Some fact-Checking on Kamala Harris

[BPPLEE]

Is word salad a definite deal breaker in a candidate for you?

No, I can’t say that Trump is a great communicator. I get tired of the way he dumbs everything down and doesn’t get into specifics.
I just find it comical that people can’t be honest about Kamala.

 

[BPPLEE]

I lumped that under "susceptibility to propaganda."

FWIW, I'd apply the same descriptor to folks on the left who think Trump was a complete failure at business. (He's not a savant like some on the right like to think, but he's obviously got a knack for some things)



The Fox one was worse. The youtube one was just her talking about not being burdened by the past, and how much she likes Venn diagrams. I think the Venn diagram comments are sort of cringey, but none of that was difficult to understand.

It’s not difficult to understand, I guess that’s what you’ve focused on. It’s empty, it’s like someone repeating words because they don’t have anything else relevant to say but they’re expected to speak. It’s comical, It’s not difficult to understand it’s just a lot of unnecessary repetition to fill time in. It’s not difficult to understand (see how I put that in there 3 times? Like that.)

 

[iluvatar5150]

It’s not difficult to understand, I guess that’s what you’ve focused on. It’s empty, it’s like someone repeating words because they don’t have anything else relevant to say but they’re expected to speak. It’s comical, It’s not difficult to understand it’s just a lot of unnecessary repetition to fill time in. It’s not difficult to understand (see how I put that in there 3 times? Like that.)

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."

 

[rjs330]

Is word salad a definite deal breaker in a candidate for you?

No. People just like to debate about anything.

 

[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."

Okay. I can agree that it’s not difficult to understand for the most part.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

"Unaware of what year it was, Joe wandered the streets desperate for help. But the English language had deteriorated into a hybrid of hillbilly, valleygirl, inner-city slang and various grunts. Joe was able to understand them, but when he spoke in an ordinary voice he sounded pompous and █████ to them."

We are so, so close. So close.

 

[Pommer]

Or just so partisan that they have seized on this opportunity to denigrate her!

There is really nothing difficult about her speeches. she does use complex sentence structure, use long sentences. but they are perfectly comprehensible to any reasonably articulate 12 year old.

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

 

[FenderTL5]

The Fox one was worse. The youtube one was just her talking about not being burdened by the past, and how much she likes Venn diagrams. I think the Venn diagram comments are sort of cringey, but none of that was difficult to understand.

Agree. I don't mind Venn Diagrams when they are used for humor.
The FOX almost sounded as if she was being condescending or perhaps talking to children. Then again, since it was on FOX that could have been an intentional attempt to adjust to the audience's comprehension level.

 

[BPPLEE]

Agree. I don't mind Venn Diagrams when they are used for humor.
The FOX almost sounded as if she was being condescending or perhaps talking to children. Then again, since it was on FOX that could have been an intentional attempt to adjust to the audience's comprehension level.

If it sounded as if she was talking to children, or dumbing it down for Fox viewers how is that more difficult to understand? Y’all are contradicting each other while claiming to agree.

 

[essentialsaltes]

If it sounded as if she was talking to children, or dumbing it down for Fox viewers how is that more difficult to understand?

Do you find the big country attacks small country discussion [I assume that's what's being referred to] difficult to understand?

 

[BPPLEE]

Do you find the big country attacks small country discussion [I assume that's what's being referred to] difficult to understand?

No but the person I was talking to said the Fox clip was worse of the two clips he posted, meaning it was more difficult to understand than the other. I disagreed.

 

[FenderTL5]

If it sounded as if she was talking to children, or dumbing it down for Fox viewers how is that more difficult to understand? Y’all are contradicting each other while claiming to agree.

We're not the one's saying it was difficult to understand. Actually we are sayng the opposite.

copy/paste the exact quote I agreed to: "..none of that was difficult to understand."

 

[wing2000]

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.

....well tell that to the GOP candidate for POTUS. He's incapable of making an argument based on policy or even ideology....what was his latest quip? "Radical Left Marxist" Kamala? <eyeroll>. Select a more competent candidate!

 

[BPPLEE]

We're not the one's saying it was difficult to understand. Actually we are sayng the opposite.

copy/paste the exact quote I agreed to: "..none of that was difficult to understand."

iluvatar5150 said:
The Fox one was worse. The youtube one was just her talking about not being burdened by the past, and how much she likes Venn diagrams. I think the Venn diagram comments are sort of cringey, but none of that was difficult to understand.

“The Fox one was worse “
. I had responded to @illuvatar5150 that the Fox one was not bad. He seems to think it was more difficult to understand than the other video he posted.
You pointed out that it sounded like it was aimed at children and made a disparaging remark about Fox viewers

 

[FenderTL5]

Its her lack of experience..

You are aware that Kamala Harris has more experience in public service than both candidates on the GOP ticket combined?

 

[FenderTL5]

iluvatar5150 said:
The Fox one was worse. The youtube one was just her talking about not being burdened by the past, and how much she likes Venn diagrams. I think the Venn diagram comments are sort of cringey, but none of that was difficult to understand.

“The Fox one was worse “
. I had responded to @illuvatar5150 that the Fox one was not bad. He seems to think it was more difficult to understand than the other video he posted.
You pointed out that it sounded like it was aimed at children and made a disparaging remark about Fox viewers

The FOX one was worse imho, because it comes across as condescending. Not because it was difficult to understand.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

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.

This is the crux of it. Her policies are bad and she is a far left ideologue. She did poorly in the last presidential run, and exactly the same people who told us Biden was at the top of his game and "the border is secure" when it was completely false are promoting her. That alone is enough for a hard no. No one cares about the package; it's the words, the policies.

 

[BPPLEE]

This is the crux of it. Her policies are bad and she is a far left ideologue. She did poorly in the last presidential run, and exactly the same people who told us Biden was at the top of his game and "the border is secure" when it was completely false are promoting her. That alone is enough for a hard no. No one cares about the package; it's the words, the policies.

I think she is too far left to win the general under most circumstances, but we’re not under most circumstances.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I think she is too far left to win the general under most circumstances, but we’re not under most circumstances.

No, we aren't. We are living through a dystopian nightmare under the Biden Administration and whoever is actually running this show.

 

[stevevw]

This is the crux of it. Her policies are bad and she is a far left ideologue. She did poorly in the last presidential run, and exactly the same people who told us Biden was at the top of his game and "the border is secure" when it was completely false are promoting her. That alone is enough for a hard no. No one cares about the package; it's the words, the policies.

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.