Watch: Kamala Harris Left Stumped, Pauses While Trying to Find Answer to Question During Awkward Moment

Democrats are becoming increasingly desperate, resorting to decades-old economic arguments.

Unfortunately, feeding these talking points into Vice President Kamala Harris’s already overworked mind can lead to awkward exchanges.

For example, during a light interview on Wednesday with MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle, Harris stumbled on a basic question by reverting to these well-worn talking points, even when almost any other response would have been more appropriate.

Ruhle essentially asked how Harris, as president, would finance expanded child tax credits and housing subsidies.

It's important to note that tax credits aren’t typically "paid for" in the traditional sense, but that’s not the point here.

“If corporate taxes can’t be raised, or if the GOP takes control of the Senate, where would you get the money? Would you still push ahead with these plans and borrow?” Ruhle asked in a clip shared on the platform X.

Keep in mind, Ruhle specifically mentioned “if you can’t raise corporate taxes.”

Harris, however, responded as though her pre-programmed talking points took over.

“Well,” she began, pausing briefly, “but we’re gonna have to raise corporate taxes.”

Let’s not forget, Harris is now aligned with corporate America. She, along with many Democrats—and a disappointing number of Republicans in Washington—serve the establishment, which supports policies like open borders, unnecessary proxy wars, censorship, surveillance, weaponized government, medical mandates, gun control, and indoctrination. All these measures, of course, weaken individual freedoms.

Corporate leaders already know what to expect from Harris. They realize she must talk about raising corporate taxes because the Democrats are running out of viable political strategies. They have no recent track record of aiding everyday Americans, so they've returned to the old class-warfare script, filled with familiar slogans.

It’s easy to imagine Harris rehearsing these catchphrases in preparation for the interview.

“And we’re gonna have to raise,” she continued, disregarding the specifics of Ruhle’s question once again.

“We’re gonna have to make sure the largest corporations and billionaires pay their fair share. That’s what it’s about—paying their fair share,” Harris reiterated.

For those who recall the 20th century, this "fair share" rhetoric is nothing new, and it hasn’t gotten better with time.

The fact that she doesn’t truly believe it, for the reasons already mentioned, is beside the point. Even if she did, the concept of “paying one’s fair share” without clearly defining the purpose or necessity of these taxes is flawed. It implies that taxation is meant to punish—a notion that appeals mainly to those blinded by envy.

The real issue here is Harris’s reliance on talking points to answer questions.

As she's shown time and again, Harris has difficulty forming coherent sentences. While not all of her statements devolve into confused ramblings, enough do that she’s gained a reputation for it.

So, when Ruhle asked what Harris would do if she couldn’t raise corporate taxes, and Harris responded by saying she’d raise corporate taxes, it was clear she wasn’t speaking from conviction. Her pre-programmed talking points had simply kicked in, shifting her into the predictable “fair share” rhetoric.