Remember when Donald Trump went to visit the National Association of Black Journalists and it was so thoroughly humiliating for him and they laughed at him to his face and it went so poorly that his own people stopped the event halfway through? And then he and his buds were pretty sure he had totally nailed it?
Well, Kamala Harris is doing the same thing this afternoon! We have a feeling it might go better for her, since she’s not a racist wannabe dictator and a stupid moron. But we guess she could just totally bone it! But probably not though.
Watch and find out!
Evan has a new side project called The Moral High Ground, you should check it out and subscribe there too!
Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter right here.
@evanjosephhurst on Threads!
If you're shopping on Amazon anyway, this portal gives us a small commission.
I'm going to say something, and if people hate me for it, they hate me for it, but it's this:
International diplomacy is tricky, and requires a balance of carrots and sticks, with an important variable being the ability to propose carrots and sticks about which you're not seriously invested, but which are designed to shift the window of the acceptable by making your negotiating partner think more about what they might be giving up in opportunities, or what they might pay in penalties, even if the odds of those things happening are very, very slim.
As a result, it's fruitless to ask ANY candidate -- not just Trump, not just Harris, but anyone -- how they would handle this or that negotiation and which levers of influence they would press. Indeed, some levers can **only** be pressed invisibly. Imagine threatening to remove intelligence support, or threatening to leak that the recent beeper-bomb explosions were only possible with help that the US provided ... and might not be willing to provide any more. Even if the US provided no help, or even if the US was never seriously considering lessening the help it provides, the threat, if carried out, would provide a morale boost to Israel's enemies.
And how could Israel respond? If they shout that the US is threatening to remove intelligence support, they hearten their enemies in exactly the same way.
I don't mean to imply that this is a good policy or that it would be effective, but instead I only wish to demonstrate a policy of persuasion-through-coercion can exist that would be ineffective if made public. Understanding that the secrecy is part of the effectiveness of at least some negotiating tactics means understanding that by announcing a tactic in advance, a presidential candidate can negate (or at least lessen) the effectiveness of many of our available tactics.
I want peace in Gaza. I want peace in Israel. I want the Jewish people to be safe from all harm. I want the Palestinian people to be safe from all harm. I want all those who commit violent crime to face justice. And I want the USA to take these priorities seriously, to push them as if lives depend on them, because they do.
But asking Harris how, specifically, she would push harder is not only naive, it's counterproductive. The journalist's question about 2,000 pound bombs is a perfect example. If the US stops selling Israel such bombs generally, then Israel will find another supplier or build them within Israel, developing a new manufacturing capacity it did not have before. The power of the threat of restricting such sales is in the surprise, to deny Israel a weapon at a moment when they want the delivery sooner than would be possible if they went into bomb manufacturing themselves, with all the factory development or retooling that implies.
While I would love to have more specific information -- mostly because I simply want to be convinced that Harris is going to bring enough power to bear to end the death and destruction -- we cannot get specific policies this way. The ones a politician is willing to detail will be abandoned at the table as the Israelis (and Hamas, when we're negotiating with Hamas, though the question was about Israel) will have prepared for the tactics which have been announced in advance.
The Israel/US relationship is important, and delicate, and frustrating, and strong. It is a seeming paradox where often relationships count as much or more than tactics. I don't mind wanting to be convinced that Harris can bring and will bring peace. But let's not pretend that campaign trail questions about the cards Harris is holding will be any more effective than asking a bridge player what cards they're willing to play to win. Neither diplomacy nor bridge work like that.
This is hilarious. It ought to please my CT rabbit-holed, Rogan acolyte brother to no end. Especially since he called Harris the c-word in the last text he sent me before I blocked him.
𝗦𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲: 𝗥𝗮𝘄 𝗦𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆: '𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗮𝘀𝘁': 𝗦𝘂𝗿𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗝𝗼𝗲 𝗥𝗼𝗴𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝗽𝘂𝗿𝘀 𝘂𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗿 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗯𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀
News that podcaster Joe Rogan recently heaped praise on Vice President Kamala Harris and publicly mocked former President Donald Trump shocked political pundits who say it foretells problems for the Republican presidential nominee.
Rogan Monday dropped the latest episode of his eponymous interview show in which he talks at length about Harris' and Trump's campaigning prowess.
"Amazing job," Rogan said of Harris. "She's nailing it."
Rogan specifically praised Harris for baiting Trump into talking about his crowd sizes at the presidential debate on ABC News last Tuesday.
"Oh my God, this is Jiu-jitsu, where she's like 'If you go to his rallies, his crowds are boring," Rogan said. He then transitioned into an imitation of Trump.
Full article: https://www.rawstory.com/joe-rogan-on-trump/#comments_section_start