Jeff Clark: I Can’t Find Evidence Kamala Harris Led the Prosecution of a Single Case

[Hammster]

Much like I am unable to help your continued refusal to see what is right in front of your face. Such is the nature of our times I guess.

Except that I’ve actually shown what he said is not what he’s accused of saying. You all just keep repeating the claim that he lied.

 

[FenderTL5]

He was not. Fancy that! It was just a little bit of clickbait. (It does not claim that Harris never led a prosecution because the author knew better.)

How long before it is repeated here and elsewhere?

Well it was perpetuated here by the the first post in this thread..

 

[Belk]

Except that I’ve actually shown what he said is not what he’s accused of saying. You all just keep repeating the claim that he lied.

Have you? Honest question. Do you believe that you have shown that in this thread?

 

[Nithavela]

Why? The targeted audience gets their fix first then when it’s shown to be untrue it’s either dropped without a word or defended to the hilt regardless of the facts. There’s no down side to lies these days.

The ease with which lies can be spread on this forum makes it one of my favorite places on the internet.

 

[Nithavela]

People should think twice before adding to the swirl of lies and misdirections out there.

I always thought there was supposed to be an ethic of truth central to Christianity, rather than just whatever might achieve worldly power?

What gave you that idea?

 

[Hammster]

Have you? Honest question. Do you believe that you have shown that in this thread?

Yes.

 

[Belk]

Yes.

Interesting. I would disagree. If you are interested in hearing about my thoughts, I will explain why.

 

[Hammster]

Interesting. I would disagree. If you are interested in hearing about my thoughts, I will explain why.

Sure.

 

[Belk]

Sure.

When someone says to me they are going to "show" me something I take that to mean they are going to present a claim and give me some data points to support their claim. This is the definition I am working off of.

For your posts we have the claim "Yes, the media ignored the issue in Springfield until they started talking about cat memes.". This is the only post in the thread I see that seems to be in any way related to the discussion on pet eating. If there is another please point it out so I can address it.

The reason I do not see this as "being shown" that the claims Vance lied about the situation is that the claim makes some vague reference to cat memes without explaining what that means and how it shows the claims to be wrong. Even if it was some sort of a meme that does not change that Vance created or spread a story that was false. There is no reasoning on how this refutes the claims. It is simply a statement without any context, data, or logical chain that I can engage with to change my mind. Let me see if I can construct a reasonable analogy to demonstrate.


Say you made the claim "John states that the gate is open" and I respond with "No, john was talking about gate memes". My response does not contradict your statement and it in no ways shows what you stated to be incorrect. It offers no reasoning that addresses the gate being open, it simply talks about the medium that the gate is being discussed through without offering any contradiction.

This is why I would disagree that you have disproved the claim Vance was making the story up. Happy to answer questions or offer further clarification.

 

[Hammster]

When someone says to me they are going to "show" me something I take that to mean they are going to present a claim and give me some data points to support their claim. This is the definition I am working off of.

For your posts we have the claim "Yes, the media ignored the issue in Springfield until they started talking about cat memes.". This is the only post in the thread I see that seems to be in any way related to the discussion on pet eating. If there is another please point it out so I can address it.

The reason I do not see this as "being shown" that the claims Vance lied about the situation is that the claim makes some vague reference to cat memes without explaining what that means and how it shows the claims to be wrong. Even if it was some sort of a meme that does not change that Vance created or spread a story that was false. There is no reasoning on how this refutes the claims. It is simply a statement without any context, data, or logical chain that I can engage with to change my mind. Let me see if I can construct a reasonable analogy to demonstrate.


Say you made the claim "John states that the gate is open" and I respond with "No, john was talking about gate memes". My response does not contradict your statement and it in no ways shows what you stated to be incorrect. It offers no reasoning that addresses the gate being open, it simply talks about the medium that the gate is being discussed through without offering any contradiction.

This is why I would disagree that you have disproved the claim Vance was making the story up. Happy to answer questions or offer further clarification.

The original claim was that Vance lied about people eating cats in Springfield. All I need to do is to show the quote (which someone else posted) to show that this isn’t true. Nowhere did he claim that people are eating cats.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The original claim was that Vance lied about people eating cats in Springfield. All I need to do is to show the quote (which someone else posted) to show that this isn’t true. Nowhere did he claim that people are eating cats.

If you want to split hairs, fine. He said that they were eating pets, not cats specifically. Which was still a lie.

 

[Whyayeman]

If you want to split hairs, fine. He said that they were eating pets, not cats specifically. Which was still a lie.

To be fair, I think eating the cats was Trump's lie. So a liar and vice liar.

I am reminded of Dick Dastardly and Muttley.

 

[Hammster]

If you want to split hairs, fine. He said that they were eating pets, not cats specifically. Which was still a lie.

When did he say that?

 

[Whyayeman]

When did he say that?

On September 11th 2024, during his debate with Kamala Harris. Here is the relevant part. I can let you have more detail if required.

They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country​

 

[DaisyDay]

https://www.axios.com/2024/09/15/vance-haitians-eating-cats-debunked-claims

Sunday, September 15, 2024 on Meet the Press.

 

[DaisyDay]

Vance

On September 11th 2024, during his debate with Kamala Harris. Here is the relevant part. I can let you have more detail if required.

They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country​

Vance, this time.

The little videos people made using autotuned Trump are pretty good.

 

[Belk]

The original claim was that Vance lied about people eating cats in Springfield. All I need to do is to show the quote (which someone else posted) to show that this isn’t true. Nowhere did he claim that people are eating cats.

That is all well and good, but I want to focus on why I did not see you as posting information that rebutted the claim. Do you see why I would find that to be the case?

 

[Hammster]

On September 11th 2024, during his debate with Kamala Harris. Here is the relevant part. I can let you have more detail if required.

They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country​

Vance didn’t debate Harris.

 

[Hammster]

https://www.axios.com/2024/09/15/vance-haitians-eating-cats-debunked-claims

Sunday, September 15, 2024 on Meet the Press.

Where did he claim that Haitians were eating cats?

 

[Hammster]

That is all well and good, but I want to focus on why I did not see you as posting information that rebutted the claim. Do you see why I would find that to be the case?

Is that what you really want to talk about?