Kamala Harris is roundly criticized for feeding America a steady diet of word salads

A career prosecutor whose entire adult life has been spent speaking in open court or in front of the public representing the offices she was elected to lead?

It's truly pathetic the extent you go in order to gaslight what any sentient person with ears has never thought when listening to the entirety of Harris' remarks about anything.

Even in the friendliest environments she fails to answer basic questions that should be a no- brained for a presidential candidate.

Name one question Trump has answered during his entire 3 year campaign to become President again.

Sometimes I think you just fell off a turnip truck. No candidate answers any question that they don't want to. Harris didn't start it, and she certainly won't be the last.

Binary idiots like you want to criticise others for what you allow in yourself and others you support. Questions about what someone would do NOW, or what someone thought THEN are wholly irrelevant to future decisions they might have to make because life isn't static, and what's true right now may be inoperative tomorrow, so why create an impression in simple minds that can be endlessly criticized if one needs to change approach or opinion? Intelligent people innately understand this, while morons stay chained to stupid zero sum mentalities of their own creation.

That describes you and Trump to a T.

It's obvious why her team has kept her from the press.

Hmmmmmm, who to believe, Mark Cuban or Strawlighter......

demolished her over her interview.

The article sited did nothing of the sort. Why do you insist on gaslighting every single topic? Why not actually READ what was written, not your insipid false spin on a fairly straightforward article.

Reid Epstein did - again - want to hold Harris to a standard no one holds Trump to - expecting details on policies not yet fully formed and then he obliviously noted the reason why Harris might be reticent to boldly promise what she cannot deliver without help.

Ms. Ruhle brought up the elephant in the room: How could any of this happen without Democratic control of the Senate?

This is a key question that hangs over the Harris campaign as Democrats increasingly fear Senator Jon Tester of Montana is in a perilous political situation. If he loses his re-election bid, Democrats would need to flip at least one Republican-held Senate seat to retain control of the chamber - an unlikely prospect given this year's daunting map for the party.

That is an argument she may find herself making to very skeptical Senate Republicans next year if she wins the White House.

It's political malfeasance to offer details when your opponent won't. When you do you create a target for negative ads. Speaking of which, Trump is still running ads that were accurate a year or two ago, but not now. Inflation has dropped from its highs and continues to do so. Unemployment is still near historic lows while his commercials claim its rising and that a recession is just around the corner. He falsely claims that wages are down, when they aren't. Anything of detail that Harris articulates now will only be used against her.

When she says trust her values, most people understand exactly what that means - look at her political life and what she's always placed at the forefront of efforts over decades of public service. No one can say what needs to happen after January 20th because so much can change before then. But America can decide who'd they'd rather have making those important decisions - the candidate whose spent her entire adult life serving the American people or the candidate whose spent his entire life serving himself and his own ego, to the extent he's hawking cheap branded goods simultaneously as he's running for President, blurring all lines between election laws not designed to address for-profit candidates.