Kamala Harris Election Campaign

Paul2 said:
To the discussion here?!

What a cop-out.
Click to expand...

She's right though. We've heard all this right-wing bull **** before so it won't make any difference to hear it again. Another right-winger spouting debunked right-wing nonsense while refusing to apologize for making false claims when presented with verifiable evidence? Just another walk in the park. The 9/11 CT reference was accurate because she even busted out the classics. No damage, peaceful, no one got hurt. If she says ANTIFA actually started it then I'll have a BINGO!
 
Donal said:
I've heard she actually does a lot of interviews on local media during her campaign stops. She can probably do more remote itnerviews with local media in swing districts.
Click to expand...

I don't think national interviews would be all that effective in reaching the voters she needs to get to. That's not where their eyeballs are.

I agree Harris and Walz should do local interviews in the swing states, and podcasts - she was just on All the Smoke. Trump's doing the same thing on the podcast side.
 
Delvo said:
So why choose to favor one that consists entirely of lies?
Click to expand...

I don't.

What I do is call out hyperbolic rhetoric that is intended to inflame emotions and incite hatred toward political opponents. If by some weird fluke, ISF ends up being overrun by a bunch of posters* that are spewing mischaracterizations and propagandized narratives about Harris or democrats in general, I'd be arguing against them just as determinedly. But ISF has a pretty heavy progressive skew, and the rhetoric is overwhelmingly from one political viewpoint.
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove discussion of ignore lists
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Emily's Cat said:
What I do is call out hyperbolic rhetoric that is intended to inflame emotions and incite hatred toward political opponents.
Click to expand...

Weird, I must have missed a lot of these. You're literally posting hyperbolic rhetoric in this thread about the Jan. 6 riots. Now you're playing the "centrist" card again. You know we can all see what you post, right? You seem to be afflicted with the right's tendency to think every post is made in a vacuum.

You've lied in this thread and have not made any attempt to correct yourself or apologize for blatantly spreading misinformation. There's no reason to take you, or your self proclaimed "protector from hyperbole", seriously.
 
JoeMorgue said:
And I repeat.
Click to expand...

Nuh uh, you're wrong! And if you don't accept that you're wrong because I told you that you're wrong, then you're just being willfully wrong! Because I told you you're wrong, so you should just accept that you're wrong!

Honestly, has "Because I said so" ever been a convincing argument? It doesn't even work particularly well for toddlers.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Nuh uh, you're wrong! And if you don't accept that you're wrong because I told you that you're wrong, then you're just being willfully wrong! Because I told you you're wrong, so you should just accept that you're wrong!

Honestly, has "Because I said so" ever been a convincing argument? It doesn't even work particularly well for toddlers.
Click to expand...

How about the myriad of sources that show you're wrong? Including stacyhs's confirmation of what I said? I'm fine if I'm ignore. I'll wear it as a badge of honor, but you're still doing your best to avoid taking responsibility for the bull **** nonsense you spewed earlier.
 
A lot foreing policy questions will be coming to both Candiates at eh Mideat seems to going down the road to a Major League regional war.
 
Michael Moore wants to assure us all that Trump is toast:

The vast majority of the country, the normal people, have seen enough and want the clown car to disappear into the MAGA vortex somewhere between reality and Orlando. The swift and explosive momentum for Kamala Harris is unlike anything that’s been seen in decades. Which is why maybe at this point in my rant I just need to say out loud that which is being said to me in private by people I respect — and not just in whispers, but in excited tones of exuberance: That a new era is being born, one where caucasian is just one of the options but no longer the bossy pants of the world. Where it’s OK if you’re missing the lower right quadrant of the second X chromosome thus making it a “y” which means you’re never going to have your own fallopian tubes so just deal with it and keep your hands off the gender who has them. Simple.
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand that penultimate sentence. Still he's got lots of electoral college maps, the first of which shows Harris winning 270-268. Maybe we have a different idea of what "toast" means? But not to worry, here's some more maps where he assumes that Harris wins. Here's what happens if she wins the states Biden won, here's what happens if she wins the states Obama won in 2008, or 2012. It's all uncomfortably reminiscent of Rachel Maddow in 2016, demonstrating that there was no possible way Trump could win.

At any rate, Michael does see one potential fly in the ointment:

Also, another mistake that could be made in these final 4-5 weeks is if Harris is advised by her wealthy donors to shun the left and drop her more progressive positions in favor of a “move to the center.” This, too, could reduce or depress the vote for Harris, especially among the base. I know many of you don’t want to hear that, but I’m just trying to warn you that the actions of party hacks and pundits have consequences. They had the candidate traipsing around Wisconsin yesterday with Liz Cheney to get out the vote. Thank you Liz Cheney for doing the right thing. But there’s an estimated one million people in Wisconsin who didn’t vote in 2020. We need them out in droves on November 5th. THAT should be the heart and soul of the get-out-the-vote drive — in Wisconsin and every other state! 80 million Americans didn’t vote in 2020.
Click to expand...

First of all, political scientists have a word for candidates who say they are going to bring out people who don't usually vote. They call them losers. Second, 2020 was an extraordinary turnout election, with an amazing 158 million votes cast for president; in 2016 the tally was 137 million. Third, each voter you win in the center is two votes--one for your candidate and one taken away from the other guy. Finally, remember part of Trump's argument is that Kamala has an extremist agenda; having establishment Republicans like Cheney campaigning for her blunts those attacks.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Nuh uh, you're wrong! And if you don't accept that you're wrong because I told you that you're wrong, then you're just being willfully wrong! Because I told you you're wrong, so you should just accept that you're wrong!

Honestly, has "Because I said so" ever been a convincing argument? It doesn't even work particularly well for toddlers.
Click to expand...

... you are really bad at this.

Not one person said "Because I said so" or anything that could reasonable be constructed as that. That is a lie. You are lying. You are saying a falsehood knowing it is a falsehood.

We SHOWED you are wrong. We provided facts, evidence, arguments. And since all of this had already been debunked a thousand times, even that was a courtesy.

You're just doing what we all said you were going to do, getting huffy and going "How dare you tell me I'm wrong, that's so unfair."

You do not have the intellectual, argumentative, or moral high ground here. You are not the victim. You are not being treated unfairly. Nobody is being uncivil toward you.

You... are... just... wrong.
 
Emily's Cat said:
No police officers died during the riot. One police officer died of natural causes several hours after the riot. It's possible that the protest contributed to their stroke, but ultimately the strokes occurred eight hours after the riot had finished.
Click to expand...
Ah, so it wasn’t where “one 'side' wandered through the Capitol and did no material property damage and caused no actual harm,” as you stated earlier.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Nuh uh, you're wrong! And if you don't accept that you're wrong because I told you that you're wrong, then you're just being willfully wrong! Because I told you you're wrong, so you should just accept that you're wrong!

Honestly, has "Because I said so" ever been a convincing argument? It doesn't even work particularly well for toddlers.
Click to expand...

You were pointed to objective evidence which conclusively proved you wrong, which you ignored.

Trump has done things which are completely unprecedented, including trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power to a legitimately elected successor. He deliberately incited a mob of his crackpot supporters to attack the Capitol FFS. Those responding to his actions, and the danger he represents to American democracy, have a legitimate cause for concern. You might think those concerns are occasionally overstated, but pretending they're no more justified than those expressed about Harris is not reasonable.
 
Here, I'll translate phony-baloney high horse centrism to plain English...

Trump tried to subvert democracy. And there's every indication he'll do it again if he loses.

Calling that out is equally bad. Proof: it riles people up. BOTH SIDES!!
 
Emily's Cat said:
Nuh uh, you're wrong! And if you don't accept that you're wrong because I told you that you're wrong, then you're just being willfully wrong! Because I told you you're wrong, so you should just accept that you're wrong!

Honestly, has "Because I said so" ever been a convincing argument? It doesn't even work particularly well for toddlers.
Click to expand...
Oh please. When you claim there was "no actual harm" on Jan 6, when quite obviously there was actual harm, you're telling rank lies. You're more or less on par with Andrew Clyde and his observation of a "normal tourist visit".
 
varwoche said:
When you claim there was "no actual harm" on Jan 6, when quite obviously there was actual harm, you're telling rank lies.
Click to expand...
And even that's just focusing on one of a list of lies in the post that started us down this path. The problem with right-wingers pretending to be "centrists" or "above it all" or whatever is not just that they lie, meaning some of their claims are lies. It's that they have nothing else; every item in their case for their position is another lie. The only thing that's actually "both sides" about it is that that's who they're lying about.
 
It's the one man Gish Gallop. Say so much stuff that is so completely wrong that even to begin to start you basically have to start at the Carl Sagan "To make an apple pie we have to first create the universe" level.

That's why I'm not doing it. "This has already been explained, disproven, debunked a billion times, I'm not addressing your 10 paragraphs of the same lies again. The facts are no longer in honest dispute" should be the valid response.

Again people this is why LETTING PEOPLE BE THIS WRONG has negative consequences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom