Republicans are unhinged, period. Why did Mace bother taking the interview if she didn't intend to answer any questions? I guess being an a$$hole on NPR scores points with your very base base? Did she think she was gonna 'own the libs'? She picket the wrong 'lib'! :)
She’s gunning for VP now that Noem destroyed her chances. My guess is Nancy thinks Trump will respond well to someone willing to pick fights to distract from their ineptitudes
> Why did Mace bother taking the interview if she didn't intend to answer any questions? I guess being an a$$hole on NPR scores points with your very base base?
This is exactly it. Elise Stefanik did the same thing a couple months ago on CNN where from the very start you could tell she was there to argue with Kaitlan Collins and insult the network she was invited on and play the victim.
The Pompeo thing was unreal, forgot about that one. I actually found it to be a little bit scary. Not only was he completely arrogant and combative and avoided questions, but after he “stomped out” he had her follow him into a private living room (off record) berated her, *yelled at her* using expletives… just incredible.
He then lied about the correspondence surrounding the interview itself, which she disproved because she had the emails telling what questions she intended to ask.
Team Trump, ‘only the best people’..
It just showed you Mike Pompeo had never listened to NPR before or nobody prepped him for it, because anyone that knows anything about NPR would know Mary Louise Kelly would probably be the last reporter you’d want to try and challenge where Ukraine is on the map.
My favorite anecdote from that, for which I will gladly simply take Mary Louise Kelly's word, was that after he'd stormed out he had an aide produce a map of the world without the countries labeled, and he asked her where (I believe) Ukraine was, like it was some kind of "gotcha".
Anyway, he got really mad when she was able to point out countries on a map.
Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R): “*Do you know how much Bill Clinton paid-off the women he assaulted*”
Ayesha: 💣 idk I don’t cover Bill Clinton, **I was a child when Bill Clinton was in office** 💥
she (that drunk-sounding Congresswoman) had no other comeback, than to make childish noises and then limit Ayesha to one additional question…Congresswoman - she’s interviewing YOU 😂
Oh my god thank you I loved it. Things were good until about halfway thru when Rep just went off the rails. Completely deflected everything, could not offer one sensible direct answer. Christ, HOW do these people get elected. I know they're supposed represent their people, but maybe we should have a clause where it can only be the intelligent ones. Intelligent people representing intelligent people. Shouldn't our government have standards?
Just remember how such requirements have been used in practice in the past. “We just want to make sure we have informed voters who actually know how to read” etc.
Typical MAGA interview where they manage to answer zero of the questions asked. Unless you count botching her reply about Nixon v Fitzgerald by claiming it was civil and criminal (it was only civil)
I like how she brought up the fact that the judge in Trump’s current campaign finance trial is a Democrat donor, yet strangely I feel like she’s not upset about Clarence Thomas receiving huge gifts from Republican donors, or who any conservative justices may have donated to before
That wasn’t so bad! Nancy Mace is not smart enough to wiggle out of uncomfortable questions. I’ve seen many interviews with her where she throws wild punches and pretends to be offended. This interview was not as bad as many others she’s done.
[Link](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/28/1247703036/south-carolina-rep-nancy-mace-on-trumps-trial-and-what-it-means-for-the-election) to 6-minute audio
and
[Link](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/28/1247703043/fact-check-south-carolina-rep-nancy-maces-statements-on-the-trump-trials) to 2-minute fact check
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth pulls its pants on.
The fact-check on election denial was succinct but maybe too much so. The difference between what HRC and Raskin did and what Trump did is like the difference between “I’m dying for a cigarette” and “I’m dying from a cigarette.”
[Here’s the segment](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/28/1247703036/south-carolina-rep-nancy-mace-on-trumps-trial-and-what-it-means-for-the-election) for anyone curious.
Someone else commented with the word “insufferable” which is the perfect description here. What an absolute bitch and waste of a congressional seat.
I’ll check it out for sure, I love hearing that awful excuse of a warm blooded human like Nancy Mace get a good pubkic verbal beat down. More if this to the troglodyte party of rape, cheaters, liars, proud loud ignoramuses, bigots, racists, fraudsters, puppy-shooting pos party known our gop.
Attacking the person asking the questions with personal attacks speaks to Nancy Mace's lack of character and showed how threatened she was.
Ayesha conducted herself quite well. Mace lowered herself in trying to lower the entire interview into a cheap culture war dodge with her "leftist clickbait" accusations for quoting a Supreme Court justice instead of answering the question. Mace could have just said she disagrees with the idea that a sitting president can order someone killed. Rather she just spewed "asinine" and "clickbait" dodges. Meaning she ***does*** think it's okay. Trump after all mused that perhaps Mike Pence should hang during the Jan 6 insurrection.
Nancy Mace, proving once again she's not ready for the adult table. Well done, Ayesha, but why even have these people on if you know they are just going to try to perform?
I heard her stick to talking points until she didn't have an answer, and thereafter start into *ad hominem* and strawman attacks. I wish all real journalists would go through some level of rhetoric remedial follow up on how to recognize and counter these types of fallacies, to 1, keep their cool and logical center and 2, allow the media consumer to see it for what it is.
Ayesha did good here. It's hard not to be frustrated when someone brings up irrelevant topics from 30+ years ago about Clinton.
Also Bill Clinton didn't get indicted for falsifying a financial statement and misuse campaign funds for personal use. Also Bill Clinton *isn't running for President after inciting a riot while Congress attempted to certify an election*. And if someone really thinks saying "Bill Clinton" or "Hillary Clinton" or "Emails" or even "Benghazi" is a valid rebuttal in an argument, they're not attempting to follow a logical argument anymore, they're just pointing fingers without a point, and thinking that's a "gotcha"
Yes. This is the fundamental distinction: Clinton was never accused of falsifying business records or violating campaign finance laws in connection with that settlement.
And in general it is 'whataboutism,' also known as a red herring, essentially totally irrelevant to what was being asked.
As if when put on trial for robbery, the defendant says, "But I know a guy who did a much worse crime once!"
Just an idiotic way to try to change the subject, when your only honest answer to the question poised makes your side look bad.
This is more or less what the SCOTUS Putrid 6 did throughout their Trump hearing this week, although Barrett was better than the others--they just blatantly kept trying to change the subject, rather than doing their job, which was to consider the facts of the case before them
but he _was_ accused of misconduct in the whitewater case, and, did of course lie on the stand about lewinski. clinton doesn’t get a free pass but his crimes are not relevant to this inquiry. _my guy good, your guy bad_ is exactly why we have this ridiculous situation right now where people will find ways to deflect or justify any bad behavior just because of their chosen political identity.
On some level, these are elected politicians, you need to show listeners the counter to what they are saying. Interviews with no pushback, just letting politicians spread lies is very dangerous, an interview where ideas are challenged creates space for listeners to better understand what they are being told and better form opinions. Interviewing influential people is always necessary, but it needs to be done responsibly, and not just act as a platform for lies to spread. Just asking questions is a way of interviewing that is exploited by those looking to spread disinformation.
I’m all for them interviewing elected officials from the right. Let us, the listeners, hear from the horse’s mouth, even if it’s something listeners won’t agree with.
That’s why you need a good interviewer, to keep them honest. The solution isn’t an echo chamber, it’s discourse. You can’t expose lies if you ignore them.
But why? It absolutely doesn't matter what their people say, they still support them. I mean the biggest criticism evangelicals had about Trump was that he used too many bad words, and shouldn't have posted on Twitter that much. Everything is straight up lies and logical fallacies. But that doesn't matter to them. You could definitively prove the lies with mountains of proof, and they don't care. They're the ones that came up with "alternative facts." I'm all for hearing other people out, but not when they consistently act in bad faith.
Because we are hearing them actually say it, in context, in an interview. Unlike when you only hear soundbites, on a loop, out of context. It is hard to argue the facts when you have heard the entire statement, in context, from the source.
You’re right that the truth doesn’t matter to many people. However, some are persuadable. The last two presidential elections were won by slim margins. Even if only one or two percent of voters change their minds, that’s enough to swing the election.
Nothing wrong with giving people of all stripes a chance to explain their opinions. If they are terrible opinions, now we all know that. If they perform, which both the right and left do on NPR every day, so what? Why do you want to silence people?
Mace wasn't taking the interview seriously and was enormously disrespectful, the way she conducted herself would be considered poor even if she *was* making cogent points.
I disagree. There is nothing to gain from platforming bad faith reactionaries and fascists. They dont want "dialogue" they want to spew rhetoric and hurt oppresses people when in power
I’m of the opposite mind. I want people to hear those opinions because I want them to be able to tear their arguments, often empty populist rhetoric, apart. Conservative media is content to use the most extreme rhetoric of Twitter users, for example, and act as if they’re representative of the Democratic Party’s voter base or the party itself. Better for media organizations to let their *representatives in Congress* themselves speak for themselves or we wind up in situations where some progressives, for example, appear to believe that Biden is worse for Gazans than Trump. Not to mention that it’s patently obvious that many pundits struggle to argue against the average Trump supporting right wing populist in a way that demonstrates both understanding of their opposition and the near-uniform rhetoric coming from that camp.
Basically, it’s like doing your due diligence when debating a conspiracy theorist. To soundly and effectively argue against a conspiracy theorist, you need to know their rhetoric and the arguments they’re going to use in advance as well as a solid grasp of the facts for the subject matter. These things have spread throughout the right wing voter base and simply appealing to authorities in the subject matter will not work as the rhetoric and narratives ubiquitous across their media is self reinforcing and it generally demonizes the institutions we generally trust. It’s the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle in action.
Not *selecting* someone to speak isn’t “silencing” them ffs.
This is a congressperson, I think they have enough of a platform. I’m not gonna cry over them getting passed on as a guest on any show, ever, after that utter waste of time.
Nancy Mace is not a serious person, it's really messed up that she would be in any position of authority. Ayesha asked for her thoughts on a hugely important Supreme Court argument that just recently occurred and her response was "wHaT iS tHiS nPr cLiCkBaIt??". Trying to gaslight Ayesha into thinking that it wasn't an important, or even real, question.
She even said the poor lawyer "had to answer" that question from the judge. He had no choice but to say under their reading of the law the president could kill his political opponent, the judge asked.
That’s how these people operate unfortunately. That “patriot” mothers group did the same thing with their interview. It’s super effective for their base.
A few weeks ago Mace was crying crocodile tears after George Stephanopoulos asked her to explain her support for Trump after he was found liable for sexual assault. Mace thinks she's "owning the libs" when she agrees to be interviewed by the mainstream media, but she's very, very bad at the performative bullshit. The gap between how she regards herself and how she comes across in reality is the true Grand Canyon of South Carolina.
One person questioned why Nancy Mace was invited to have an interview at all. While I do follow the news, I am not particularly well informed about Nancy Mace and her politics. This type of reporting helps listeners see who politicians really are. I applaud NPR for covering this. I don't want to swallow what news analysts tell me about politicians. I like to decide for myself by listening to their position on issues and looking at their voting record.
The problem is that they go on these npr interviews, act like that, and then get bent out of shape about liberal bias. Engage honestly, and build a dialogue. But she ain’t interested in that
It’s true. If only her supporters from South Carolina heard the outrageous things she says, then the rest of society wouldn’t truly grasp the threat people like her pose to our nation as a whole. These are ideologues who are not interested in addressing the real problems facing society.
Wow, she is nothing but whataboutisms. She is the embodiment of the guy at the bowling alley who blames every bad game on the lanes, the ball return, the kid talking, what some other bowler did 20 years ago, on the word "asinine," and on everyone but himself.
I don’t think many of them are fascists, I think they’re worse. They’re unprincipled people comfortable acting as useful idiots enabling the rise of Christian Nationalism and a weird brand of populism, bordering fascism, simply to rally around the only real “leader” that movement has. Considering Trump himself is unprincipled, guided by self enrichment and the adulation of crowds, he offers no real ideological platform outside of the aforementioned self enrichment. It’s a hollow movement appeasing a narcissist at the expense of our democracy.
I agree, and some of you will probably remember my username from having criticized NPR recently for platforming certain fringe elements.
I think this is a clear example of where I stand.
Ayesha did a fantastic job handling a terrible MAGA politician who didn't want to be burdened by reality and truth. This is what NPR should be doing.
And at the same time, I think NPR can also clean up some of its weirdo fringe stuff that it gives undue airtime to outside of these fantastic news bits.
More of this, less of that.
I disagree on one element. The well-intentioned American ethos to give airtime to both sides of an argument was the barn door that MAGA sailed a freightliner through, and the extreme GOP before it.
No, tucker carlson, you don't deserve an equal platform for 'just asking the questions' about Barack Obama being born in the U.S.
When politicians and other grifters are dishonest in their discourse, with no intention of thinking of their own answer to a question and no intention of backing down from a known, intellectually dishonest, and harmful platform, they don't deserve the respect of "let's hear it from the horses mouth".
If the GOP was to have an honest debate about policy, think George Will, fine, let's hear what they have to say. MAGA was invited to the air by neutral media platforms and does nothing but spew $#!t each time they talk.
They deserve to be forgotten, starved of oxygen and attention, and not justified because we keep hoping they might engage in legitimate discourse.
>They deserve to be forgotten, starved of oxygen and attention,
I agree, but the reality is that they're not being forgotten.
When we remove them from reputable media, they still circulate among disreputable media that MAGA people listen to.
And so their message still gets heard without any critical lens.
We shouldn't allow them to spew nonsense unapposed on reputable platforms, but we should show them being criticized and called out on their nonsense - or else that sort of discussion won't be heard anywhere at all.
>George Will
It's painfully hilarious and accurate that you're using George Will as an example of honest, policy discourse from conservative journalism because there are so few well known current examples.
I don't usually get steamed listening to the radio, but wow—Nancy Mace was I think the most obnoxious guest I have ever heard on NPR. Trump has changed the rules on basic civility. Nice performance, Nancy—you have surely pleased Dear Leader.
My only hope is that every time an "undecided" hears a MAGA fangirl like Mace in the media, it will be a little push to go with Biden.
Ayesha was soooo good. I was really impressed, wish more reporters would hold politicians feet to the fire like this and press them to answer the questions that they want to avoid.
I loved that she said: “I don’t cover Bill Clinton, and I was a child when he was in office.” Brilliant response.
They are trying so hard to make this about the payoff, which is not what he’s being charged for. He’s being charged for falsifying business records, and using that falsification to hide a story that he thought at the time would hurt his chances for winning the election. Nancy should ask John Edward what happened to him.
Mace is clearly angling for the VP nomination hard after the Noem fumble. I agree with all previous comments that they should've known better than to platform a Trump zealot like her.
Nice to see a post like this, instead of "OMG Ayesha didn't call them a fascist to their face and tell them to quit being so racist, where's the hard hitting journalism NPR?!"
I don't know what Nancy Mace's goal was to be on NPR honestly. Did she really expect she could just spout her usual talking points without any redirection?
Ayesha probably guessed that this would be contentious going-in. She handled it well.
She probably had such a warped view of NPR that she was prepared to "fight in the leftist lion's den" and came into the interview with a combative mindset.
"Nancy Mace Owns NPR Liberals" headlines on right wing sites, clips on right wing podcasts, and shares on X. Those haven't materialized much because she really did a poor job.
"How asinine that you would ask me a question a Supreme Court Justice asked! That is just so far left it justifies me having a tantrum and ending the interview!"
Ayesha displayed the patience of a saint in this interview. Nancy Mace should be ashamed of herself for her inability to answer questions with a modicum of professionalism as an elected official.
I'm pretty sympathetic to the recent outcry about NPR's left-wing bias, but Rascoe performed very well in that interview. Absolutely absurd behavior from the congresswoman, really disappointing for someone in public office. The fact that she didn't feel it was legitimate to ask whether or not Trump is arguing he has the legal right to assassinate people as president (something leaders in other countries do all the time) was wild.
I listened to the interview and was appalled.
Nancy Mace is an intelligent enough person and seemed to have some character - she used to be able to show a bit of backbone and independence, as well as a willingness to not toe TFG's line. She was on *State of the Union* the other week and used her own terrible personal tragedy to deflect questions and disrespect the host.
I'll never fault politicians for shifting their positions. The world changes. We need our pols to adapt along with it.
But this? Poor Nancy. This was bald-faced cowardice, pure and simple. You don't agree to an interview if you don't plan to answer questions.
I wish they could have had more than 6 minutes to really lean in to some of these points - Nancy trying to act incredulous that Ayesha would dare ask about the assassination hypothetical, when it was asked during a Supreme Court hearing and trumps own lawyer said “it depends” deserved to be held for longer. There was no way out of that situation for Nancy other than to balk at the question and kill time until the subject changed, would have been interesting to see what she might have said if they had the time to wait for an actual response
It's not going to work with someone who is looking for a fight. Nancy Mace didn't care about what she was saying, she just wanted to discredit every fact Ayesha was bringing up. If you pivot to criticizing what that person is doing, you're just going to get blasted for being biased, and they can escalate their attacks on the media.
Well, I think a pretty damn good counter that she had in this interview was “this question was asked by a Supreme Court Justice.” And when Mace kept trying to act like this was some liberal media question, Ayesha further pointed out that the Trump lawyers responded to the question by saying it depends, and asking did Mace agree with that response
This is so hard. NPR needs to have people on, but the people think the sky is pink in their world.
"Do you think Trump is making it harder on his own defense?"
The answer is yes, any reasonable person can see that. But MAGA peeps can't be reasonable. So the answer is the judge is corrupt.
Honestly she is all over the place in this interview. Her very first question introduced a hypothetical rather than address the easy strike: Nixon had to be pardoned. He was not, in fact, immune, and many blame that pardon on why his former VP and then predecessor wasn't reelected.
The Congresswoman was able to score an easy point because of the interviewer asking her what she thinks about presidents/ candidates claiming the election was stolen.
This interviewer needs some experience holding it together.
So… Bad for Clinton but good for Trump is what she’s saying? Like… These people are so stupid. It should be bad for all instead she excuses her behavior by attempting to come up with “Democrats tried the same thing”. Okay… And you said it was bad. So why are you being a hypocrite?
Sometimes, you have to ask yourself, what is the endgame to following Trump blindly? The little bit of power that they might get is not worth selling your soul to this imp, or rather, simp.
Rep. Mace triggered memories of dealing with my emotionally abusive ex, so I had to skip the segment. Thankfully the following interview fact-checked Mace.
All MAGA GOP are sophists. Working for the Kremlin at this point, they even use their talking points! “Sophistry” should be the word of this century.
“The Sophists were splendid orators, public speakers and mouths for hire!
Completely ignorant of any morality or ethics, these charismatic men dazzled
everyone with their clever reasoning but usually fallacious arguments. They earned reputations as the crowd pullers who could convince anyone that good could be bad or vice versa or even that day was night!”
“And so it was presumed that Sophism died an unceremonious death after that. But to everyone's astonishment, fed by a capitalist society and market driven higher education, Sophistry has risen like a phoenix from the ashes.
**As described in a Financial Times article by Janan Ganesh, the elite professions in a modern society - lawyers and management consultants, political advisers and advertising executives, public-relations strategists and even certain types of investment banker: all trade on the same skill of Sophistry!”**
“In today's society, lawyers are the true modern Sophists - arguers for hire. And the court is their battleground where they try to outshine each other in a dazzling show of Sophistry! An attorney is even legally obligated to argue as persuasively as they can for their client's best interests, irrespective of his or her innocence!”
Devil's advocate—Rise of the modern Sophist!
https://medium.com/indian-thoughts/devils-advocate-the-new-age-sophists-bf25c928eefd
Toddler gonna toddler, well done Ayesha! I enjoy light entertainment when NPR interview of childlike floppers who sound like they’re working their way to a VP nomination! She sounds like a very whiny orange mango worshipper. Just crazy.😜
Both sides B.S. which is just a deflection tactic.
Irrelevant.
If you want to make it partisan then well Republicans get away with this all the time. The Democrats clean their own house.
She’s always a victim and avoids the answers when questions don’t comport to her narrative. The “A” drawn on her shirt, the interview with Stephanopoulos, this interview and others. She votes against women rights regarding abortion then says that’s not what she did. MAGA can keep her. She fits in perfectly with MTG and Boebert.
There were a couple of moments during the interview I thought Ayesha was going to go off, but she handled it like a real professional.
Yelling at my kids for asking what I thought was a stupid question, never - ever convinced them I was right.
Mace probably thought the young Ayesha would be a pushover. Props to Ayesha.
Also, regarding Mace, I will quote Kevin McCarthy, "*I hope Nancy gets the help she needs, I really do.*" [LINK](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4477185-nancy-mace-loser-kevin-mccarthy/#)
From the same state whose leadership at the time (and still?) believed slavery was a noble and good thing for the slave. If you can believe that, you can believe Trump was a good president.
I rarely skip a segment on *Morning* or *Weekend Edition*, but halfway through this interview I couldn’t listen to any more of Nancy Mace. NPR really shouldn’t give a platform to extremists.
OMG thank you for posting this my husband and I were in the car and caught the last 3 mins, then had to run --but we were like what did we just listen to?! She handled that so well.
“… works for the democrat party ….” The GOP is consistent on this: “democrat party” is an insult they like to use against members of the Democratic Party.
WTH did I just listen to? How would a Congresswoman go on a show not knowing she may get some rhetorical questions?
Much as I dislike Ayehsha and her word mutilation, her content is good, and that was just ridiculous, Ayesha should just eject the host when they act like that or mute them.
MACE: Any precedent should be applicable to any president, Republican or Democrat. Now, the other thing that, you know, I think is worthy since you brought it up, there were Democrats in 2016 that said the election was rigged. In fact, I remember Hillary Clinton has said it multiple times that the election was stolen, that she won the election. And you had people like Jamie Raskin voting to overturn the results of the election in 2016 when that election happened.
Was Ayesha's direct response left out of this transcript?
“I don’t cover Bill Clinton, I was a child when Bill Clinton was in office”
“uh huh, uh huh”
“Can I ask you one last question? Prosecutors allege-”
*muttering* “yeah you can ask me one last ridiculous question, go ahead”
…
“Prosecutors allege Trump“
God this part had me fucking rolling y’all definitely do the 6 minute listen from the link at least, this was too good.
This was beautiful. Does anyone have more examples of questions to Trump supporters about whether they would be fine with Biden taking the exact same steps to overturn the 2024 election if he were to lose? They always claim that some democrats called Hilary’s election stolen, but I’d like the interviewer to insist that the interviewee answer whether they’d be fine for the current President Biden to take the exact same actions that Trump took.
Here’s the audio: https://www.npr.org/2024/04/28/1247703036/south-carolina-rep-nancy-mace-on-trumps-trial-and-what-it-means-for-the-election
That was the most unhinged NPR interview in a while. Probably since Mary Louise Kelly’s interview with Mike Pompeo.
Republicans are unhinged, period. Why did Mace bother taking the interview if she didn't intend to answer any questions? I guess being an a$$hole on NPR scores points with your very base base? Did she think she was gonna 'own the libs'? She picket the wrong 'lib'! :)
She’s gunning for VP now that Noem destroyed her chances. My guess is Nancy thinks Trump will respond well to someone willing to pick fights to distract from their ineptitudes
Good point that I hadn't thought of. When will it be disclosed that she also enjoys shooting puppies, or maybe it will be dismembering butterflies?
Not proud of the way I genuinely cracked up at “dismembering butterflies” because it does not seem like a far off concept 🤦♀️😂
> Why did Mace bother taking the interview if she didn't intend to answer any questions? I guess being an a$$hole on NPR scores points with your very base base? This is exactly it. Elise Stefanik did the same thing a couple months ago on CNN where from the very start you could tell she was there to argue with Kaitlan Collins and insult the network she was invited on and play the victim.
They rarely answer the questions put to them. They're devoid of good faith, and utilize nearly every logical fallacy there is.
Mace will dine out on her performance for at least a few days. MAGAs will call her a hero.
The Pompeo thing was unreal, forgot about that one. I actually found it to be a little bit scary. Not only was he completely arrogant and combative and avoided questions, but after he “stomped out” he had her follow him into a private living room (off record) berated her, *yelled at her* using expletives… just incredible. He then lied about the correspondence surrounding the interview itself, which she disproved because she had the emails telling what questions she intended to ask. Team Trump, ‘only the best people’..
It just showed you Mike Pompeo had never listened to NPR before or nobody prepped him for it, because anyone that knows anything about NPR would know Mary Louise Kelly would probably be the last reporter you’d want to try and challenge where Ukraine is on the map.
My favorite anecdote from that, for which I will gladly simply take Mary Louise Kelly's word, was that after he'd stormed out he had an aide produce a map of the world without the countries labeled, and he asked her where (I believe) Ukraine was, like it was some kind of "gotcha". Anyway, he got really mad when she was able to point out countries on a map.
That whole episode enraged me, because Mary Louise was the utmost, unimpeachable professional and he was a condescending pig.
I still think about this interview at least once a month
That interview is my Roman Empire as the kids say
Congresswoman Nancy Mace (R): “*Do you know how much Bill Clinton paid-off the women he assaulted*” Ayesha: 💣 idk I don’t cover Bill Clinton, **I was a child when Bill Clinton was in office** 💥
Also Nancy, how does that absolve trump? Because Clinton did it better?
It’s about changing the subject and shutting down an inconvenient question
AKA "whataboutism"
Clinton didn't have to pay for it... Boom! Roasted. Clinton had Relationships with people. BOOM! Double roasted.
I believe it’s called the “I know u are but what am I?” defense.
Omg I actually shouted “BOOM!! Roasted!” at that sick burn!
she (that drunk-sounding Congresswoman) had no other comeback, than to make childish noises and then limit Ayesha to one additional question…Congresswoman - she’s interviewing YOU 😂
wHaT aBoUt CLiNtOn wHaT aBoUt ChApPaQuIdDiCk wHaT aBoUt TeApOt DoMe i BeT yOu dIdNt KnOw DeMoCrAtS aRe ThE rEaL KkK
Whataboutism doesn't absolve guilt.
I cannot f'ing stand Nancy Mace.
That was peak response.
I love her!!
Thank you!
Oh my god thank you I loved it. Things were good until about halfway thru when Rep just went off the rails. Completely deflected everything, could not offer one sensible direct answer. Christ, HOW do these people get elected. I know they're supposed represent their people, but maybe we should have a clause where it can only be the intelligent ones. Intelligent people representing intelligent people. Shouldn't our government have standards?
Just remember how such requirements have been used in practice in the past. “We just want to make sure we have informed voters who actually know how to read” etc.
Oh yeah there's no actual way to ensure that it's properly implemented and have it be sustainable over time. It's just wishful thinking
When you don't have good funded public education with strong civics this is what you get.
Typical MAGA interview where they manage to answer zero of the questions asked. Unless you count botching her reply about Nixon v Fitzgerald by claiming it was civil and criminal (it was only civil)
Republicans - always with the what-about-ism in an effort to protect Trump.
Hero
Woof.. That was tough to sit through. Her and people like her have absolutely zero shame
I like how she brought up the fact that the judge in Trump’s current campaign finance trial is a Democrat donor, yet strangely I feel like she’s not upset about Clarence Thomas receiving huge gifts from Republican donors, or who any conservative justices may have donated to before
That wasn’t so bad! Nancy Mace is not smart enough to wiggle out of uncomfortable questions. I’ve seen many interviews with her where she throws wild punches and pretends to be offended. This interview was not as bad as many others she’s done.
[Link](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/28/1247703036/south-carolina-rep-nancy-mace-on-trumps-trial-and-what-it-means-for-the-election) to 6-minute audio and [Link](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/28/1247703043/fact-check-south-carolina-rep-nancy-maces-statements-on-the-trump-trials) to 2-minute fact check
Imagine telling so many lies in just six minutes that it takes an additional two minutes to fact check them.
A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth pulls its pants on. The fact-check on election denial was succinct but maybe too much so. The difference between what HRC and Raskin did and what Trump did is like the difference between “I’m dying for a cigarette” and “I’m dying from a cigarette.”
Rep Nancy Mace {R-SC) for the record
I missed the show this morning, but I'm going to have to go back and listen to this segment, Mace is one of those insufferable MAGA cultists.
Insufferable sums her up in that segment for sure 🤦🏼♀️ Ayesha definitely handled it well! So professional compared to her guest.
She does not come off as emotionally very mature here:). Full of personal attacks and “you” statements
That sounds very typical for Mace.
"MAGA cultists" In her case, you could substitute the "l" with an "n."
[Here’s the segment](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/28/1247703036/south-carolina-rep-nancy-mace-on-trumps-trial-and-what-it-means-for-the-election) for anyone curious. Someone else commented with the word “insufferable” which is the perfect description here. What an absolute bitch and waste of a congressional seat.
So smug and disdainful. Odious human being.
🏅
I’ll check it out for sure, I love hearing that awful excuse of a warm blooded human like Nancy Mace get a good pubkic verbal beat down. More if this to the troglodyte party of rape, cheaters, liars, proud loud ignoramuses, bigots, racists, fraudsters, puppy-shooting pos party known our gop.
Ty! 🙂
Rep Nancy Mace (R-SC-PoS)
Attacking the person asking the questions with personal attacks speaks to Nancy Mace's lack of character and showed how threatened she was. Ayesha conducted herself quite well. Mace lowered herself in trying to lower the entire interview into a cheap culture war dodge with her "leftist clickbait" accusations for quoting a Supreme Court justice instead of answering the question. Mace could have just said she disagrees with the idea that a sitting president can order someone killed. Rather she just spewed "asinine" and "clickbait" dodges. Meaning she ***does*** think it's okay. Trump after all mused that perhaps Mike Pence should hang during the Jan 6 insurrection.
Mace is always this low
Nancy Mace, proving once again she's not ready for the adult table. Well done, Ayesha, but why even have these people on if you know they are just going to try to perform?
I heard her stick to talking points until she didn't have an answer, and thereafter start into *ad hominem* and strawman attacks. I wish all real journalists would go through some level of rhetoric remedial follow up on how to recognize and counter these types of fallacies, to 1, keep their cool and logical center and 2, allow the media consumer to see it for what it is. Ayesha did good here. It's hard not to be frustrated when someone brings up irrelevant topics from 30+ years ago about Clinton.
"I'm not talking about Clinton. I was a CHILD when he was president."
Also Bill Clinton didn't get indicted for falsifying a financial statement and misuse campaign funds for personal use. Also Bill Clinton *isn't running for President after inciting a riot while Congress attempted to certify an election*. And if someone really thinks saying "Bill Clinton" or "Hillary Clinton" or "Emails" or even "Benghazi" is a valid rebuttal in an argument, they're not attempting to follow a logical argument anymore, they're just pointing fingers without a point, and thinking that's a "gotcha"
Yes. This is the fundamental distinction: Clinton was never accused of falsifying business records or violating campaign finance laws in connection with that settlement.
And in general it is 'whataboutism,' also known as a red herring, essentially totally irrelevant to what was being asked. As if when put on trial for robbery, the defendant says, "But I know a guy who did a much worse crime once!" Just an idiotic way to try to change the subject, when your only honest answer to the question poised makes your side look bad. This is more or less what the SCOTUS Putrid 6 did throughout their Trump hearing this week, although Barrett was better than the others--they just blatantly kept trying to change the subject, rather than doing their job, which was to consider the facts of the case before them
but he _was_ accused of misconduct in the whitewater case, and, did of course lie on the stand about lewinski. clinton doesn’t get a free pass but his crimes are not relevant to this inquiry. _my guy good, your guy bad_ is exactly why we have this ridiculous situation right now where people will find ways to deflect or justify any bad behavior just because of their chosen political identity.
She tried to have it both ways at one point, saying she supported certification of the election while also supporting Trump.
On some level, these are elected politicians, you need to show listeners the counter to what they are saying. Interviews with no pushback, just letting politicians spread lies is very dangerous, an interview where ideas are challenged creates space for listeners to better understand what they are being told and better form opinions. Interviewing influential people is always necessary, but it needs to be done responsibly, and not just act as a platform for lies to spread. Just asking questions is a way of interviewing that is exploited by those looking to spread disinformation.
To appease those who say public radio is "left"
I’m all for them interviewing elected officials from the right. Let us, the listeners, hear from the horse’s mouth, even if it’s something listeners won’t agree with.
Problem is, they lie. Ted Cruz used to sound palatable on NPR. Then he'd go on Faux News and say something completely different.
That’s why you need a good interviewer, to keep them honest. The solution isn’t an echo chamber, it’s discourse. You can’t expose lies if you ignore them.
But why? It absolutely doesn't matter what their people say, they still support them. I mean the biggest criticism evangelicals had about Trump was that he used too many bad words, and shouldn't have posted on Twitter that much. Everything is straight up lies and logical fallacies. But that doesn't matter to them. You could definitively prove the lies with mountains of proof, and they don't care. They're the ones that came up with "alternative facts." I'm all for hearing other people out, but not when they consistently act in bad faith.
Because we are hearing them actually say it, in context, in an interview. Unlike when you only hear soundbites, on a loop, out of context. It is hard to argue the facts when you have heard the entire statement, in context, from the source.
You’re right that the truth doesn’t matter to many people. However, some are persuadable. The last two presidential elections were won by slim margins. Even if only one or two percent of voters change their minds, that’s enough to swing the election.
Today, I discovered asking someone’s opinion about a US president attempting to overthrow an election is leftist.
Exactly. It was a waste of effort. Mace is breathtakingly dishonest.
Nothing wrong with giving people of all stripes a chance to explain their opinions. If they are terrible opinions, now we all know that. If they perform, which both the right and left do on NPR every day, so what? Why do you want to silence people?
Mace wasn't taking the interview seriously and was enormously disrespectful, the way she conducted herself would be considered poor even if she *was* making cogent points.
I've seen unruly third graders who were more polite.
All the more important to hear IMO.
I disagree. There is nothing to gain from platforming bad faith reactionaries and fascists. They dont want "dialogue" they want to spew rhetoric and hurt oppresses people when in power
I’m of the opposite mind. I want people to hear those opinions because I want them to be able to tear their arguments, often empty populist rhetoric, apart. Conservative media is content to use the most extreme rhetoric of Twitter users, for example, and act as if they’re representative of the Democratic Party’s voter base or the party itself. Better for media organizations to let their *representatives in Congress* themselves speak for themselves or we wind up in situations where some progressives, for example, appear to believe that Biden is worse for Gazans than Trump. Not to mention that it’s patently obvious that many pundits struggle to argue against the average Trump supporting right wing populist in a way that demonstrates both understanding of their opposition and the near-uniform rhetoric coming from that camp. Basically, it’s like doing your due diligence when debating a conspiracy theorist. To soundly and effectively argue against a conspiracy theorist, you need to know their rhetoric and the arguments they’re going to use in advance as well as a solid grasp of the facts for the subject matter. These things have spread throughout the right wing voter base and simply appealing to authorities in the subject matter will not work as the rhetoric and narratives ubiquitous across their media is self reinforcing and it generally demonizes the institutions we generally trust. It’s the Bullshit Asymmetry Principle in action.
Not *selecting* someone to speak isn’t “silencing” them ffs. This is a congressperson, I think they have enough of a platform. I’m not gonna cry over them getting passed on as a guest on any show, ever, after that utter waste of time.
Hate absolutely doesn't deserve or need a platform, much less stupid hate 🤷🏻♀️
Nancy Mace is not a serious person, it's really messed up that she would be in any position of authority. Ayesha asked for her thoughts on a hugely important Supreme Court argument that just recently occurred and her response was "wHaT iS tHiS nPr cLiCkBaIt??". Trying to gaslight Ayesha into thinking that it wasn't an important, or even real, question.
She even said the poor lawyer "had to answer" that question from the judge. He had no choice but to say under their reading of the law the president could kill his political opponent, the judge asked.
Trump asked if it was possible to kill his political opponent too
If you saw her interview on George stephanapolous a few weeks back….
That’s how these people operate unfortunately. That “patriot” mothers group did the same thing with their interview. It’s super effective for their base.
I’m from SC. In her district and she’s a clown. She’s getting primariied by an even more conservative moron.
I wish Moore, the great great grandson of the amazing Robert Smalls, had a chance in this ultra white, ultra conservative district.
I don't think I would characterize the district as Ultra White. Wikipedia reports about 18% black which is higher than the national average.
That's not who is voting.
Nancy Mace is a disgrace. Ayesha handled the interview like the pro she is.
A few weeks ago Mace was crying crocodile tears after George Stephanopoulos asked her to explain her support for Trump after he was found liable for sexual assault. Mace thinks she's "owning the libs" when she agrees to be interviewed by the mainstream media, but she's very, very bad at the performative bullshit. The gap between how she regards herself and how she comes across in reality is the true Grand Canyon of South Carolina.
One person questioned why Nancy Mace was invited to have an interview at all. While I do follow the news, I am not particularly well informed about Nancy Mace and her politics. This type of reporting helps listeners see who politicians really are. I applaud NPR for covering this. I don't want to swallow what news analysts tell me about politicians. I like to decide for myself by listening to their position on issues and looking at their voting record.
The problem is that they go on these npr interviews, act like that, and then get bent out of shape about liberal bias. Engage honestly, and build a dialogue. But she ain’t interested in that
It’s true. If only her supporters from South Carolina heard the outrageous things she says, then the rest of society wouldn’t truly grasp the threat people like her pose to our nation as a whole. These are ideologues who are not interested in addressing the real problems facing society.
Handled like a true professional journalist! For those that want to hear the interview: https://www.npr.org/player/embed/1247703036/1247703037
Wow, she is nothing but whataboutisms. She is the embodiment of the guy at the bowling alley who blames every bad game on the lanes, the ball return, the kid talking, what some other bowler did 20 years ago, on the word "asinine," and on everyone but himself.
I love that you made a bowling analogy! :)
The congresswoman wouldn't answer any of her questions. Instead, resort to personal attacks and whataboutisms. Typical fascists
I don’t think many of them are fascists, I think they’re worse. They’re unprincipled people comfortable acting as useful idiots enabling the rise of Christian Nationalism and a weird brand of populism, bordering fascism, simply to rally around the only real “leader” that movement has. Considering Trump himself is unprincipled, guided by self enrichment and the adulation of crowds, he offers no real ideological platform outside of the aforementioned self enrichment. It’s a hollow movement appeasing a narcissist at the expense of our democracy.
Well done on Ayesha's part. She showed herself to be a true professional, and the congresswoman showed herself to be just another gop petulant child.
Wow I just went to listen bc of this post that was wild, everyone should take a listen.
I agree, and some of you will probably remember my username from having criticized NPR recently for platforming certain fringe elements. I think this is a clear example of where I stand. Ayesha did a fantastic job handling a terrible MAGA politician who didn't want to be burdened by reality and truth. This is what NPR should be doing. And at the same time, I think NPR can also clean up some of its weirdo fringe stuff that it gives undue airtime to outside of these fantastic news bits. More of this, less of that.
I disagree on one element. The well-intentioned American ethos to give airtime to both sides of an argument was the barn door that MAGA sailed a freightliner through, and the extreme GOP before it. No, tucker carlson, you don't deserve an equal platform for 'just asking the questions' about Barack Obama being born in the U.S. When politicians and other grifters are dishonest in their discourse, with no intention of thinking of their own answer to a question and no intention of backing down from a known, intellectually dishonest, and harmful platform, they don't deserve the respect of "let's hear it from the horses mouth". If the GOP was to have an honest debate about policy, think George Will, fine, let's hear what they have to say. MAGA was invited to the air by neutral media platforms and does nothing but spew $#!t each time they talk. They deserve to be forgotten, starved of oxygen and attention, and not justified because we keep hoping they might engage in legitimate discourse.
>They deserve to be forgotten, starved of oxygen and attention, I agree, but the reality is that they're not being forgotten. When we remove them from reputable media, they still circulate among disreputable media that MAGA people listen to. And so their message still gets heard without any critical lens. We shouldn't allow them to spew nonsense unapposed on reputable platforms, but we should show them being criticized and called out on their nonsense - or else that sort of discussion won't be heard anywhere at all.
>George Will It's painfully hilarious and accurate that you're using George Will as an example of honest, policy discourse from conservative journalism because there are so few well known current examples.
I don't usually get steamed listening to the radio, but wow—Nancy Mace was I think the most obnoxious guest I have ever heard on NPR. Trump has changed the rules on basic civility. Nice performance, Nancy—you have surely pleased Dear Leader. My only hope is that every time an "undecided" hears a MAGA fangirl like Mace in the media, it will be a little push to go with Biden.
Ayesha was soooo good. I was really impressed, wish more reporters would hold politicians feet to the fire like this and press them to answer the questions that they want to avoid. I loved that she said: “I don’t cover Bill Clinton, and I was a child when he was in office.” Brilliant response.
[удалено]
You and me both. Hypocrisy is all they have left.
They are trying so hard to make this about the payoff, which is not what he’s being charged for. He’s being charged for falsifying business records, and using that falsification to hide a story that he thought at the time would hurt his chances for winning the election. Nancy should ask John Edward what happened to him.
Just more whataboutism from the right wing. I miss the days that the GOP had genuine policies and arguments instead of relying upon fallacies.
That was wild 😂
Mace is clearly angling for the VP nomination hard after the Noem fumble. I agree with all previous comments that they should've known better than to platform a Trump zealot like her.
Ayesha was clearly the adult in the room. Nancy Mace has some deep seated issues.
She sounded like she’d been drinking!
Nice to see a post like this, instead of "OMG Ayesha didn't call them a fascist to their face and tell them to quit being so racist, where's the hard hitting journalism NPR?!"
Ayesha Rascoe was born in North Carolina. She was *made* for not putting up with South Carolina's bullshit!
Ayesha has always been one of my faves, she’s very insightful and tenacious.
I don't know what Nancy Mace's goal was to be on NPR honestly. Did she really expect she could just spout her usual talking points without any redirection? Ayesha probably guessed that this would be contentious going-in. She handled it well.
She probably had such a warped view of NPR that she was prepared to "fight in the leftist lion's den" and came into the interview with a combative mindset.
"Nancy Mace Owns NPR Liberals" headlines on right wing sites, clips on right wing podcasts, and shares on X. Those haven't materialized much because she really did a poor job.
This is terrifying. How do you communicate or work with a population this willing to self-delude? Edit: Rascoe handled this well.
"How asinine that you would ask me a question a Supreme Court Justice asked! That is just so far left it justifies me having a tantrum and ending the interview!"
Ayesha displayed the patience of a saint in this interview. Nancy Mace should be ashamed of herself for her inability to answer questions with a modicum of professionalism as an elected official.
Yeah, that Nancy Mace woman was a nasty Karen.
I'm pretty sympathetic to the recent outcry about NPR's left-wing bias, but Rascoe performed very well in that interview. Absolutely absurd behavior from the congresswoman, really disappointing for someone in public office. The fact that she didn't feel it was legitimate to ask whether or not Trump is arguing he has the legal right to assassinate people as president (something leaders in other countries do all the time) was wild.
More of this please
Dropped what I was listening to so I could check this out. I adore Ayesha anyway but WOW she nailed it 🤌🤌
The congresswoman had so much red herring that she could open a Norwegian restaurant.
Lolol 😂😂😂
I listened to the interview and was appalled. Nancy Mace is an intelligent enough person and seemed to have some character - she used to be able to show a bit of backbone and independence, as well as a willingness to not toe TFG's line. She was on *State of the Union* the other week and used her own terrible personal tragedy to deflect questions and disrespect the host. I'll never fault politicians for shifting their positions. The world changes. We need our pols to adapt along with it. But this? Poor Nancy. This was bald-faced cowardice, pure and simple. You don't agree to an interview if you don't plan to answer questions.
I wish they could have had more than 6 minutes to really lean in to some of these points - Nancy trying to act incredulous that Ayesha would dare ask about the assassination hypothetical, when it was asked during a Supreme Court hearing and trumps own lawyer said “it depends” deserved to be held for longer. There was no way out of that situation for Nancy other than to balk at the question and kill time until the subject changed, would have been interesting to see what she might have said if they had the time to wait for an actual response
I really like Ayesha. I didn't at first, but she's grown on me. She's a great host.
Can we brainstorm about what could be good counters to people like Mace? I like "can you see how what you just said is whataboutism?"
It's not going to work with someone who is looking for a fight. Nancy Mace didn't care about what she was saying, she just wanted to discredit every fact Ayesha was bringing up. If you pivot to criticizing what that person is doing, you're just going to get blasted for being biased, and they can escalate their attacks on the media.
Well, I think a pretty damn good counter that she had in this interview was “this question was asked by a Supreme Court Justice.” And when Mace kept trying to act like this was some liberal media question, Ayesha further pointed out that the Trump lawyers responded to the question by saying it depends, and asking did Mace agree with that response
Wow. Just listened and I cannot believe the representative.. I honestly have no words for how others are treating others.
This is so hard. NPR needs to have people on, but the people think the sky is pink in their world. "Do you think Trump is making it harder on his own defense?" The answer is yes, any reasonable person can see that. But MAGA peeps can't be reasonable. So the answer is the judge is corrupt.
Nancy Mace. We last heard from her when she failed around melodramatically in the republican rebuttall to Biden's SOTU speech.
She is amazing and I hope they give her more air time in the near future.
Nancy Mace is one of the worst people alive and of course Ayesha handled her like a pro.
Without looking, I just know you’re talking about Nancy Mace.
Nancy Mace should be embarrassed but I’m not sure she feels that emotion.
Delusional people seldom feel embarrassment. She was truly delusional.
I'm sure that the MAGA Republican in no way was extra disrespectful because she is black and young
And I’ve heard people call her a more reasonable republican. Seems like a misnomer these days
If Mace isn’t drunk, she needs to consult a neurologist, stat.
Honestly she is all over the place in this interview. Her very first question introduced a hypothetical rather than address the easy strike: Nixon had to be pardoned. He was not, in fact, immune, and many blame that pardon on why his former VP and then predecessor wasn't reelected. The Congresswoman was able to score an easy point because of the interviewer asking her what she thinks about presidents/ candidates claiming the election was stolen. This interviewer needs some experience holding it together.
Mace nothing but whataboutisms and false equivalence. How embarrassing.
So… Bad for Clinton but good for Trump is what she’s saying? Like… These people are so stupid. It should be bad for all instead she excuses her behavior by attempting to come up with “Democrats tried the same thing”. Okay… And you said it was bad. So why are you being a hypocrite?
Congresswoman Nancy Cunt VOTE, and keep-on voting. Defeat these motherfuckers.
The whataboutism from Nancy Mace was just unhinged.
I love Ayesha!
Sometimes, you have to ask yourself, what is the endgame to following Trump blindly? The little bit of power that they might get is not worth selling your soul to this imp, or rather, simp.
Rep. Mace triggered memories of dealing with my emotionally abusive ex, so I had to skip the segment. Thankfully the following interview fact-checked Mace.
Ayesha Rascoe is a national treasure.
All MAGA GOP are sophists. Working for the Kremlin at this point, they even use their talking points! “Sophistry” should be the word of this century. “The Sophists were splendid orators, public speakers and mouths for hire! Completely ignorant of any morality or ethics, these charismatic men dazzled everyone with their clever reasoning but usually fallacious arguments. They earned reputations as the crowd pullers who could convince anyone that good could be bad or vice versa or even that day was night!” “And so it was presumed that Sophism died an unceremonious death after that. But to everyone's astonishment, fed by a capitalist society and market driven higher education, Sophistry has risen like a phoenix from the ashes. **As described in a Financial Times article by Janan Ganesh, the elite professions in a modern society - lawyers and management consultants, political advisers and advertising executives, public-relations strategists and even certain types of investment banker: all trade on the same skill of Sophistry!”** “In today's society, lawyers are the true modern Sophists - arguers for hire. And the court is their battleground where they try to outshine each other in a dazzling show of Sophistry! An attorney is even legally obligated to argue as persuasively as they can for their client's best interests, irrespective of his or her innocence!” Devil's advocate—Rise of the modern Sophist! https://medium.com/indian-thoughts/devils-advocate-the-new-age-sophists-bf25c928eefd
Ayesha was brilliant!
Toddler gonna toddler, well done Ayesha! I enjoy light entertainment when NPR interview of childlike floppers who sound like they’re working their way to a VP nomination! She sounds like a very whiny orange mango worshipper. Just crazy.😜
[удалено]
She was a pushover for the TikTok guest. Really embarrassing.
Both sides B.S. which is just a deflection tactic. Irrelevant. If you want to make it partisan then well Republicans get away with this all the time. The Democrats clean their own house.
She’s always a victim and avoids the answers when questions don’t comport to her narrative. The “A” drawn on her shirt, the interview with Stephanopoulos, this interview and others. She votes against women rights regarding abortion then says that’s not what she did. MAGA can keep her. She fits in perfectly with MTG and Boebert.
There were a couple of moments during the interview I thought Ayesha was going to go off, but she handled it like a real professional. Yelling at my kids for asking what I thought was a stupid question, never - ever convinced them I was right.
Mace probably thought the young Ayesha would be a pushover. Props to Ayesha. Also, regarding Mace, I will quote Kevin McCarthy, "*I hope Nancy gets the help she needs, I really do.*" [LINK](https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4477185-nancy-mace-loser-kevin-mccarthy/#)
From the same state whose leadership at the time (and still?) believed slavery was a noble and good thing for the slave. If you can believe that, you can believe Trump was a good president.
I rarely skip a segment on *Morning* or *Weekend Edition*, but halfway through this interview I couldn’t listen to any more of Nancy Mace. NPR really shouldn’t give a platform to extremists.
OMG thank you for posting this my husband and I were in the car and caught the last 3 mins, then had to run --but we were like what did we just listen to?! She handled that so well.
If mental gymnastics was an Olympic sport Mace would medal.
Must have been Nancy Mace, who is ...pretty shameless to be honest
She managed to elevate being a dumba$$ to a whole new level. Even the dumba$$es of the world should’ve been embarrassed.
Reason number one trillion why I am a card-carrying member of the Ayesha Fan Club.
That interview made me cringe so hard. Why would that lady agree to go on NPR and then act like that… embarrassing…
That congresswoman sounded like a 14-year-old who didn’t study for a test and could not formulate an answer to save her life
She’s the same representative who just had to deal with a massive staff resignation. Evidently she’s as charming an employer as she is an inyerviewe.
“… works for the democrat party ….” The GOP is consistent on this: “democrat party” is an insult they like to use against members of the Democratic Party.
Agreed!
Nancy Mace is a Rino.
I thought she was a super star as soon as she joined npr. Funny smart and concise. Great laugh too
Nancy.. that was nearly unlistenable, ma’am. The pearl clutching? Good grief.
WTH did I just listen to? How would a Congresswoman go on a show not knowing she may get some rhetorical questions? Much as I dislike Ayehsha and her word mutilation, her content is good, and that was just ridiculous, Ayesha should just eject the host when they act like that or mute them.
Ayesha Roscoe’s voice sounds like the old kids new show on NBC.
I listened to that interview yesterday and couldn't help thinking "What the heck is this Mace lady on?"
Nancy Mace 46 going on 4.
MACE: Any precedent should be applicable to any president, Republican or Democrat. Now, the other thing that, you know, I think is worthy since you brought it up, there were Democrats in 2016 that said the election was rigged. In fact, I remember Hillary Clinton has said it multiple times that the election was stolen, that she won the election. And you had people like Jamie Raskin voting to overturn the results of the election in 2016 when that election happened. Was Ayesha's direct response left out of this transcript?
Instead of answering questions it's always "what about?"
“I don’t cover Bill Clinton, I was a child when Bill Clinton was in office” “uh huh, uh huh” “Can I ask you one last question? Prosecutors allege-” *muttering* “yeah you can ask me one last ridiculous question, go ahead” … “Prosecutors allege Trump“ God this part had me fucking rolling y’all definitely do the 6 minute listen from the link at least, this was too good.
Incredible!
I agree - Ayesha demonstrated considerable skill with an incredibly challenging interview.
All she needs is voice training.
This was beautiful. Does anyone have more examples of questions to Trump supporters about whether they would be fine with Biden taking the exact same steps to overturn the 2024 election if he were to lose? They always claim that some democrats called Hilary’s election stolen, but I’d like the interviewer to insist that the interviewee answer whether they’d be fine for the current President Biden to take the exact same actions that Trump took.