Bret Baier is being brutally roasted over his bonkers, aggressive interview with Kamala Harris.
  • LucidNightmare@lemm.ee
    120·
    1 month ago

    Watched it earlier today and I’m happy to say she kept him in line by repeatedly shutting down his slimy tactics of “ask question, don’t wait for her to answer, something something Biden/Harris plan, ask next question before she can answer even the first one”.

    She literally said on camera, “You aren’t even letting me answer the question” to which he eventually did finally shut the fuck up, but while still trying to “gotcha” her the whole time.

    He eventually went as far as showing a clip of Trump denying his poisonous rhetoric of wanting to use the USA military on its own citizens, to which she replied “the clip you just played was not the clip of him saying his nasty rhetoric, you and I both know that”.

    Kick their fucking teeth in this election, everyone!

    • vxx@lemmy.world
      19·
      1 month ago

      I love it when she scolded him for his shenanigans and he replied “Yes, Madam” like a little schoolboy.

      His tone changed significantly after that.

      • Subverb@lemmy.world
        4·
        1 month ago

        I agree that he was pretty hostile but it’s Fox News. To be expected.

        But she’s the sitting Vice President. “Yes, madam Vice President.” or at least “Yes, ma’am./madam.” is the appropriate way to reference her though.

  • joekar1990@lemmy.worldEnglish
    708·
    1 month ago

    Unfortunately, a majority of comments I’ve seen online on that interview say Harris couldn’t stop talking about trump or couldn’t answer any question she was asked. Absolutely amazing to me the difference here.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.worldEnglish
      702·
      1 month ago

      Almost as though these interviews and debates don’t really matter. They’re just fuel for a barrage of bot-powered social media spam and talk radio/podcast spin.

      My father-in-law will periodically pop in to hang out. He listens to right-wing radio and has friends who are hooked on it, and he will ask these very bizarre pointed questions about why Harris/Biden are doing XYZ. And all I can respond with is “They’re not doing that. That’s totally manufactured. Here’s proof.” He’ll acknowledge it. But then he’ll come back a week later with another nonsense allegation.

      I want to say “Just Google this shit before you ask”, but then I Google it myself and find a wall of right-wing hysterical talking points based on how my father-in-law phrased the question.

      • TOModera@lemmy.world
        221·
        1 month ago

        I appreciate you posting that. My late ex fil did the same thing. Had a total conspiracy minded friend. Was always awkward I had to be the one to say “No, Trudeau didn’t do that.”

        At least he was nice and respectful about it. My cousins on the other hand… well, I get very high at family gatherings now.

        • Rhaedas@fedia.io
          16·
          1 month ago

          The best way to counter such stuff - instead of disagreeing right away and making their defenses pop up, just ask them where the facts are for the claim. If they say it’s something they heard or read, ask where those sources got their info. Letting them dig further helps to show how valid or invalid what they say might be, it might plant a bit of doubt for the next time they run across something that is designed to be accepted without evidence. Maybe. I mean, that’s all we can do really, help them be more critical thinking, even if by accident.

          • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
            22·
            1 month ago

            Letting them dig further helps to show how valid or invalid what they say might be

            The problem with this approach is that it requires critical thinking.

            If they “see it on the internet on Jimbo’s blog” they believe that is equally believable to “its posted on nasa.gov”. I attribute some of this to technology getting really good at some things that it makes those that don’t know how technology works that other unbelievable things are also real.

            • Serinus@lemmy.world
              4·
              1 month ago

              A more modern part of it is that if you Google the phrases they use, you get more of the same. And the YouTube/Twitter algorithms will show you similar content to what you’ve already been shown. Both of these work to appear as multiple, independent sources, even if it’s really just a bunch of right-wing nutjobs repeating the same, completely fabricated talking points.

              I kind of wanted Harris to ask in the interview, “How many transgender inmates are there, Brett? Dozens? And how many of them want surgery? One? Three? I’d rather spend our time talking about issues that affect more than three Americans.”

              This isn’t an issue that the President should be spending her time on. This isn’t an issue the viewers should be spending their time on. She’ll follow the law, and that’s all that needs to be said on that subject. Unless you want to talk about why it keeps coming up, to be divisive and hateful.

              • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                2·
                1 month ago

                Both of these work to appear as multiple, independent sources, even if it’s really just a bunch of right-wing nutjobs repeating the same, completely fabricated talking points.

                This is where critical thinking comes in. As in “I’m seeing this same language multiple places. Who are these sources saying it? Do I trust them? Do they post other things that are also all copies of one another? With who they are do they have a motivation to distort the truth or outright lie?”

                I kind of wanted Harris to ask in the interview, “How many transgender inmates are there, Brett? Dozens? And how many of them want surgery? One? Three? I’d rather spend our time talking about issues that affect more than three Americans.”

                This would have been amazing, but I don’t know if would resonated the way it should with the intended audience. We know this is the same crowd that largely believes even one abortion by one person is too many.

      • stringere@sh.itjust.works
        2·
        1 month ago

        Does your partner hate Fox News (or talk radio in this case) for stealing their father from them?

        Mine does.

        Edit to add: so much so that she often wonders aloud if there’s a chance she and all the others can sue Fox for …something. I wish they could. I wish the people of the USA had some means of redress for all the harm Fox news has caused by irresponsibly masking angertainment and calling it news.

    • Rhaedas@fedia.io
      25·
      1 month ago

      She definitely couldn’t answer the questions asked. She tried, but got talked over when it became clear it wasn’t going the direction wanted from Fox.

    • LucidNightmare@lemm.ee
      25·
      1 month ago

      I am almost certain at this point that most if not all of those comments you see under the YouTube video are just troll farms from Russia, China, and North Korea.

    • PhAzE@lemmy.ca
      12·
      1 month ago

      Bret didn’t even give her 10 seconds to respond at times. Some of the questions were loaded questions with 2 negative answers. She tried to explain multiple times where a policy or problem started (in the trump term for example) and that came off as her talking only about Trump. Overall, it was mostly what would be expected with a dem on Faux.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    471·
    1 month ago

    “Great job by Bret Baier in his Interview with Lyin’ Kamala Harris,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social before ranting about Trump Derangement Syndrome. “Again, congratulations to Bret Baier on a tough but very fair interview, one that clearly showed how totally incompetent Kamala is. For the good of our Nation, her inferior Cognitive ability must be tested at once!”

    Lol ok.

  • DarkCloud@lemmy.world
    34·
    1 month ago

    Obama had “the audacity of hope”, where Harris has “The audacity of this asshole lying to my face”.

  • bean@lemmy.world
    33·
    1 month ago

    I tried to find a copy of the interview, but it was just edits. Cut edits. When she says or he says. Another trick of Fox to obfuscate and make it seem one way than another. Just break it up and put it out of context.

  • VinnyDaCat@lemmy.world
    181·
    1 month ago

    We really haven’t had a Presidential candidate with this caliber of speaking ability since Obama.

  • barsquid@lemmy.world
    122·
    1 month ago

    I thought the motivation of an interview was to reach the truth or reveal information about topics the interviewee hasn’t addressed. I personally wouldn’t say “outsmarted” regarding an interview conducted in good faith.

  • JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world
    4·
    1 month ago

    Saw the opening part on Colbert. Holy shit I’m surprised at what is considered journalism these days. If anything, she came out on better because she took all the bullshit and still managed to retain her composure and got her points in as well. Let’s see trump do the same without whining.