This is from 2022, a bit old but a good reminder of his constant BS “Never Heard of Project 2025, never read it, but has good ideas” 1835715330531807518 is not a valid tweet id
Don’t know where else to put this. The WaPo wrote an article about how various first and last names stack up in terms of a Democratic and Republican leanings. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/09/13/popular-names-republican-democrat/ Stoltzfus is the most Republican last name, for example.
Yeah, although he interrupts pretty much nonstop. A politician of any stature wouldn’t put up with it. Can you imagine him interviewing Trump? The interview would be over in less than a minute, as Trump would stomp off in a huff.
October 1 in NYC. I've not seen any details other than that. I do hope they mute microphones for this one. Vance seems extremely comfortable in the role of attack dog/asshole. I think he'll just not shut up for 90 minutes unless his mic is shut off.
I do not have any issues with this.....We tend to expect too much deference towards pols and leaders. I have seen similar interviews in Europe and other parts of the world.
Interviewers shouldn’t interrupt interviewees all the time. That’s just bad manners and makes the interview hard to follow. Not to mention he will never get politicians of stature to come on his show if he does that. It would be like the rude, verbose Ben Shapiro interviewing Harris or Walz. Will never happen.
I do not see it that way. He is just pressing for an answer while she is filibustering it. Calling this bad manners is way over the top. I guess you are not familiar with Mehdi Hassan.
fairly standard interview in the UK for instance. someone like Maitliss wouldn’t allow that stream of bullshit either.
Interviewees should also answer the f********ing question. EDIT: Or if they don't, they should explain why the question is either shit, or why they refuse to answer.
Of course the interviewee should have to answer the question. But if the interviewer keeps interrupting while the interviewee is answering it is likely the average viewer will become sympathetic to the interviewee. And my other point still stands that Medhi and other interviewers as aggressive as he won’t be able to book significant politicians in the first place. This isn’t the UK or other parts of Europe (although in my native Denmark no interviewer would ever be so rude as Mehdi is here). This is the US and interviewers are expected to show deference. If the question isn’t being answered it can be asked again, or even a third time. But it is not a feature of interviews in the US to bully a guest by talking over them.
You are on your own with this, dude. Actually, he had and has interviewed quite a few politicians and some have managed pretty well. I can't even wrap my head over this "bully" thing.....Those people are ********ing grown ups and can decide to respond and address the question or at least provide some rationale. By the way, most interviews in the US are just ridiculous and exercises of futility. Journos do not push to get an answer and follow up questions are rarely asked. Perhaps they should start asking probing questions and insist to get a proper response. The public will be grateful.
Probing questions absolutely. Interrupting and talking over the guest, no. We’ll have to agree to disagree
How many Haitians actually live in Springfield? The census numbers aren’t anywhere close to 20,000, but that data is 4-5 years old now. https://www.the-downballot.com/p/all-the-estimates-of-springfields These guys did a deep dive and think 10K is a pretty good estimate.
And I heard on PSA that the program that brought them to Springfield was signed into law by George H.W. Bush. I believe the first Haitians arrived in Springfield in 2018. Not that ther lies matter to those making them. It'll just illustrative propaganda, meant to incite fear and hatred, with the goal of kicking out all dark skinned "immigrants" (loosely defined). Denaturalization. ********ing nazis.
Interesting article by Josh Marshall.. @American Brummie , don't shoot the messenger!! tSuart Rothenberg is one of those old school election watcher/analyst types, from the pre-poll aggregator, pre-538 era. Rothenberg, Charlie Cook, Larry Sabato etc. His new column out from him in Roll Call caught my eye. The gist is simple enough. While he’s not predicting this outcome, Rothenberg says we shouldn’t be surprised if the 2024 presidential actually turns out not to be that close, despite the fact that a photo finish is the one thing everyone on every side of the race seems to agree on. He points to new high quality polls out of Pennsylvania and Iowa which suggest the race may not be quite as close as we all universally assume. And Rothenberg is not the type you’d generally expect to predict or hint at something like this. As Rothenberg puts it, after detailing this universal consensus: “f you are something of a gambler and everyone you know believes the 2024 presidential contest is and will remain extremely close, you probably should put a few dollars on the possibility that November will produce a clear and convincing win for Harris.” https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/maybe-it-wont-be-that-close
seems like their pay gets docked if they don't get to ask all their list of questions no matter what crap is thrown back at them. edit: how about the producers give the interviewer 30-45 seconds before the interview ends, to sum up along the lines "For the record, I asked you about A, B and C. You didn't answer any of those questions, and instead repeated lies about X Y and Z. That's it for now, over to ...."
Politico looking for "news"......I guess they are disappointed she is not making any waves and staying disciplined. Clowns! “Kamala Harris largely stuck to her script during an interview Tuesday with a panel of National Association of Black Journalists members, carefully parrying questions about hot-button issues like the war in Gaza, reparations and other critical election topics,” Politico reports. “It was the vice president’s second high-profile national media interview since announcing her presidential run, and though she spoke passionately at times about abortion rights and other policies, she did not break much ground or stray far from her talking points during the near hour-long conversation.”