Don’t Buy The Hype: Kamala Has BIG Problems

[iluvatar5150]

What I’ve seen is that every criticism of Harris is met with marginalization. See this thread for an example.

That's because most of the criticisms have been asinine if not downright dishonest. You've personally posted two threads based on falsehoods around quotes taken out of context and we've got a third one, from another poster, going right now. I've already gone over why the "word salad" thing is silly, as was the hubbub over the record shop stop.

She wouldn't have been my preferred candidate and I don't agree with all of her proposed policies, so it's not like I think she's faultless, but man, a lot of what you guys have been throwing out has been pretty stinking bad. If you want the criticisms of her to be taken seriously, you have to first take them seriously before you make them, instead of lazily regurgitating whatever low-effort propaganda gets shoveled at you.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Nice try. I know you have to say it, though.

I don't even know what that means. Do you think I have to toe the line in order to maintain standing with somebody?

 

[BPPLEE]

This thread IS about holding or not holding press conferences, and the utter uselessness of convening a press conference if a candidate answers every question with the most unbelievable malarkey.

Holding a press conference intending to answer with "whoppers" is worse than not holding a press conference at all.

No, this thread is about Kamala, read the title

 

[Hammster]

That's because most of the criticisms have been asinine if not downright dishonest. You've personally posted two threads based on falsehoods around quotes taken out of context and we've got a third one, from another poster, going right now. I've already gone over why the "word salad" thing is silly, as was the hubbub over the record shop stop.

She wouldn't have been my preferred candidate and I don't agree with all of her proposed policies, so it's not like I think she's faultless, but man, a lot of what you guys have been throwing out has been pretty stinking bad. If you want the criticisms of her to be taken seriously, you have to first take them seriously before you make them, instead of lazily regurgitating whatever low-effort propaganda gets shoveled at you.

Then deal with the actual arguments being made. The criticisms of “Trump supporters are throwing everything they can think of at the wall to see if something negative will stick” are not dealing with the arguments, but trying to marginalize them.

 

[Hammster]

I don't even know what that means. Do you think I have to toe the line in order to maintain standing with somebody?

It means that I understand why you have to make it sound that her nonsense statements aren’t nonsense, but it’s just that some are too stoopid to understand.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Then deal with the actual arguments being made. The criticisms of “Trump supporters are throwing everything they can think of at the wall to see if something negative will stick” are not dealing with the arguments, but trying to marginalize them.

Oh, you mean like how I went through a point-by-point analysis of one your OP's and you responded with "Sure."? And when I asked what was incorrect, you didn't respond. Is that your idea of "dealing with the actual arguments"? Because it looks a heck of a lot like "marginalizing" to me.

There is no actual argument being made in this thread - your OP is just a missive calling Harris dumb, and it's behind a paywall that requires subscribing to a mailing list, so most of us can't read it. And since you've offered no summary of the piece, the rest of us don't know what the subject is. @Fantine interpreted the topic as being press conferences and tried to address that subject. You told her that that was off-topic, but failed to articulate what the topic actually was beyond "Harris." Re-read this thread - not once have you actually tried to make a point. How do you expect us to address "the arguments being made" when you don't make an argument in the first place?

In most of the other threads, we have dealt with "the actual arguments being made." But it's often the case that you and others show up with no arguments and don't even an attempt to make one. On the occasions when you guys do have some semblance of an argument, it's often poorly thought out and based on inaccuracies. If you want smart, thoughtful discussions, then YOU have contribute, too. YOU have to put some effort into it.

 

[Hammster]

Oh, you mean like how I went through a point-by-point analysis of one your OP's and you responded with "Sure."? And when I asked what was incorrect, you didn't respond. Is that your idea of "dealing with the actual arguments"? Because it looks a heck of a lot like "marginalizing" to me.

There is no actual argument being made in this thread - your OP is just a missive calling Harris dumb, and it's behind a paywall that requires subscribing to a mailing list, so most of us can't read it. And since you've offered no summary of the piece, the rest of us don't know what the subject is. @Fantine interpreted the topic as being press conferences and tried to address that subject. You told her that that was off-topic, but failed to articulate what the topic actually was beyond "Harris." Re-read this thread - not once have you actually tried to make a point. How do you expect us to address "the arguments being made" when you don't make an argument?

In most of the other threads, we have dealt with "the actual arguments being made." But it's often the case that you and others show up with no arguments and don't even an attempt to make one. On the occasions when you guys do have some semblance of an argument, it's often poorly thought out and based on inaccuracies. If you want smart, thoughtful discussions, then YOU have contribute, too. YOU have to put some effort into it.

I’m not obligated to respond to arguments. That’s my prerogative. If you feel you’ve dealt with an argument and I don’t respond the way you want me to, so be it. I never responded and said that the only reason you posted is because you support Harris or don’t support Trump.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I’m not obligated to respond to arguments. That’s my prerogative. If you feel you’ve dealt with an argument and I don’t respond the way you want me to, so be it.

No, you're not obligated to respond to arguments. But if you want others to respond to arguments in a certain way, you probably ought to do the same, lest folks perceive you to be arguing in bad faith and, therefore, not take your comments seriously. Why would you expect anybody to engage with your arguments here when you 1.) don't make an argument in the first place and 2.) run away from arguments elsewhere?

I never responded and said that the only reason you posted is because you support Harris or don’t support Trump.

Right. You did, which is exactly the sort of "marginalizing" comment and failure to "deal with the actual arguments being made" that you complained about here.

 

[BCP1928]

I really can't believe that you think you could actually use that argument. Seriously? Can we get maybe an 'in comparison to...' so we can see what standards you are judging her on?

How about other successful prosecuting attorneys? That might be a good comparison.

 

[Hammster]

Right. You did, which is exactly the sort of "marginalizing" comment and failure to "deal with the actual arguments being made" that you complained about here.

I did? Where?

 

[Hammster]

How about other successful prosecuting attorneys? That might be a good comparison.

I see. So if she’s not as bad as someone else, she’s good to go. Got it.

 

[durangodawood]

Every time I think Harris has a problem Trump rushes in and says something so idiotic that Harris seems like the sane and reasonable one.

 

[BCP1928]

I see. So if she’s not as bad as someone else, she’s good to go. Got it.

If she is competent as a prosecuting attorney, personable enough to be elected attorney general and competent enough to make a good job of it, I'm having a hard time seeing the "mess."

 

[iluvatar5150]

I did? Where?

Right here

Describing my remarks as merely me trying to toe the party line is both condescending and marginalizing.

 

[Hammster]

If she is competent as a prosecuting attorney, personable enough to be elected attorney general and competent enough to make a god job of it, I'm having a hard time seeing the "mess."

As long as she’s on script, she’s fine.

 

[Hammster]

Right here

Describing my remarks as merely me trying to toe the party line is both condescending and marginalizing.

Fair enough. My apologies.

 

[Fantine]

My post on Harris' deference to the president as our nation's leader is the most logical answer.
Harris should not be in the position of being spokesperson for the administration's programs and parrying with the press.
Biden has 5 more months as president. He has, by almost every measure, done an extraordinary job and deserves our respect as leader.
Harris has just come out with her own economic proposals. This is a topic she willingly debate and speak with the press on.
At the convention she will introduce the party platform. She and Gov. Walz will be happy to discuss it with the press.
And if we're lucky, Gov. Walz might share some of his hometown moneysaving hacks on auto repair and more. He is a breath of fresh air, for sure. I've thought about him as the new Bernie, but there's something really Trumanesque about him, too, so down to earth and authentic.

 

[Hammster]

My post on Harris' deference to the president as our nation's leader is the most logical answer.
Harris should not be in the position of being spokesperson for the administration's programs and parrying with the press.
Biden has 5 more months as president. He has, by almost every measure, done an extraordinary job and deserves our respect as leader.
Harris has just come out with her own economic proposals. This is a topic she willingly debate and speak with the press on.
At the convention she will introduce the party platform. She and Gov. Walz will be happy to discuss it with the press.
And if we're lucky, Gov. Walz might share some of his hometown moneysaving hacks on auto repair and more. He is a breath of fresh air, for sure.

Biden said early on the Harris would be in on every decision. She needs to either own that, or Biden needs to retract.

 

[BCP1928]

Then deal with the actual arguments being made. The criticisms of “Trump supporters are throwing everything they can think of at the wall to see if something negative will stick” are not dealing with the arguments, but trying to marginalize them.

No, just pointing out that they have no substance.

 

[Hammster]

No, just pointing out that they have no substance.

If you say so.