Some fact-Checking on Kamala Harris

[Stephen3141]

Fact-Checking the False Claims About Kamala Harris

Fact-checking the wave of false claims about Kamala Harris’ presidential eligibility and background.

time.com

Given all the conspiracy theories that are flying around on social media,
about political events, it's good to be grounded in a basic background
of the new Democratic candidate for President, Kamala Harris.

 

[PloverWing]

Dang. I wondered if we were going to see a rerun of the birther nonsense, because Harris isn't white, but I didn't know people were already doing it.

Anyway, thanks for posting the fact-checking article.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Dang. I wondered if we were going to see a rerun of the birther nonsense, because Harris isn't white, but I didn't know people were already doing it.

There's at least 4 years of it.

​

Donald recycles Birther arguments against Kamala Harris.​

Trump was responding to a question and was referring to a Newsweek opinion piece by law professor John Eastman inaccurately calling into question Harris' eligibility.

Aw, back in the innocent days before Eastman was forced to resign, disbarred and indicted for felonies. He was just telling lies!

 

[Merrill]

OK, let's fact-check the fact-checkers (once again)

they are right on some things here, and wrong on others

1. Yes, Harris is an American citizen
2. She is half black, not full-black, as Time claims
3. "Harris got her start by having an affair with a married man, California politician Willie Brown." which Time claims is somehow false

then the very same article goes on to confirm that the two did have an affair in the 90s, and that Brown heavily supported her political ambitions/races during that time. So how this is debunking the claim is beyond me lol --sure seems to be confirming it

4. "An Inside Edition clip of television host Montel Williams holding hands with Harris and another woman is proof that Harris was his “side piece.” While photos may be misleading, Montel did confirm they dated yes? Again, this isn't debunking anything.

5. The "vengeance of a nation" quote is not from Harris --so this is correct
6. A video shows Harris saying in a speech: “Today is today. And yesterday was today yesterday ... while Harris didn't say this exact words, the Time article confirms "Harris says in the clip: “So I think it’s very important—as you have heard from so many incredible leaders—for us, at every moment in time, and certainly this one, to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present, and to be able to contextualize it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past, but the future.”

so Harris didn't say word-salad, incoherent statement A, but she did say B ? How is this debunking anything lol?

Leave it to partisan Time magazine to release an article where they try to debunk fake claims made about Kamala, and then go on to confirm 50% of those claims

 

[essentialsaltes]

Truly a dizzying intellect.

 

[RileyG]

Truly a dizzying intellect.

View attachment 352118

What?

 

[Arcangl86]

Truly a dizzying intellect.

View attachment 352118

*Searches in the Constitution for disqualification for office for having a parent with a non-European name*

 

[iluvatar5150]

OK, let's fact-check the fact-checkers (once again)

they are right on some things here, and wrong on others

1. Yes, Harris is an American citizen
2. She is half black, not full-black, as Time claims
3. "Harris got her start by having an affair with a married man, California politician Willie Brown." which Time claims is somehow false

No, the piece does not claim it's false. What it does say is, "This is missing some important context."

But let's continue on with the "fact check."

4. "An Inside Edition clip of television host Montel Williams holding hands with Harris and another woman is proof that Harris was his “side piece.” While photos may be misleading, Montel did confirm they dated yes? Again, this isn't debunking anything.

The contention here is not that they weren't dating, but that she was his "side piece," a term that the article defines in a manner that's unclear at first glance. A "side piece" is "the other woman," implying that Williams was in a relationship with somebody else at the time. He claims he was not, that they were both single.

But let's continue on with the "fact check."

6. A video shows Harris saying in a speech: “Today is today. And yesterday was today yesterday ... while Harris didn't say this exact words, the Time article confirms "Harris says in the clip: “So I think it’s very important—as you have heard from so many incredible leaders—for us, at every moment in time, and certainly this one, to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present, and to be able to contextualize it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past, but the future.”

so Harris didn't say word-salad, incoherent statement A, but she did say B ? How is this debunking anything lol?

The actual quote is not incoherent, nor are most of the other quotes of hers I've recently seen described as "word salad." The actual quote could be restated as "It's important to be aware of the time in which we exist and to be able to contextualize it in relationship to both the past and the future."

Leave it to partisan Time magazine to release an article where they try to debunk fake claims made about Kamala, and then go on to confirm 50% of those claims

It's not Time's fault you misunderstood most of the piece.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Truly a dizzying intellect.

View attachment 352118

This is rich for a man named after a thick form of soup.

 

[JSRG]

There's at least 4 years of it.

​

Donald recycles Birther arguments against Kamala Harris.​

Trump was responding to a question and was referring to a Newsweek opinion piece by law professor John Eastman inaccurately calling into question Harris' eligibility.

Aw, back in the innocent days before Eastman was forced to resign, disbarred and indicted for felonies. He was just telling lies!

I do not think one can say Eastman was "telling lies" in regards to that. His idea rested on what is (in my view) a very silly argument about the meaning of the Citizenship Clause that I do not think is backed up by its history or text. But someone having a silly or wrong interpretation of the constitution is not telling lies. Eastman even tried to differentiate her from the United States v. Wong Kim Ark precedent, though he thinks Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided anyway. What, is someone "telling lies" if they think a Supreme Court decision was wrong, or that a situation can be differentiated from it?

I should also point out that this wasn't something Eastman came up with just for Harris. He's been on the train of thinking the Citizenship Clause should be interpreted narrowly for quite some time; I'm not sure exactly when he first started with it, but it was no later than 2004, as he filed an amicus brief in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld arguing that Hamdi wasn't a U.S. citizen under the narrow view of the Citizenship Clause he proposed and that his lack of citizenship therefore mooted the case (the Supreme Court ultimately never weighed in on that subject of his citizenship in the case, deciding it on other grounds). His assertion that Kamala Harris was constitutionally ineligible to be Vice President is in keeping in with views he's been asserting since at least 2004.

I want to stress again I think Eastman's arguments on this are weak. The historical evidence to me is extremely strong that the original understanding of the Citizenship Clause is that everyone born in the United States is granted automatic citizenship except for (1) children of visiting sovereigns or foreign ambassadors, (2) anyone born to occupying armies, or (3) children born to Native Americans living on a reservation, though the last category gains citizenship under subsequent law, though. I won't go into the whole spiel, but for those curious, see this article by Garrett Epps on the subject, or if someone would prefer one arguing the same thing but written by a judicial conservative, see this article by James Ho (who was, ironically, later appointed to the federal bench by Donald Trump). But asserting a very dubious constitutional interpretation is hardly "telling lies".

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

The actual quote is not incoherent, nor are most of the other quotes of hers I've recently seen described as "word salad." The actual quote could be restated as "It's important to be aware of the time in which we exist and to be able to contextualize it in relationship to both the past and the future."

And where on Earth do Trump supporters get off criticizing ANYONE for "word salad"?? Convicted Felon Trump is the Wendy's salad bar connoisseur.

 

[essentialsaltes]

*Searches in the Constitution for disqualification for office for having a parent with a non-European name*

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be​

 

[Pommer]

OK, let's fact-check the fact-checkers (once again)

they are right on some things here, and wrong on others

1. Yes, Harris is an American citizen
2. She is half black, not full-black, as Time claims
3. "Harris got her start by having an affair with a married man, California politician Willie Brown." which Time claims is somehow false

then the very same article goes on to confirm that the two did have an affair in the 90s, and that Brown heavily supported her political ambitions/races during that time. So how this is debunking the claim is beyond me lol --sure seems to be confirming it

4. "An Inside Edition clip of television host Montel Williams holding hands with Harris and another woman is proof that Harris was his “side piece.” While photos may be misleading, Montel did confirm they dated yes? Again, this isn't debunking anything.

5. The "vengeance of a nation" quote is not from Harris --so this is correct
6. A video shows Harris saying in a speech: “Today is today. And yesterday was today yesterday ... while Harris didn't say this exact words, the Time article confirms "Harris says in the clip: “So I think it’s very important—as you have heard from so many incredible leaders—for us, at every moment in time, and certainly this one, to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present, and to be able to contextualize it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past, but the future.”

so Harris didn't say word-salad, incoherent statement A, but she did say B ? How is this debunking anything lol?

Leave it to partisan Time magazine to release an article where they try to debunk fake claims made about Kamala, and then go on to confirm 50% of those claims

Is #2 “an issue” for someone?

 

[iluvatar5150]

And where on Earth do Trump supporters get off criticizing ANYONE for "word salad"?? Convicted Felon Trump is the Wendy's salad bar connoisseur.

I think they might be trying to point out some hypocrisy, but when few-if-any of the given examples are actual word salad, all it does is make their English comprehension look poor.

 

[eleos1954]

Fact-Checking the False Claims About Kamala Harris

Fact-checking the wave of false claims about Kamala Harris’ presidential eligibility and background.

time.com

Given all the conspiracy theories that are flying around on social media,
about political events, it's good to be grounded in a basic background
of the new Democratic candidate for President, Kamala Harris.

Time magazine is the ultimate "fact checker"??? LOL

 

[rjs330]

And where on Earth do Trump supporters get off criticizing ANYONE for "word salad"?? Convicted Felon Trump is the Wendy's salad bar connoisseur.

This is hilarious! These two will be fun to watch together as neither one is great orator and have a habit of rambling word salad sentences.

 

[stevevw]

I don't know why people are using personal issues as the fact check. Its her lack of experience and ideological thinking that is the problem for which we can easily prove.

I mean even her own party thought the same the last time she tried to become a nominee and her approval was low even within her own party and voters.

Even her vice presidency was in question and no one was rushing to uphold her as the unified replacement.

Its only because a small handful of rich elites have got behind her that she is now the nominee which seems very anti democratic for a party that prides itself on democracy and allowing the people to have a say.

They all including Harris lied to the public about Biden, that he was fit and sharp and able to do the job and now they want everyone to believe that Harris is the best thing since sliced bread. Give me a break.

The Dems own words and actions is the evidence that Harris was and is an unworthy candidate and political appointment and you can't trust them to do the right thing. These are the facts.

 

[rambot]

OK, let's fact-check the fact-checkers (once again)

they are right on some things here, and wrong on others

1. Yes, Harris is an American citizen
2. She is half black, not full-black, as Time claims
3. "Harris got her start by having an affair with a married man, California politician Willie Brown." which Time claims is somehow false

then the very same article goes on to confirm that the two did have an affair in the 90s, and that Brown heavily supported her political ambitions/races during that time. So how this is debunking the claim is beyond me lol --sure seems to be confirming it

4. "An Inside Edition clip of television host Montel Williams holding hands with Harris and another woman is proof that Harris was his “side piece.” While photos may be misleading, Montel did confirm they dated yes? Again, this isn't debunking anything.

5. The "vengeance of a nation" quote is not from Harris --so this is correct
6. A video shows Harris saying in a speech: “Today is today. And yesterday was today yesterday ... while Harris didn't say this exact words, the Time article confirms "Harris says in the clip: “So I think it’s very important—as you have heard from so many incredible leaders—for us, at every moment in time, and certainly this one, to see the moment in time in which we exist and are present, and to be able to contextualize it, to understand where we exist in the history and in the moment as it relates not only to the past, but the future.”

so Harris didn't say word-salad, incoherent statement A, but she did say B ? How is this debunking anything lol?

Leave it to partisan Time magazine to release an article where they try to debunk fake claims made about Kamala, and then go on to confirm 50% of those claims

Holding a woman's hand "is proof that Harris was his side piece".

What an absolutely absurd statement.

 

[Merrill]

Holding a woman's hand "is proof that Harris was his side piece".

What an absolutely absurd statement.

Montel Williams dated Harris

went beyond hand-holding

 

[Whyayeman]

Montel Williams dated Harris

went beyond hand-holding

Why is this something worth our attention?