doomsday assessment of the Democratic nominee for president of the United States based on one interview by a single journalist [but wait, now based on decades of interviews of other Democrats feelings and also including Canadians] should keep me laughing for quite some time... so thanks for that.

Right. And, you could add reproductive rights and freedom to that list, as well. And, the vice president would be wise to talk more about all of these essentially economic policy distinctions between Democrats and Republicans, too.

Seriously!!!? I HAD been giving you way more credit than that. Or, maybe I just watch CNN more than the rest of the gang here. Heh.

Oh, come on, you're making her sound like Old Man Biden during the first debate! That "tax cuts for the rich" and "trickle down" prattle has been beaten to death until it's old news.

That right there is some of the clearest evidence as to why Republicans (and the Conservatives here in Canada) are trusted more than Democrats (and Liberals) as better stewards of the economy by most Americans (many, if not most, Canadians but that trend line ain't lookin' good).

Asking over and over again? It was her first interview ...

Sigh. The context of my comment which you highlight here was clearly not restricted to the wildly anticipated (CNN) Harris interview.

This comment, in its entirety, really surprised me by its lack of rumination and apparent reliance on the capacity of broadcast journalists to adequately query a subject, especially in the context of a political campaign.

You can also let go of the idea that Republicans "only have one economic policy," because with the China trade war and additional tariffs they've already implemented and are now promising to raise exponentially with "universal baseline tariffs on most foreign products" of 10%, including even higher levies on certain countries that devalue their currency of up to 60% (looking at you, China), Republicans definitely have more than "one economic policy," and I'll briefly mention the policy of "mass deportation now" and the sledgehammer that would be to the U.S. economy, labor force, tax base, etc.

No, not at all. And, I think we all expected lame questions.

It wasn't Donald Trump being given softball questions from Sean Hannity, so: No, we did not all expect lame questions.

The vice president squandered a great opportunity in front of a fairly large audience to outline why her administration would be far better at implementing a pro-growth tax and fiscal policy than the Republicans who have proven time and again that they only have one economic policy and it doesn't work except to lower the tax burden on the top one or two percent of wealthy Americans.

Oh, come on, you're making her sound like Old Man Biden during the first debate! That "tax cuts for the rich" and "trickle down" prattle has been beaten to death until it's old news. CNN also edited the interview, and none of us knows how they may have sliced and diced it.

If she was more of a savvy campaigner, she would have known how to pivot from the dumb questions that journalists keep asking over and over again and talk about what she wants to talk about.

Asking over and over again? It was her first interview since she was nominated, ergo the first time any journalist asked her those questions. Be that as it may, it sounds to me like your knickers are in a twist because she didn't talk about what you wanted her to talk about.

This is Political Campaigning 101.

Heh. I'm going to be really nice and not say what I'm thinking. You're welcome, Canada.

And, far from being based on one silly interview as you wrongly presumed, my hopelessness regarding how Democrats talk about the economy is based on years of listening to them talk so ineffectively about Democratic economic policy and why it is superior to that of Republicans and why most Americans should favour the Democrats over Republicans when it comes to the economy.

I didn't refer to it as "one silly interview" as you wrongly retorted; I asked: "Based on one interview?" and was bemused at the thought.

If she fails to win this thing, it will be on economic grounds and she will have no one to blame but herself.

But if you're basing your "hopelessness" on past interviews of multiple Democrats "for years" regarding the economy, then you've just single-handedly and quite effectively blown that statement of yours above all to hell and back, and I thank you for the assist.

Seriously: If she fails to win "this thing," it will most likely not have very much at all to do with "economic grounds," it won't be based on one interview or even an entire collection of interviews of Democrats regarding the economy, and I promise you there will be a plethora of persons to blame for it besides herself. That's United States Political Campaigning 101. :)

So you're blaming the Harris campaign for the stupid questions? She answered the dumb questions she was asked that she didn't get to choose. There were only a few questions that weren't "what do think about this accusation from Trump?"

No, not at all. And, I think we all expected lame questions.

The vice president squandered a great opportunity in front of a fairly large audience to outline why her administration would be far better at implementing a pro-growth tax and fiscal policy than the Republicans who have proven time and again that they only have one economic policy and it doesn't work except to lower the tax burden on the top one or two percent of wealthy Americans.

If she was more of a savvy campaigner, she would have known how to pivot from the dumb questions that journalists keep asking over and over again and talk about what she wants to talk about. This is Political Campaigning 101.

And, far from being based on one silly interview as you wrongly presumed, my hopelessness regarding how Democrats talk about the economy is based on years of listening to them talk so ineffectively about Democratic economic policy and why it is superior to that of Republicans and why most Americans should favour the Democrats over Republicans when it comes to the economy.

Is that what passes for an in-depth interview? Wow.

No.

I call it a squandered opportunity for the Harris campaign for president.

So you're blaming the Harris campaign for the stupid questions? Wow.

Her message on the economy was, ah, less than spirited and rather, well, deflated.

She answered the dumb questions she was asked that she didn't get to choose. There were only a few questions that weren't "what do think about this accusation from Trump?"

On this front, apparently, there is no hope.

Based on one interview? Heh.

If she fails to win this thing, it will be on economic grounds and she will have no one to blame but herself.

If she fails to win "this thing," it will have a whole lot more to do than with the economy, and there will be plenty of blame to go around for her and her team. If she wins "this thing," they'll claim she's a cheater and it's rigged. #SSDD

Obviously, you are entitled to your opinion, but your opinion has increasingly become more like a constant whining and accusatory blaming rather than an actual opinion. Also, it seems to me that what you think you know about United States elections would fill volumes, but what you actually know might fill a thimble.

Now, I could actually wait for you to ask me: "Was that really necessary?" Or I could save you some time by telling you now that I believe it was overdue. :)

Is this one of those federal laws that says you cannot do something but forgets to include a way to enforce said law?

Yep.

Or does Trump just know something that allows him to act in such criminal ways without fear of being held accountable?

Maybe in the past, but not anymore. Trump has spent decades buying his way out of legal trouble via campaign contributions to those who could hold him accountable. Those days are gone.

I know that sounds all CONSPIRACY Channel-ish, but Trump’s complete disregard for our laws has got to come from something!

Doesn't sound like that at all, and it comes from decades of believing you can either buy or countersue your way out of anything because it's worked well for you up until now.

Trump’s too much of a coward to act so boldly without being certain he won’t face being made to answer immediately for his crimes.

"Immediately" never happens when you pay to delay. As the judgments rendered against him are beginning to pile up, reality seems to be setting in for him... so watch Trump flip-flip on the issues and backpedal and "say anything" on the issues if he thinks it'll get him elected.

Her message on the economy was, ah, less than spirited and rather, well, deflated. On this front, apparently, there is no hope. If she fails to win this thing, it will be on economic grounds and she will have no one to blame but herself.

More gaslighting.

Yes, sir. As per usual and SSDD. Pathetic gaslighting.

Maybe he filmed an internet commercial?

The political ad his campaign filmed at Arlington National Cemetary is running on TikTok. In the political ad, Trump continues to lie that no one died in Afghanistan in 18 months while he was president, and the morons actually believe this ridiculous drivel and repeat it all over social media sites and blogs like absolute dumb asses.

You cannot have any military experience whatsoever and believe the utter asinine claim that no one died in 18 months in Afghanistan (a country the approximate size of Texas) unless you're dumber than stupid... so like I've said, Trump's demonstrable ignorance is his belief that the vast majority of Americans are dumb enough to believe his repetitive lies and totally invented propaganda bullshit.

At one point, he bellowed out that weird noise that he seems to believe approximates the sound of laughter.

And this idiot makes fun of her laugh.

Then he tried to insult VP Harris by saying that he didn't need a teleprompter because he's got "thoughts in his head".

Whateverhisnameis succeeded in insulting his running mate's intelligence because Old Man Trump definitely uses a teleprompter. Connecting the dots is not their strong suit.

Then he called Abbey Gate Abbey Road. The teleprompter probably would have gotten that right.

Heh. Abbey Road .

He also made up some bullshit: "If she wants to yell at Donald Trump because he showed up, she can go to hell," when the fact is that Harris has made zero comment whatsoever (as I write this) about it.

"Nice" Catholic boy making up lies and putting words in people's mouths that he just pulled out of his own ass and that are also in direct violation of:

Commandment IX: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

*
Maybe his running mate will sell him one of those $1000 Bibles with his signature that he's hawking to the clueless rubes.

"Donold's poll numbers are sinking like Truth Social stock.".

Oooh, yes... that DJT pump-and-dump stock is 19.84 at the present time and sinking... but still higher than Trump's IQ.

[2] The debate rules do not allow props.

Props?

And Arlington National Cemetary is not the Haunted Mansion at Disney World and does not allow campaigns to use the graves of the deceased as political props, and a related civilian cannot give a politician or his campaign the permission to ignore Federal law so their candidate can spread out over multiple graves and give the thumbs up while wearing a shit-eating grin like they enjoyed the ride.

So... props.

We are problem solvers here: Write "LIE" on the palm of her hand and carry on with the plan. :)

Trump cannot STILL claim not to know anything about Project 2025 without answering how that can possibly be true!

You'd think this would be obvious to everyone, wouldn't you?

Is he the dumbest person to ever run for office?

Is this a trick question? ;)

Yes, he's the most ignorant person to run for the presidency in modern times. The hallmark of his ignorance is his seeming belief that the vast majority of Americans are dumb enough to fall for his endless pathological lying.

Even some of his supporters are well aware of Trump's prolific lying, but they're obviously hypocrites and couldn't care less unless it's a Democrat lying... even then, they don't really care about a lying Democrat as long as it's in service of their Orange Crush. We know this because their lips are all locked on RFK, Jr. now in the service of the "liberal lunatic" (Trump's words, not mine).

It's hysterical to watch Trump and Vance and the MAGA cult minions falling all over themselves in praise of a Kennedy, even if it is the family's "lunatic."

You guys in the media, you're acting like Donald Trump filmed a TV commercial at a grave site.

More gaslighting. Maybe he filmed an internet commercial? I certainly hope this latest crime is considered by the judge when Convict Donold is sentenced in NY.

He's not very good at this. He should not be reminding people about those weird alien lizard thoughts in his head.

"Donold's poll numbers are sinking like Truth Social stock.".

It's a three-fer that would make him angry and impulsive. She should refer to him as Donold at all times.

I don't know if we'll get a shouting match, but we won't get "a real debate". I presume that "a real debate" refers to people talking about the subject they've been asked about. Politicians generally don't do that and Short Fingers doesn't even come close. He talks a lot, but he doesn't respond to questions.

Exactly all this!

Here's a thought on how Harris could handle it. I'd have her bring a bidding paddle with the word LIE printed on it.

Obviously, the paddle is the color orange and maybe shaped like Trump's tiny little hand.

As the orange thing indulges in a spew, she should raise and lower the paddle multiple times.

Like she is swatting at a fly... except it's a lie-swatter. When a fly lands on his head...

I just love the image of that eye-catching motion, though I get that the camera may show only the designated speaker, but, hey, I get to write my own scenarios.

It's perfect. :)

Who says it can't be both?

So since you were wondering, I'll give you my take on what (I think) is going on here.

The Harris/Walz campaign is trolling Trump individually and Trump's campaign collectively because the fact is that near everyone in America knows Convicted Felon Donald Trump cannot stop himself from ignoring rules and breaking laws on a regular basis (see Trump violate Federal law prohibiting political campaign or election-related activities within Army National Military Cemeteries by using multiple graves at ANC of Americans KIA as political props), up to and including the simple rules of a political debate.

Knowing full well that Donald cannot act presidential for even 10 minutes, let alone a 90-minute debate, it's Trump's handlers (not Trump himself) who wants the microphones muted because they know full well that their canine will dig himself a huge hole and not stop digging if he isn't put on a short leash and muzzled into self-abasing abject silence.

But now Harris and her team are demanding a return to the earlier free-for-all format of having live microphones for the entire night.

You keep using that word "demanding" when they are seriously simply requesting that microphones remain live for both candidates in order to troll Trump for hiding behind his muted microphone and for Trump's own team forcing him to shut up his face so he will appear humanlike versus barking like a mad dog.

There are really only two tactical reasons I can come up with for why they would make this seemingly-strange request.

The way to defeat a narcissistic bullying con artist like Trump is to reel him in, laugh in his face, mock him relentlessly, and troll him until he invariably pops. Then he'll obviously become unhinged and "say" something stupid on his American Pravda ripped off social media platform or maybe a debate or wherever... then lather, rinse, repeat. :)

Once it is her turn, she should:
1. Point out that he didn't answer the question
2. Pick one nugget from the spew that's on her list of prepared rebuttals and briefly address that lie
3. Say "To speak to your question" and use the rest of her time to give her response.