I did a cursory look but but with confirmation bias being a thing, it’d be better to ask you all, right? Because I’m getting results like this, this, this, &etc.
~Max
Oh, I thought you couldn’t find a source. I’m not clicking the blind links, mind you. As far as I’m concerned, if Biden hasn’t thrown her to the wolves, they have a great relationship by comparison to the previous “leadership”.
Serious Question:
Kamala Harris sounded like a hawk in her convention speech, and doubled-down at the debate.
Which is closer to true:
– Her team believes that to win against a bully, you have to show strength. But on military policy, she is completely aligned with Biden.
– The Houthi shipping blockage situation will be getting impossible for the U.S. just about the time the next president takes office. Any competent American leader is going to preside over an escalation there.
– Russia and Houthis, watch out. Once Biden, whose dovish instincts were apparent when he tried to get Obama to go slow on the bin Laden operation, is gone, we. will give Ukraine more lattitude and take on the Houthis ourselves.
Trump is projecting. If he had to drop out of a race and be replaced by his running mate, he’d be FURIOUS, so he assumes Biden is as well because sociopaths always assume their thought processes are normal and everyone else thinks the same way they do.
For my opinion. I can’t tell you what precisely I read or heard that gave me a general understanding that Biden and Harris don’t get along. I can, very easily, find a number of sources to back up that position post-hoc. But I would much prefer in this instance that someone else with more knowledge of the Biden administration do the fact checking, since I don’t have the expertise to evaluate the sources I find.
~Max
Oh, wow. That sucks.
You mean because he didn’t pee on himself (visibly anyway). We did not watch the same event. 
Holy crap.
Und zat is vhy der fuehrer alvays vears his brown trousers.
I’ll agree with Max there, in that I legitimately thought something like him pissing himself was in play and was disappointed that he didn’t do so.
To answer Max_S and “don’t get along”
Even if this were to be true (I’m not granting that it is), it’s not necessarily a bad thing of they are not bosom buddies. I have no doubt that they do have a cordial and professional working relationship as a base point.
One mark of a good leader is to deliberately surround yourself with diversity and to have people that will ask you the difficult questions. Time and again, every single study on diversity shows that while a diverse team may have more conflict, may be more difficult to manage and may not be as much “fun” to be a part of, they produce better results.
From a tweet I responded to about Trump being fact-checked:
Snopes really dropped the ball on that one - they labeled it false because Trump said there were “very fine people on both sides” instead of specifically saying the phrase “Neo-Nazis are very fine people”, and the right ran with it as proof that Trump didn’t say what he said.
It’s so disappointing to see one of the longest-running fact check sites on the web resort to sanewashing.
Moderating:
If you’re not directly discussing the debate, your post belongs in another thread. This includes the topic about Biden and Harris not getting along. Not appropriate for this thread.
@Max_S, I think you should start a new thread to discuss your opinions about Harris. Few of them posted in this thread have to do with her debate performance.
@PhillyGuy, this also goes for your discussion re Harris’s views re the Houthis at her convention speech v. the debate.
It’s like saying that it’s false to claim that a person claimed, “Black people are very dumb,” when they actually said, “Black people are really dumb.” You’re calling something false on a semantic technicality that is actually true.
So yeah, I’m not counting that as something from the debate that needed to be fact-checked. And I’m not saying that because I think Harris was perfect. Some of what she said was false or misleading, but it wasn’t much, and nothing as egregious as the crazy stuff Trump was called out on.
To take the first one in your post, Trump said:
“She wants to confiscate your guns”
He said it present tense. That makes his statement untrue.
Lindsey Davis said:
“ You wanted mandatory government buyback programs for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don’t.”
That is true.
-
A mandatory buy-back program for certain kinds of firearms (those whose sole purpose is killing large numbers of people in a short time) is NOT “confiscating firearms”.
So this claim of a Harris lie is bullshit. -
Correct, Trump did not directly, completely say that Neo Naxis were “very fine people”. He merely said that of protestors and neo Nazis, there were “very fine people on both sides.” So Harris should have been more accurate, and claimed that Trump likes BOTH Protestors AND the Neo Nazis who murder them.
-
On Abortion; Trumps actual accusation was the Democrats are in favor of executing babies: “(The Democrat governor) said the baby will be born and we will decide what to do with the baby,” Trump said. “In other words, we’ll execute the baby.”
This claim of Trumps was entirely bullshit, and he was called on it. -
Taking police officers out of schools is not the same as “Defund the police”. Trumps claim that Harris said this is bullshit.
-
Everyone knows what Trump meant about his “bloodbath” comment. The auto-industry excuse was just a fig leaf; a post hoc rationalization. Trump is good at the dog-whistle, and everyone (including his supporters) knows it.
That is all.
This is genuinely, laugh out loud funny. What do you think you’re getting with Trump, if not a President who trolls Republicans?
I know this guy. A true, hard core Trump believer, have had lunch with him a few times, he was fighting the MAGA fight earlier this summer in fact.
Today he posted this, an insane level of copium and lying-to-onselves. But… and it’s there in the 2nd-to-last sentence… deep in his heart of hearts he knows Trump is in trouble:
I do like how he lied at least once in the first two sentences, for he either didn’t watch the debate, or he did and didn’t like the moderation. Can’t do both!
He said “from what I see here”, as in, whatever platform you’re on, that’s where he read about the bad moderators. It’s no different than if I said, “I didn’t watch the debate, but I read here (on the dope) that the moderators didn’t do a good job”.
But I’m sure he won’t accept a Harris win as God himself correcting a wrong.
Good point. I decided to use his words against him:
