406

Trump Aides Struggle to Defend ‘Sexual’ Kamala Harris Post (www.thedailybeast.com)

submitted 4 months ago by Theprogressivist@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

79 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Trump advisor Jason Miller stopped by CNN This Morning on Thursday, and was left squirming when anchor Kasie Hunt confronted him about Donald Trump’s recent Truth Social post that featured a screenshot of an image of younger Kamala Harris smiling next to Hillary Clinton, with a caption underneath that read, “Funny how blowjobs impacted both their careers differently.”

“What would you say to the vice president of the United States about the comment that [Trump] reposted?” Hunt asked.

“Well, I saw the social media post,” Miller replied. “I have not discussed that with the president. I don’t know if the president even saw the comment that was on there or simply the picture.”

Miller then quickly pivoted to accuse Democrats of attacking Trump with even more vitriol, telling Hunt, “The attacks that have been levied by Kamala Harris’ campaign and by Harris’ allies against President Trump — not just recently but over the past year and a half, two years, ever since he came down the escalator, quite frankly—in the case of many leftist-centered people, have been quite horrific.”

Hunt asked Miller if he thought the criticisms against Trump have been “as horrific” as the image Trump had reposted. Miller replied, “Oh, a hundred times worse.”

“But they haven’t been sexual in nature in this way,” Hunt pointed out.

“Again, I haven’t discussed that with the president,” Miller said. “I don’t know if the president even saw the comment that was on there. That’s not something that I have asked.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 4 months ago

Smart people aren’t immune to emotional decisions and if you think you’re the exception then you’re not smart.

[-] can@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

I don't claim to be any exception. I'd just stueggule to call someone that répands that way "smart" without adding any qualifiers.

[-] SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You know literally nothing about this person other than they are a woman, they hold 1 bad opinion you that know of, and that I qualified them as educated/intelligent. But please continue to lecture me about their cognitive faculties.

A lot of smart people hold a lot of wrong/bad ideas.

[-] can@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Hey man, I'm sorry, I was speaking more broadly about the type of person, rather than the specific individual, and I do need to work on my black-and-white thinking. Absolutely nothing to do with being a woman, the comment actually reminded me of a man in my life with similar views and I've had to come to the conclusion that I should value his opinions less.

Edit: also, I'd hardly call my two short comments (one I clearly didn't proofread) a "lecture".

A lot of smart people hold a lot of wrong/bad ideas.

That's a concept I've had difficulty wrestling with

[-] SteveFromMySpace@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 months ago

All good

this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024

406 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19246 readers

2499 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News