Politifact fact checks Kamala Harris

[Servus]

I don't disagree.

However, the reality here is, if Harris doesn't win, that means Trump will. (Sure, there's a remote chance than a third party candidate will win...but it's highly unlikely) So when considering who to vote for, it's entirely germane to compare the two. If you want to compare policies, fine. Go right ahead. Compare Harris' specific plans to implement any policies or positions she says she's for with the specific plans to implement the policies and positions Trump stands for. (And if you want to throw in a third party candidate or two, feel free. Might be fun.) Post your observations about this, and we'll see what conversations arise from it. But, when you do, please offer both sides, so we can compare and contrast, see who gets more specific, and whether or not we can use that specific information to make an informed decision when it comes time to vote.

If all you want to do is criticize one candidate's policies or positions, then you're de facto advocating for that candidate's opponent. Let's not pretend otherwise. So don't be surprised when that opponent's name comes up. And when that happens, don't be surprised if past actions by that person enter the discussion. Such as any attempts they may have made to subvert the electoral process by, say, appointing fake electors, or calling a state official to "find" enough votes to turn the state's election results. Or any insurrection attempts they may or may have incited. Just sayin'.

Now, I've seen more than a few presidential elections in my day. I can tell you, from experience, that few politicians, especially candidates for president, get overly specific about policy. Most offer vague and generalized promises, most of which won't come to pass. And we all know this. Nothing new under the sun there.

What strikes me as weird is how the MAGA right is now acting as if Kamala Harris is the first politician ever to do this. Especially considering Trump's been doing it all along.

And have you seen Trump's agenda? If you can find any specific plans in there, I'd be shocked.

Golly thanks for establishing all those guidelines for my thread.

 

[A2SG]

Golly thanks for establishing all those guidelines for my thread.

Hey, I was simply responding to someone who called for a discussion of policies, and I mentioned the potential issues that such a discussion would involve. I recognize it's not exactly the topic you raised, as you only wanted to discuss Harris' false statements, without considering her truthful ones, or comparing them to her opponent in the position for which she's a candidate, but I figured it to be at least within the scope of the general topic. I apologize if you're bothered by this, I'm simply trying to help.

Do you wish to continue the discussion you and I were having earlier? I believe I responded to the last post you directed to me.

-- A2SG, though I'm not sure what was left to say, but hey, it's your dime....

 

[Servus]

Hey, I was simply responding to someone who called for a discussion of policies, and I mentioned the potential issues that such a discussion would involve. I recognize it's not exactly the topic you raised,

as you only wanted to discuss Harris' false statements, without considering her truthful ones,

or comparing them to her opponent in the position for which she's a candidate, but I figured it to be at least within the scope of the general topic. I apologize if you're bothered by this, I'm simply trying to help.

Do you wish to continue the discussion you and I were having earlier? I believe I responded to the last post you directed to me.

Actually comparing the content of her truthful statements vs her false ones would actually be on topic.

 

[A2SG]

Actually comparing the content of her truthful statements vs her false ones would actually be on topic.

Okay. Go ahead, let's see what comes of it.

-- A2SG, at least that discussion would leave out her opponent, since I'm not sure we could find enough truthful statements for comparison....

 

[KCfromNC]

The people making this a personality contest have missed the point altogether.

Who are those people? The discussion recently has been about one candidate having fewer federal felony indictments for election interference. That's not a personality contest.

 

[KCfromNC]

I thought about taking a shot for every time Trump is mentioned in this thread about Harris, but I don't want to get alcohol poisoning from downing that much liquor.

You're surprised that a thread attempting to paint one of the two candidates for president as a liar invited discussion about Trump? Seems like less of failure in the people immediately seeing that connecting and more a[nother] failure in trying to manufacture some sort of believable talking point against Harris.

 

[Servus]

You're surprised that a thread attempting to paint one of the two candidates for president as a liar invited discussion about Trump? Seems like less of failure in the people immediately seeing that connecting and more a[nother] failure in trying to manufacture some sort of believable talking point against Harris.

For or against what she's had to say. Maybe agree or disagree with the summaries given in the Politico fact check article. Maybe bring up a significant truth or falsehood Politico missed. I bet this thread could go on for quite a while along those lines of discussion.

However, no, I'm not surprised most everyone has Trump on the brain. Maybe I'll be surprised if most everyone still has Trump on the brain 20 years from now. Maybe.

 

[A2SG]

However, no, I'm not surprised most everyone has Trump on the brain. Maybe I'll be surprised if most everyone still has Trump on the brain 20 years from now. Maybe.

We can only hope he'll be nothing more than a negative footnote in our history.

-- A2SG, or, at best, a cautionary tale for generations to come....