Some fact-Checking on Kamala Harris

[BPPLEE]

Yes the ideological capture is like a chameleon, it can shift and morph by recreating reality through words, narrative and fake news. Say it enough and people begin to believe.

But that has been going on for some time now and people can see through the unreality. In fact when parties engage in this gas lighting it actually turns people off.

But you are rtight. We only have to go back and understand exactly what Harris is saying and means when she speaks.

She is a bit more cunning in that she tries to be wishy washy about what she actually is saying so that people are not quite sure or it could mean different things at the same time. Or even playing both sides depending on the situation.

But if you actually breakdown where she is coming from its extreme left ideology ie defunding the police which is also supported by rqadical Marxist groups like BLM and stems from CRT.

Or eliminating private health so as to bring about a socialist ideology for healthcare where everyone is subject to the same State imposed ideology.

Or her position like the Dems on Isreal which is antagonistic and divisive in not even welcoming a foreign PM to congress and hearing them out and exposes their ideological overreach. And of course her ideological position on open borders and the complete chaos this has created.

I know this is going to be controversial but I have to link what Murray says as he often cuts straight to the truth.

PS. What we are actually seeing is the Dems usual presidential candancy being fought between different representatives with various positions fighting it out to determine the best candidate (a democractic process).

Instead a few elites have decided for everyone and therefore instead of having already sorted out who is best candidate the entire motivation and aim of the Dems is now to make Harris the best regardless of 'who is actually the best candidate' based on a rigorous vetting process.

So we are seeing what should have been an internal process being played out in public. Except its not, because it is not democratically determined but forced on the entire party and by extension on the nation. What we will now see is the recreation of Karmala Harris into a moderate gaslighting everyone while hiding their true ideological agenda.

Kama Chameleon

 

[Whyayeman]

Where has it been established that she writes her own speeches?

Has anybody shown that she doesn't? Then again, many eminent statesmen have speechwriters. Their function is to do the heavy work and their boss requires revisions until the speech is what they want to say. I think that is perfectly reasonable.

There is a bias on show here. On the one hand, so it goes, she cannot produce clear English; on the other, when she does somebody else wrote it out for her.

 

[stevevw]

Kama Chameleon

Lol good one.

 

[BPPLEE]

If the complaint is that it's empty and needlessly wordy, then fine. I'd agree with that in some cases. Granted, I don't think her comments were any emptier than what I've heard from a lot of other executives recently, and she's less wordy than virtually every academic I know, but those are both extremely low bars.

But "word salad" doesn't mean "empty." "World salad" means "unintelligible."

She's at it again
During a reporter gaggle, Harris said of the prisoner swap, "This is just an extraordinary testament to the importance of having a president who understands the power of diplomacy and understands the strength that rests in understanding the significance of diplomacy and strengthening alliances."

 

[iluvatar5150]

She's at it again
During a reporter gaggle, Harris said of the prisoner swap, "This is just an extraordinary testament to the importance of having a president who understands the power of diplomacy and understands the strength that rests in understanding the significance of diplomacy and strengthening alliances."

So? That's logical and syntactically correct. Stylistically, I would've rewritten it to rely less on the word "understands," but it's not empty. Complaining about moderately complex sentences isn't going to do you much good IMO.

 

[BPPLEE]

So? That's logical and syntactically correct. Stylistically, I would've rewritten it to rely less on the word "understands," but it's not empty. Complaining about moderately complex sentences isn't going to do you much good IMO.

Calling attempts to fill space moderately complex sentences isn't going to do you any good.
IMO

 

[Merrill]

So I was talking to a friend last night who is heavily involved in the Democratic Party (fund raiser, liaison, worked on campaigns, etc.). He is very wealthy

he asked me what I thought was going to happen with the election, and I said that I suspected Harris was going to win a close contest (for a variety of reasons)

and he surprised me by saying "I don't see a pathway to victory for her. I don't think she will win"

 

[Belk]

So? That's logical and syntactically correct. Stylistically, I would've rewritten it to rely less on the word "understands," but it's not empty. Complaining about moderately complex sentences isn't going to do you much good IMO.

I know you don't mean it this way, but complaining that the women folk talk to much is not going to win over a lot of people.

ETA sorry iluvatar, meant to quote @BPPLEE .

 

[BPPLEE]

I know you don't mean it this way, but complaining that the women folk talk to much is not going to win over a lot of people.

ETA sorry iluvatar, meant to quote @BPPLEE .

Making excuses is not going to either

 

[Belk]

Making excuses is not going to either

Excuses seemto be working fine for both right now, but I'm curious what excuses you believe are problematic?

 

[BPPLEE]

Excuses seemto be working fine for both right now, but I'm curious what excuses you believe are problematic?

It's just the sort of thing that was done for Biden. He had a stuttering problem, videos were selectively edited, Biden was sharp as a tack, we know how that worked out. He beat Medicare!
Kamala uses complicated sentence structure. Yeah, right.
You can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time .

 

[Belk]

It's just the sort of thing that was done for Biden. He had a stuttering problem, videos were selectively edited, Biden was sharp as a tack, we know how that worked out. He beat Medicare!
Kamala uses complicated sentence structure. Yeah, right.
You can fool some of the people all of the time and you can fool all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time .

OK. I believe you are saying that you think Kamala does not speak well and that people are using the excuse that she is speaking in complex sentence structures as a cover. Is that correct?

 

[BPPLEE]

OK. I believe you are saying that you think Kamala does not speak well and that people are using the excuse that she is speaking in complex sentence structures as a cover. Is that correct?

She is struggling to find something to say so she repeats herself needlessly and this is being framed as complex sentence structure

 

[Belk]

She is struggling to find something to say so she repeats herself needlessly and this is being framed as complex sentence structure

OK, thank you for clarifying.

 

[Whyayeman]

She is struggling to find something to say so she repeats herself needlessly and this is being framed as complex sentence structure

Pot and kettle!

I think Harris deals in complex issues rather than soundbites and slogans which for me is a good thing. This can lead to complex sentences. She uses repetition in her speeches for emphasis and force. Repetition is a well known rhetorical device.

Examples come to mind (no comparison intended!).

'I have a dream . . .'
'We will fight them on the beaches . . .'
'Once more unto the breach, once more . . .'

As for the content of her speeches - well, they seem to be going down rather well with her audiences.

 

[BPPLEE]

Pot and kettle!

I think Harris deals in complex issues rather than soundbites and slogans which for me is a good thing. This can lead to complex sentences. She uses repetition in her speeches for emphasis and force. Repetition is a well known rhetorical device.

Examples come to mind (no comparison intended!).

'I have a dream . . .'
'We will fight them on the beaches . . .'
'Once more unto the breach, once more . . .'

As for the content of her speeches - well, they seem to be going down rather well with her audiences.

Yeah, just like Biden had a stuttering problem and all the videos that showed he had dementia were selectively edited.

 

[Whyayeman]

Yeah, just like Biden had a stuttering problem and all the videos that showed he had dementia were selectively edited.

Not like that at all. And this is off-topic.

 

[BPPLEE]

Not like that at all. And this is off-topic.

Here’s an example of her complex explanations

'Ukraine is a country in Europe... Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine so basically that's wrong': Kamala​

Kamala explains Putin's invasion in 'layman's terms'

Kamala Harris laid out the Ukrainian invasion in simple terms on Tuesday, starting with: 'Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia.'

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Merrill]

Pot and kettle!

I think Harris deals in complex issues rather than soundbites and slogans which for me is a good thing. This can lead to complex sentences. She uses repetition in her speeches for emphasis and force. Repetition is a well known rhetorical device.

Examples come to mind (no comparison intended!).

'I have a dream . . .'
'We will fight them on the beaches . . .'
'Once more unto the breach, once more . . .'

As for the content of her speeches - well, they seem to be going down rather well with her audiences.

"I think Harris deals in complex issues rather than soundbites and slogans which for me is a good thing"

based on what evidence exactly? When has she ever expressed a detailed and nuanced position on anything, and didn't end up contradicting herself hours or days later?

you are just projecting competence onto this woman, and making her into some fantasy candidate

Let's look at some of the things she supported in the past, and then backtracked on, or completely changed her tune on

1. Single-payer healthcare. She said in 2020 that she wanted Medicare for all, and an elimination of private healthcare, because healthcare was a "human right". She said she was firm on this as a guiding principle. A few years later, her campaign tells us that she didn't really mean that, and intends to keep the private system in tact. So much for principles

2. Mandatory gun buybacks (basically confiscation), which she supported in 2020, but has retreated from. Good luck getting any kind of answer from her on this today

3. Defunding the police: which she expressed support for multiple times in 2020 and 2021. Now her campaign says that she didn't want to take money from police, she was just "being tough on crime". What?

4. Banning fracking and offshore drilling: which she said she would do back in 2019, "starting on public lands" --in other words, she was going to ban these things nationally. Now she says she no longer supports that

Harris has no platform on her website. She has no stated policy positions. She was ranked by govtrack as the most liberal Senator in 2019, and that website took the page down to protect her reputation going forward

Absolutely no one has any idea what this woman believes in, or what she wants to do once in office. She doesn't even know--she just panders to any group she is put in front of.

You don't have to vote for Trump, but the idea that you would vote for literally anyone, competent or not, known or not, rather than the orange man is a really bad policy. And that is where we are

 

[BPPLEE]

"I think Harris deals in complex issues rather than soundbites and slogans which for me is a good thing"

based on what evidence exactly? When has she ever expressed a detailed and nuanced position on anything, and didn't end up contradicting herself hours or days later?

you are just projecting competence onto this woman, and making her into some fantasy candidate

Let's look at some of the things she supported in the past, and then backtracked on, or completely changed her tune on

1. Single-payer healthcare. She said in 2020 that she wanted Medicare for all, and an elimination of private healthcare, because healthcare was a "human right". She said she was firm on this as a guiding principle. A few years later, her campaign tells us that she didn't really mean that, and intends to keep the private system in tact. So much for principles

2. Mandatory gun buybacks (basically confiscation), which she supported in 2020, but has retreated from. Good luck getting any kind of answer from her on this today

3. Defunding the police: which she expressed support for multiple times in 2020 and 2021. Now her campaign says that she didn't want to take money from police, she was just "being tough on crime". What?

4. Banning fracking and offshore drilling: which she said she would do back in 2019, "starting on public lands" --in other words, she was going to ban these things nationally. Now she says she no longer supports that

Harris has no platform on her website. She has no stated policy positions. She was ranked by govtrack as the most liberal Senator in 2019, and that website took the page down to protect her reputation going forward

Absolutely no one has any idea what this woman believes in, or what she wants to do once in office. She doesn't even know--she just panders to any group she is put in front of.

You don't have to vote for Trump, but the idea that you would vote for literally anyone, competent or not, known or not, rather than the orange man is a really bad policy. And that is where we are

I couldn’t find the video of her explaining how Russia invaded Ukraine like she was talking to 3 year olds. Google and YouTube are protecting her