- Reaction score
- 3,802
- Points
- 1,260
Family approval + family invite =/= following the rules. According to the U.S. Army & NPR ....
![1724957585991.png 1724957585991.png](https://army.ca/forums/data/attachments/27/27891-963ffd94e7bafa044d22e60eae802763.jpg?hash=QFDCB8QmSK)
More from Axios re: who's saying what ....
Family approval + family invite =/= following the rules. According to the U.S. Army & NPR ....
Harris is finally doing a pre-recorded major TV interview tonight.... but she can't do it alone, she is bringing her emotional support animal; Walz.
Harris is finally doing a major TV interview tonight.... but she can't do it alone, she is bringing her emotional support animal; Walz.
Trump could bring Vance in, but knowing his foot-in-mouth tendencies, he’s more of a liability at this point.
Yep. That’s it.
And for good reasons. It had several poison pills.
I love how the posters here are suddenly pretending they don't understand anything about congressional politics.
I absolutely was not, and that’s a disgusting allegation. I challenge you to either back that accusation up, or retract it and apologize. Your integrity and credibility is at stake.
The post-convention "team" interview is customary, and in part exists to introduce the VP who has just been confirmed during the convention.Harris is finally doing a major TV interview tonight.... but she can't do it alone, she is bringing her emotional support animal; Walz.
I mean, if we’re talking custom here, a convicted felon customarily wouldn’t be running for office…The post-convention "team" interview is customary, and in part exists to introduce the VP who has just been confirmed during the convention.
The perception problem the Harris campaign has is that the presidential candidate has customarily already been through a primary campaign, including numerous debates and interviews.
There is only one chance to prove you can stand up for yourself in your first big unscripted interview, and the Harris campaign has (probably with relief) chosen to throw it away. Custom will serve as the excuse for her defenders; the image of bringing her dad to her first big job interview will serve as the focus of mockery for her attackers.
Yes; there are hundreds of things we could throw into the columns of pluses and minuses for each candidate.I mean, if we’re talking custom here, a convicted felon customarily wouldn’t be running for office…
Except that said pluses and minuses aren’t all equal. “Convicted felon” isn’t the same -1 as “bad interviewee”.Yes; there are hundreds of things we could throw into the columns of pluses and minuses for each candidate.
Should merit a post nominal of some sort.convicted felon is about the nicest thing one can say about that fellow
Correct. But it'll mean nothing if it doesn't survive appeal. If it was a straightforward case for which the case theory was routinely applied, there wouldn't be much doubt of the conviction being upheld. But the case was novel and unusual, and so it might not.Except that said pluses and minuses aren’t all equal. “Convicted felon” isn’t the same -1 as “bad interviewee”.
Novel and unusual is putting it mildly.Correct. But it'll mean nothing if it doesn't survive appeal. If it was a straightforward case for which the case theory was routinely applied, there wouldn't be much doubt of the conviction being upheld. But the case was novel and unusual, and so it might not.
No, for the sake of the forum I didn't want to engage in further mudslinging, which is why I did not double down, but if you insist; you are in my eyes an abhorrent individual, ever eager to justify our modern society's worst failings; you did the same with regard to that German LEO who was KIA.Oh good, you’re back. You took an extremely low and ugly shot at me the other day and left my reply unanswered. As a reminder:
Nope, you’re trying to move the goalposts and change the topic, while simultaneously occupying a high ground you have no claim to. You accused me of, and I quote, “recentlyNo, for the sake of the forum I didn't want to engage in further mudslinging, which is why I did not double down, but if you insist; you are in my eyes an abhorrent individual, ever eager to justify our modern society's worst failings; you did the same with regard to that German LEO who was KIA.
I'll keep it to that. I'm sure you can live without my respect, I'm just a guy on the internet. And I'll live happily ever after without yours.
I can speak from experience here. These 'oh yeah' 'yeah' discussions are better for the forum if you take them to PMs. Saving face and trying to stake out moral grounds, while attempting to publicly humiliate each other, is a mug's game.