For example. The woman asks from a place that considers consumers and producers while ignoring taxpayers. "Why have a policy that also hurts American consumers?"
I'll be pleased to pay higher prices for avocados, that fluctuate throughout the year anyway, you never do know if you'll be paying a dollar for two avocados or two dollars apiece, it doesn't actually matter, I'll have the avocados if I want them, and if the higher prices comes with secured borders and I'm not paying for more elementary schools, more middle schools and more high schools, not paying for more public housing, not paying for more healthcare and more food stamps, not paying in terms of more crime and for interpreters in courtrooms, not paying in terms of deeper flood of narcotic drugs flowing across the border unimpeded. See, her concern is narrowed to consumer ignoring that same consumer is also a job-seeking taxpaying citizen. It's all producers and consumers to her. She is too simple.
The man mischaracterizes Trump walking out of his meeting with Pelosi and Schumer. He ignores that Pelosi sabotaged the meeting by trashing Trump in a presser immediately beforehand. He ignores that insincerity is unacceptable. Her duplicity prevented any progress whatsoever. But the man frames the question in terms of Trump saying he cannot work with Congress trying to impeach him. He framed his question precisely in reverse giving Pelosi free pass to sabotage everything and leave the impossible task of healing differences to Trump.
Navarro says, "That's a fair question."
No, it is not. It is an unbalanced wobbly lopsided question framed as partisan anti-Trumper so F you right in the B.H. *click*
There is no good reason to watch.
With that out of the way, let's watch. Here's Trump advisor defending Trump's policy to a hostile media.
I believe he does poorly because he is not nearly aggressive enough toward both questioners. He should have smacked them both for their stupid questions. He's too nice.
No comments:
Post a Comment