Bill Barr Triggers CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, Won’t Back Down on Voting For Trump

[Vambram]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1784038449453928938

Here is a transcript of the exchange:

BARR: So it’s not about me. I think that, that I’ve said this all along. If faced with a choice between two people, neither of which I think should be president, I feel it’s my duty to pick the person who I think would do the least damage to the country. And I think Trump would do less damage than Biden. And I think all this stuff about a threat to democracy, I think the real threat to democracy is the progressive movement. And in the Biden administration.

COLLINS: The Biden administration, or President Biden himself.

BARR: Biden’s, Biden’s support for the progressive agenda.

COLLINS: I think a lot of people hear that. And the case that we just talked about that went before the Supreme Court, essentially, and say, how can you see that and say that Biden is a greater threat to democracy?

BARR: Well, where are we losing our freedoms? We have our freedoms being constrained that they’re being constrained by, the progressive government and, you know, democracy especially, you know, from the Anglosphere democracies, the Five Eyes and so forth. The threats never been for autocratic government on the right.

COLLINS: But how specifically, is Biden threatening democracy?

BARR: The threat to freedom and democracy has always been on the left. It’s the collectivist, socialist, agenda. And that is where we’re losing our freedom. Parents are losing the freedom to control, their children’s education. And, you know, people can’t speak their mind without losing their jobs and things like that. This is worse than the McCarthy era. Where is that coming from? It’s not coming from the right.

COLLINS: Those two things that you just noted there, you believe are worse than a president of the United States trying to subvert the will of the people by overturning the results, no question.

BARR: No, I think I think a country well, all the things together, like we’re not enforcing our borders, we have open borders, we have lawlessness, in our cities, we have regulations coming fast and fierce. So telling people what kind of stoves they can use and what kinds of cars they have to drive and, you know, eliminating cars and and so forth. Yeah, those are those are the threats to democracy.

COLLINS: But but President Biden is not in control of what some school boards across the country.

BARR: He’s using the administrative–

COLLINS: You can make that argument, but.

BARR: He’s making.

COLLINS: How is that the same thing?

BARR: Major changes are being made in our country without without the democratic process. And they’re being made by bureaucrats in these agencies.

COLLINS: You, okay? Pause! You cannot argue that Republicans across the country are not doing that as well. My own hometown. There’s a huge fight at the library over which books kids can read. This is not something that is a single-party fight.

BARR: Do you think there are? Don’t you think there should be some limits on on what people are able to read? I agree, young people.

COLLINS: I just think people look at what you’re saying and they don’t. And maybe, maybe even Republicans who have concerns about what’s happening with school boards or, you know, the culture and don’t maybe abortion, even don’t equate that with with January 6th and Trump’s efforts. When you told him the the election was not stolen and he still went out there and said it was stolen and led a lot of people to believe that they don’t, those things aren’t equal. It feels like a false equivalency.

BARR: Well, I disagree, I think, and I think, the country is much more susceptible to losing freedoms by the excesses of the left, and they have been steadily and that’s clear. People lose their jobs. Kids can’t speak out in the classroom. They have to go along with what the professor says in order to get good grades and so forth. It’s become like Stepford Nation being directed by, the progressive elites.

…
COLLINS: It is what you said recently, which was that, you know, the conduct that was involved with Donald Trump, you said trying to subvert and prevent the progress, the execution of probably the most important process we have, which is the peaceful transfer of power after an election. Name one thing that Biden has done that’s worse than that.

BARR: I think this whole administration is a disaster for the.

COLLINS: Is worse than subverting the peaceful transfer of power.

BARR: Did he succeed?

COLLINS: Only because Vice President Mike pence stood in the way? And now the people who are lining up again say that they will not do what Mike pence did.

BARR: Look, I was very loud and saying, I thought it was a whole the whole episode was shameful. And I’m and I’m very troubled by it. And that’s why it’s not an easy decision. But I think when you have a Hobson’s choice, you have to pick the lesser of two evils.

 

[zippy2006]

Classical liberal argumentation, "But he's mocking you [therefore you ought to disagree with him]."

Classic conservative response, "So? It's not about me."

 

[iluvatar5150]

I originally read the headline as “Bill Burr” and was pretty confused.

 

[iluvatar5150]

FWIW, Trump’s comment about removing “lethargic” was pretty funny.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I've seen a number of these "gotcha" interviews.

The basic premise is, get a conservative to acknowledge some of the more serious flaws of Trump...and then tee up the "oh, so that means you're going to vote for our guy then, right???" kind of follow-up question.

And when the person says that they'll still vote for their own party's candidate (or doesn't intend to vote at all), the interviewer acts all aloof (like they can't fathom why someone would vote for Trump) or makes it seem like the person is being unreasonable.


It's an interview style that I would view as a bit hacky.


For example, it's no secret that some of the more progressive members of the democratic base aren't terribly pleased with Biden's handling of the Gaza situation.

If they were to get stuck on the hot seat and then asked
"yesterday, you said that the war in Gaza was bordering on the genocidal, and that the US and the Biden Administration was complicit due to Biden's ongoing funding of Israel, and that Biden needs to start getting tougher on Netanyahu"
-- correct
"so, do you still intend on voting for Biden over Trump?
-- yes
(gives inauthentic, rehearsed puzzled look for the camera) "so you're saying you'd vote for a guy who you just admitted was complicit in Israel's genocidal activities?"
-- well, there's all these other issues for which the democrats are closer to my position like healthcare, education, and climate....
"...hold on, let's hit the pause button, so you're saying that you think that republicans' refusal to embrace green initiatives is worse than funding a genocide??"


It's basically the flawed premise of "Because we can pinpoint these serious flaws in your party's candidate, the only reasonable thing for you to do is abandon and ignore every other position you have on every other issue, and vote for our guy"

In an alternate reality where someone like a Paul Ryan was running against Bob Menendez for some national office, even with all of the serious charges against Bob Menendez, I can completely understand why Democrats would still want to vote for him over Paul Ryan if that were their only two choices.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Classical liberal argumentation, "But he's mocking you [therefore you ought to disagree with him]."

Classic conservative response, "So? It's not about me."

Modern conservative response: “Let’s vote for the guy who acts as if everything is about himself.”

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Modern conservative response: “Let’s vote for the guy who acts as if everything is about himself.”

But like I was alluding to before, what would you honestly expect Bill Barr's response to be?

If he's a social and fiscal conservative, is he supposed to vote for the other team (who disagrees with him on all of that) simply because the deeply flawed horse that the GOP has hitched their wagon to made fun of him?

I think we need to be somewhat realistic about the nature of two-party politics. In a two-party system "not letting the other side (that disagrees with me on almost everything) win and get all the things they want" is equally important to people as actually liking their own candidate.

Appealing to things like "democracy is at stake" and "democratic norms" in a vague abstract sense (or in the form of generic platitudes)...like Collins was doing... is a textbook case of missing the forest for the trees.



I don't believe for a second that if the shoe was on the other foot, progressives would hold to their own standard on that one.

If there was a sincere (and scandal free) republican, who happened to be against gay marriage, staunchly pro-life, and thought climate change was a hoax, running against an election denying person who liked to occasionally whip their minions up into a frenzy, but was progressive on LGBTQ, Abortion, and Climate... I don't believe for a second that progressives would vote for the GOP candidate in the name of "preserving democracy and democratic norms."


I think the example I provided before is apropos...

There's a federal election, the two choices are Paul Ryan and Bob Menendez... who are progressives voting for? The guy who agrees with them on the majority of the issues, who's under investigation for bribery, extortion, and wire fraud? Or the scandal-free Tea Party guy who opposes them on virtually every issue?

We both know the answer to that, right?

 

[iluvatar5150]

But like I was alluding to before, what would you honestly expect Bill Barr's response to be?

I don’t have a problem with Barr’s response. I disagree with him, but if the rest of the Republican party were that reasonable, we’d be in a better place.

I think the interviewer is a hack.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don’t have a problem with Barr’s response. I disagree with him, but if the rest of the Republican party were that reasonable, we’d be in a better place.

I think the interviewer is a hack.

Well, obviously... Reasonable is always preferable to unreasonable.

But Collins isn't unique in their approach to the "box them into a corner" style of questioning... that kind of stuff is happening even in non-interview settings...just in casual conversation.

This notion that because people can snip out sound bytes and/or zero in on flaws about "the other guy", and that's somehow supposed to pressure people from the other team into voting for the other side is a premise/expectation that's absurd on its face.

Not sure who remembers some of the details of this particular election that took place:

1991 Louisiana gubernatorial election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I was just barely old enough to remember some of the details of it since I was in elementary school at the time.

But the slogan of that election was
"Vote For The Crook: It's Important."

At least people were being honest (in a tongue-in-cheek way) about the realities of a two-party system lol.

For example:
If someone prioritizes universal healthcare as their number #1 issue, it's a red line issue for them, and a deal breaker. Doesn't matter what the Democratic candidate is being charged with or suspected of doing in another realm, they should vote for the Democrat. A Democrat who happens to be being charged with a heinous crime is still more likely to represent their interests more than a clean cut crime-free GOP candidate who's in bed with the fossil fuel industry.

A person who prioritizes pro-choice values above all else should vote for a Democrat who runs dog fights in their basement before they vote for Ted Cruz.

All I'm saying, is that logic applies and is valid in the opposite direction as well.

I think the disconnect happens when people don't respect the fact that some people can be just as passionate about the opposing side of an issue that they find important. As an example: For every one person who is deeply passionate about restricting guns, there's another person who's just as passionate about preserving gun rights. Neither has an obligation to vote against their own interests simply because a party decided to cling to an idiot.

 

[Hank77]

If he's a social and fiscal conservative, is he supposed to vote for the other team (who disagrees with him on all of that) simply because the deeply flawed horse that the GOP has hitched their wagon to made fun of him?

Collins' response was so childish. How could he possibly vote for the person he thinks is better if that person made fun of him? She sounded like a high school girl.

 

[Pommer]

Collins' response was so childish. How could he possibly vote for the person he thinks is better if that person made fun of him? She sounded like a high school girl.

“Dear future Chief Justice Barr, I might say mean things about you but we’re tight, right?” was probably never typed by anyone before this.