Piers Morgan Had To Keep Pushing Destiny After Being Shocked By His Answer 

“You’d Take An Endorsement From HITLER?!” Cheney Backs Kamala Harris ►ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Zp8XVRGnyRA.htmlsi=xrS3GuqpJFTwTGqq

Remember guys, Piers Morgan isn't on ANY side. He just happens to relentlessly criticize democrats while dismissing almost every criticism of republicans.

The answer here is simple. Harris accepting Cheney's endorsement is a signal to the neocon voting base that they can team up to best MAGA. It doesn't have to be any more complex than that. It's politics.

9:17 "give me one coherent policy position trump has expanded on in the last two months" mf destroyed her

I find it hilarious that everyone there looks so serious with city backgrounds and professional mics clips on and real names, while Destiny sits there with a pseudonym and a gamer setup. I love it.

She literally cannot get his point holy s***.

"I watch all of Donald Trump's campaigns" "So name 1 policy of his" "…………" They're eating the dogs

I was cringing during the first minute, because damn that girl was not doing herself any favors. Felt like I was watching someone repeatedly pour gasoline on themself.

Morgan: Libs compared Trump to Hitler. 🙂‍↕️ GOP:Hitler Hitler Hitler!!!!! YEEeeEeeeeeeEee!

Jill was the epitome of useless here.

Incredibly good look on Destiny calling out that they can't name one policy position of Donald Trump. "What, you think he hasn't said anything for all of those hours?" I dunno, but the fact she didn't listen to any if it hardly makes her look informed.

Why is Jill Stein still here ....why is Jill Stein still in politics.

"I watch all his interviews." "Really? Name one policy." "........." My god, I didn't think they made clips this good anymore

Why do conservative keep bringing these DEI pundits?

What was this panel, was Destiny 1v3’ing??? Are these the enlightened centrists Piers chose for his show? The ones that don’t resemble left leaning policy whatsoever? Destiny is pretty conservative on a lot of issues and you couldn’t find anyone who would argue a case similar to his?

Remember when Trump refused to disavow David Duke and the KKK? Double standards anyone?

Piers is conflating “endorsement” with “allegiance “.

Cheney's endorsement to Kamala Harris only means that Cheney is the one who accepted Kamala's plans and politics not the other way around

I hate it when reps bring up Floyd because it reeks of the perfect victim fallacy. In this country, your rights are non-negotiable. Period. There doing the "what was she wearing," argument.

Didn't know Piers was 'morally' auditing all endorsements starting from the 2008 election, what a busy fella.

Do they actually believe Trump would have not accepted an endorsement like that?

My answer would be: if someone who holds positions completely opposite to my own is endorsing me, I would ask why. Clearly something has changed within them. If one of these evil dictators Piers mentioned is suddenly supporting democracy, that's something we should be keeping a close eye on. What we want is for our political opponents to see the light. Destiny's point that endorsement is a one-way street is correct, but it's not rhetoric that moves hearts.

Morgan: "Are you going to marry a carrot?" Destiny: "Yes, I am going to marry a carrot." Morgan: "Oh my god, you admitted it! Hey everybody, Destiny says he's going to marry a carrot!"

Jill never attacked any of the right wingers on any pf their points, which means she was never even remotely left. She even told people to vote for trump if they couldn't vote for her.

I feel like Destiny had a good point but everyone kind of pushed him past it; It sounded like Destiny was going to say something along the lines of Dick Cheney's endorsement being representative of a certain conservative mindset within the US. Like Piers later said, Kamala is probably one of the most left leaning presidential candidates that we have. The fact that Cheney, someone who basically represents a lot of the conservative ideology of the 2000s is endorsing a candidate (that Trump calls a marxist for how left wing she is) shows how wide a reach Kamala's platform appeals to. And I think that is something to be somewhat proud of. Especially considering that the Democrats rhetoric moving forward has been unification of the American people. It seemed like that's where Destiny was trying to go before getting cut off: That its less about Dick Cheney, and more about the people of America he represents, and how even though their ideals are so far away from Kamala's platform, they still find her more appealing than Trump.

If we're going with the Hitler comparison. Hitler is said to have stated that despite hating Churchill he could commend his steadfastness, resolve, and leadership abilities. That is Hitler endorsing Churchill as a good adversary, would that deter from Piers' view of Churchill?

I think Piers like poking Destiny because he likes seeing his responses

Dick Chaney Is coming to our side. Not the other way around.

Take Pierces hypothethical: what if you knew that without a full throated acceptance in a deadlocked race (as things stand now) you knew thst the race would swing the other way. Would you still decry the endorsement and hand trump the victory? Not if you really believed in your project you wouldnt.

Eughhh, Destiny needs to work on this point. Trump was endorsed by David Duke in 2016 and he disavowed that endorsement. It’s going to be hard to beat him on that. I’m sure Trump was doing that to just appease the press as he has been endorsed by all sorts of insane far right groups and hasn’t disavowed them, but it is true that he rejected David Duke’s endorsement. This is actually a very simple topic. You simply say I don’t agree with their views and move on. You can be endorsed by anyone and to attribute that endorsement as a blight on your reputation is pretty disingenuous. If we are supposed to take reputational hits based on endorsements, then people can just troll candidates by fake endorsing them and having Piers Morgan waste oxygen on air debating whether the candidate should be condemning those endorsements. Who cares.

Destiny could easily shut down this argument by saying if Donald Trump endorsed Kamala Harris, then yes, she should accept the endorsement.

That really wasn't the best answer from destiny. You can acknowledge a disagreement while accepting an endorsement. But saying you should condemned somebody for endorsing you is a loosing strategy. Nobody's going to switch thier vote over an endorsement.

"Go to Kamala's website, you'll find advertisements for brand clothing and coffee mugs, you will not find her policies." Meanwhile Trump is selling NFT. Btw I went to the website, and it's RIGHT THERE, 2nd link, store is 4th link. This is just bad propaganda which doesn't convince anyone.

Look at Jill Stein being completely useless as usual.

Piers is always so blatantly aggressive to Destiny, he throws these desperate arguments at him, and it makes him look so out of touch. It's absolutely true that endorsements by groups shouldn't matter. If you get endorsed by xyz controversial group, you shouldn't have to "publicly disavow their support", because YOU never endorsed THEM. Piers is basically saying that as any kind of public figure, in order to keep your name and perception squaky clean, you must waste your time publicly announcing that you hate each and every weirdo who supports you. And that, by the way, is a very meaningless thing to do, because the whole point of doing so, is just to maintain a certain perception in the public eye. It's a very "fake" and superficial thing. "oh, I don't like the proud boys". "oh, I disavow the NRA"... Like ok? Anyone can say that, it doesn't matter. It's a meaningless PR response. As long as you weren't hyping up anyone controversial, you should never have to respond to such endorsements. Yes, even the bad austrian H name man. Like if a Trump call leaked, and he could be heard saying; "Destiny is a great guy, he does an awesome job, everybody knows it", I don't imagine Destiny has to spend the following week making PR statements that he "disavows Trump's support". You should be able to see his disavowal of Trump in his actions, and beliefs.

Hitler is dead so I guess we settle for an equivalent endorsement by Victor Orban.

This is for anyone curious why it is absurd to believe that accepting an endorsement from a bad party is a bad thing that makes you look like part of the bad party. To be recognized as "good" by anyone is positive for your character. Serial Killers have favorite restaurants, and Chomos have favorite grocery stores. Just because that is the case doesn't mean that the grocery store or the restaurant is bad. But, what if those grocery stores or restaurants put out a statement publicly acknowledging and being proud of being told they are a favorite? Well, here context is key, and to make the logical statement make sense, we sort of need to balance things out like an algebraic equation. In this situation with the grocery store, it seems as though the grocery store doesn't normally put out statements being thankful for being a favorite by anyone, so for them to suddenly put out a statement for a registered offender is clearly bad news. So in order to use the hypothetical with a grocery store as a comparison to Kamala Harris who has had several many endorsements from many kinds of people in America, we must also assume that the grocery store in question also puts out many statements about endorsements of favoritism. So now we have the comparison: Grocery Stores that accept endorsements accept an endorsement from a chomo == Kamala Harris that accepts endorsements accept an endorsement from a Political Hate Figure Pretty easy comparison... So what's the deal with accepting an endorsement from a bad party? What does it mean to be recognized as "good" by someone who is bad? It's just that... You are good... To make a statement publicly saying anything related to "I am proud to have this bad party's vote" is not, as Destiny said, an endorsement of the other side's opinions in return. It is simply an acknowledgement that a bad party has recognized them as good. How dumb would it be to say that a Grocery Store that publicly thanks a Chomo supports Chomos, when the store publicly thanks many people all the time? It is quite a ridiculous statement. TLDR: You want more people to vote for you. There are no "evil" votes, and being voted for by someone evil doesn't taint you and make you evil in return. Remember, Chomos have favorite grocery stores....... remember it well.....

Jill Stein didn’t click on the “issues” link on Harris’ campaign website lol

If that is Jill Stein on the panel, why didn't Piers test his theory and ask her if she would accept an endorsement from Donald Trump? She obviously would...

I don't know why people are bringing up David Duke in 2016. The difference between David Duke and Dick Cheney is Trump is a terrible person, courting terrible people with his terrible policies. He's _courting_ people like David Duke. Cheney, on the other hand, is endorsing Kamala _despite_ her policies not being remotely close to his own. He's doing it because he really doesn't like Trump.

I agree with Destiny on a lot of things, but that Dick Cheney take was bad

It's so hilarious seeing destiny act so unhinged on television cuz he knows he's the shit and he's right

Leave it to conservatives to equate morality with self righteousness, while licking the boots of Trump.

Does Piers Morgan not remember when David Duke endorsed Trump and Trump would not reject the endorsement? I think that’s called selective memory.

Ngl destiny did so poorly on this point, the issue is not about the endorsement but the fact that kamala said she was proud to be endorsed by dick cheney. Morgan brought up other people to show the obsurdity of destiny's statement because obviously it would be horrendous if putin endorsed kamala and then she posted on twitter saying "thank you im so proud to be endorsed by putin, leader of the new free world"

Destiny could of handled the endorsement so much better. Just respond "accepting the endorsement doesn't mean you accept the policies those individuals have, you can accept someone's vote which out agreeing with them on 99.9% of things, they are just voting for you not joining your cabinet"

Dick Cheney bad = Donald Trump good? It's so simple when you don't consider things. Why had I not considered this?

Here's what Density did wrong - instead of arguing "don't fight endorsements" he should've said "she was proud of uniting both sides under her movement, not that this specific person has endorsed her".

The function of an endorsement is to recommend to your followers to vote for, or at least consider voting for, your preferred candidate. An endorsement from someone like Kim Jong Un or Hitler is irrelevant because their followers are not American voters. Kim Jong Un's and America's interests are directly opposed to one another, so an endorsement from someone like him is contradictory--it doesn't matter. Now, looking at an endorsement from someone like Cheney, let's take the context of this election into account. Assuming that Cheney has America's interests at heart, why would Kamala "reject" his endorsement. What does it even mean to "reject" an endorsement? You can't reject someone's verbal support. If they support you, they support you. It doesn't matter how heinous a person they are. If you, as a candidate, are certain that your positions are the best for the country, then there's no harm in letting terrible people vote for you. It's not like their vote necessitates that you do terrible things. In fact, it has the opposite effect if you're running against someone terrible, like Trump. The only reason you would have to publicly "reject" or disavow an endorsement would be if you think that you'll lose votes otherwise. But this is a fundamentally utilitarian objection. You're not rejecting the endorsement because you disagree with the endorsers principles(even if you do happen to disagree with them), you're doing it because it will lead to a bad outcome. But because this objection is utilitarian, it acknowledges that the original stance is utilitarian. This means that it's not so much an objection as it is a caveat or maxim that says: "reject an endorsement only if doing otherwise will ultimately cost you votes." But Piers' objection was based on some mistaken idea of principle. He seems to think that a bad person's vote is somehow worse than a good person's. In reality, the function of casting a vote is to elect the candidate that you think is better for the country. He's viewing an endorsement from some voter, x, as an indication that their chosen candidate necessarily reflects x's views(specifically their worst views). But, again, if you as a candidate are certain that your what's best for the country, why would you be insecure about a bad person's endorsement when you know it won't affect the action's you'll take. This only matters if it costs you votes. I don't personally believe that Dick Cheney endorsing Kamala, and her being "proud" of this, will cost her votes. If anything, it seems like it will help her marginally. So, I think Destiny ultimately had the right position except for the semantic discussion about whether you would accept an endorsement from "anyone" as I explained in the first paragraph. But these are just my initial thoughts on the issue.

Jeez, Jill Stein outta left field with the off-topic answer at the end 😆

I do feel Piers Morgan brought up a very valid point. Being 'proud' or even advertising Dick Cheney endorsing you is an incredibly bad look for a democrat and Kamala should have kept her mouth shut regarding it. She can silently be happy about it and the news can spread the message that he endorses her, but Kamala being proud of this endorsement is a massive L. Destiny was just defending Kamala no matter what and taking this position is gonna be very bad optically. Jon Stewart did it (ethically/morally) right by telling him to eff off, but Kamala should have just shut her mouth about Dick as that was the right move.

No Democrat SOUGHT Cheney's endorsement... remember that.

Destiny keeps forgetting that he needs to dumb himself down at times to tackle certain questions. To the average person, he looked like a fool when Piers asked him those Cheny/Hitler endorsement questions. Having a "wow face" and saying "I don't even understand the question" are NOT acceptable responses in any way, shape or form, in a show where you have average citizens watching. This isn't an academic or debate setting where the audience defaults to logic and reason. You'll have to walk everyone through a longer train of thought besides, "I will take any vote from anyone", otherwise you'll just look like a semi-hitler supporter whether you like it or not. He makes this mistake way too many times.

Jill Stein being a good little Russian asset at the end there.

Jill Stein... how tf did my past self ever ENDORSE her?! I DISAVOW MY PAST!

Kamala's website literally has her entire policy positions on every single issue. What the F is Jill Stein even talking about? Can she just go away please.

Jill stein talking about oligarchs is hilarious. Home girl got more pics with Russians and Putin than any other politician I know. Stop running Jill, you’ll never win. We don’t want ya.

Crazy how that girl doesn't understand the argument being made against her bringing up George Flyod. Obviously, George Floyd would be unfit for the office of the presidency. So is Donald Trump. But that doesn't mean a cop murdering George Floyd shouldn't face justice. How she randomly brings up the 'remember when you guys were defending George Floyd when we were saying the cop had a right to murder him because he wasn't a nice guy' is wild in itself. Her response to Destiny's response is even more puzzling. But let's get back to sanity for a moment and talk about how Haitians are eating cats and dogs.

Destiny is so clearly wrong on this but just had to go full debate lord. Not every endorsement is good.

"Name one." -Hitchens

On the endorsement question it probably would have been better to have just said the endorsement is evidence that Kamala, unlike Trump, is focusing on unity and moving forward instead of whining about old grievances impotently, which is highly consistent with her platform and statements during the debate.

That budget Tomi Lahren is so far out of her depth

Destiny: Nonsense question Piers Morgan: Terrible answer

2:15 how can they not even crack a smile at this sentence? these people need jesus.

Kind of shocking that he never brought up the repeated David Duke endorsements for Donald Trump that he did not disavow through all of this.

The whole idea that Chaney is somehow worse than a dictator is just nuts. Did this conversation ever make it to reality? Did it even touch on how it's more of a sign that our politicians are in the process of shuffling their positions and beliefs.

7:12 you can tell that by the WOAH!!! He thought this would be another negative Destiny viral moment. He tried SO hard to align you with Hitler. I just love that Piers is talking about Kamala's endorsements when Trump hasn't denounced the KKK or the proud boys

Cons: don’t accept endorsement 😭 (btw it’s a one way thing, no acceptance matters; endorsement is still there) Also cons: yep, we’ll take money from Israel, Russia, Saudi Arabia

Why did the blonde woman not get pressed into answering the question regarding Trump's policy?

How can you have different standards for Presidential nominees and random people who got killed by police?

i won't say piers is wrong here but the fact he takes these statements to the most extreme extents is so stupid, no shit you wouldn't take an endorsement from hitler??

I love the "Actually, he can speak ok, he has been in an interview". Like wow applauds, the republican presidential nominee can speak, he has my vote for sure

Bruh I don't get why Destiny doesn't just learn how to criticize Kamala without coming off as weak. He doesn't have to defend every single thing she does; politicians can be wrong. This is politics.

Love how Destiny demolishes everyone bc he has critical thinking skills.

I don’t understand the comparison Chaney would want America to succeed so he would obviously want the more fit politician to win (so you’d accept the endorsement). However why would Hitler, kim, or Putin want the US to have a favorable president you obviously would ignore their endorsements? It’s a dumb question

“If the US was on the right side of WW2, why did they side with the USSR, whom they called enemies to the American way of life?” What kind of bullshit gotcha is this, Piers?

Harris: im proud my policy positions are so popular that even Dick Cheney would rather have me as president. Piers: Thats evil

That black guy saw a British court room and said, I gotta get me a powdered wig like that. That would make me super cool.

Dick Cheney is an American citizen at the end of the day he's not a hermit but he's not Hitler

Now let’s talk about how Trump has the endorsement of Lukashenko.

Morgan argues in horrible faith none of those people he brought up can actually vote in a U.S. Election such a childish take

expected him to have a better answer for this tbh

Destiny looked reallllllllly bad by saying Kamala shouldn’t reject endorsement of dick Cheney. And then to say “what do you mean by accept”… lost so much credibility there lolz or at least say people change over time and his views may have changed.

This is what he did wrong. Rather than dancing around the "if the north Korean dictator Kim said he supports Kamal for president should she accept it" he should have said "firstly let's all try to agree, is it wrong? To proudly proclaim that someone from a different political party says they support you? And then let's also find out if you think it would be wrong to brag about authoritarian strong men from around the world supporting you....bc you know where I'm going to go with that right? Trump brags, not about a democrate who disagrees with many of his policies and who he disagrees with their policies, is supporting him. Trump brags about dictators around the world supporting him. If we're going to say someone who's on the other side of the political divide supporting you is something that needs defending against then let's talk about Trump and his bragging over authoritarians supporting him and after everyone on this panel agrees how wrong Trump is for that, then we can discuss how reaching across the political divide here at home and finding common ground where we can is somehow a bad thing....which I don't think it is" I'm not use to seeing him struggle so badly rhetorically

Destiny should have asked if Kim Jong Un asks to be interviewed by Piers if he would accept it. I guess we know the answer…

I can’t tell if he dominated this conversation because the editor only showed the parts where he was given the chance to speak

This is so simple. While she might not agree with Cheney on a whole, she’s welcoming the disillusioned Republicans who might support him. Also, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. We fought alongside Soviet Russia against the Nazis.

Wow Jill Stein really went mask off here.

So nonsense, accepting endorsement doesn’t automatically mean the endorsee accepts the views of that person. Conservatives are so quick to point out Trump getting endorsement from KKK doesn’t mean “he supports their views”. It’s about getting votes. Kamala getting endorsed by Dick Cheney doesn’t mean Kamala now will impose policies that Dick Cheney would 😂

Morgan asking would Destiny accept Kim Jong’s endorsement when Chump literally wrote love letters to him 😃

Destiny absolutely could’ve conceded that accepting an endorsement from literally anyone is a bad argument and just made some small modification but his brainrot won’t let him ever concede a single fraction of an argument.

On the last point, Kamala Harris has released a policy platform on her website.

destiny takes the bait, then kinda stops taking the bait once he realizes how stupid he was for accepting hitler's endorsement. seriously bro, give them more while you're at it

Morgan’s hypotheticals that don’t exist are all he has left to defend the circus he calls the GOP.

Defending Kamala feeling "honored" by the endorsement of Dick Cheney is kinda wild

I don't know why Piers is so shocked that Destiny would except Kim Jong-un's endorsement. Its not like he is going to start writing love letters to him or something.

This is when Destiny lost the debate. A politician is expected to disavow a endorsement if the person is not respected for example a KKK member or yes Hitler. This is politics 101. The fact that Destiny fell into that trap is kinda laughable.

You're 100% correct here. If I'm the person seeking power, and I've put my policy out there and openly stated how I plan to enact that policy, and some brutal dictator says they like what I'm saying and they support me, that's a sign that they're becoming more like me, not that I'm becoming more like them.

Alright Steve kinda got grilled towards the end of this video let’s be honest

getting name 10 books vibes