[Pongo]

Harris isn't necessarily a liar. Maybe she really does believe she worked at McDonald's, despite having never worked there.

How did you come by this assertion?

Imagine falling so hard for the propaganda that you think Kamala Hussain Harris ever worked a minimum wage job in her life.

Um, imagine falling for the propaganda so hard that you reject without reason just the notion that Kamala Harris might have ever worked a minimum wage job in her life?

I see what you did here. You said exactly what I said but you stapled an Uno reverse card to it. How did you come up with this novel rhetorical tactic? It’s so simple a child could use it. Like, a very small child.

[AATW]

Only Harris is making an assertion.

Incorrect.
Harris is asserting that she had a job in college.
Trump is asserting that Harris is lying.

Trump doesn't need to provide evidence that a claim is false.

He is claiming Harris is lying. I have given a couple of ways he could evidence that. He repeatedly shows he doesn't care about evidencing claims, but that doesn't mean it's not possible for him to do so.

Harris needs to provide evidence that it is true.

That may not be possible. I have explained why. Again, her claim is not an outlandish one in the same way that "I walked on the moon" is.
Many kids get jobs in college, not many people walk on the moon.

What someone says, without evidence, is not true in and of itself.

Correct.

By default, if she cannot support her claim, then she is either lyineg or honestly mistaken.

Incorrect. I went on holiday to Majorca when I was 14. I don't believe I have any photos of that, I'm sure some were taken at the time but imagine they've long since been lost. So I cannot support that claim. That doesn't mean I'm lying or mistaken. I'd suggest that your experience of the world - that people do often go on holidays - and your knowledge of me - that I'm in the UK and therefore Majorca is relatively close to me and a common holiday destination for Brits - should be factors in how credible you find my claim.

Why do you think it's true? Just because she said it? I find that comical.

Well, no. Not just because she said it. As I said, if she said she'd walked on the moon then I'd not believe her until she supplied some good evidence. I believe her because she said it AND because I don't see why she'd lie about it AND because no-one who knows her has called her out on it being a lie AND because it's a plausible claim - again, kids having a menial job while at college is very common. So it's a combination of things.

[Roundy]

Harris isn't necessarily a liar. Maybe she really does believe she worked at McDonald's, despite having never worked there.

How did you come by this assertion?

Imagine falling so hard for the propaganda that you think Kamala Hussain Harris ever worked a minimum wage job in her life.

Um, imagine falling for the propaganda so hard that you reject without reason just the notion that Kamala Harris might have ever worked a minimum wage job in her life?

I see what you did here. You said exactly what I said but you stapled an Uno reverse card to it. How did you come up with this novel rhetorical tactic? It’s so simple a child could use it. Like, a very small child.

I know, I got moves.

[Pete Svarrior]

This is all a very interesting way to boil down an argument to "actually I'm just going to take her word for it".

Not in the slightest. You said it was an issue that she didn't list a shitty summer job on a resume 4 years after she supposedly finished the job. That's a silly take which deserves ridicule, and thus earns you ridicule.

Pointing this out does not in any way imply that I think Kamala worked at McDonald's. I don't know if she did, nor do I feel any desire to form an opinion on the matter. If anything, it's Weird that you do.

[Rushy]

Harris is asserting that she had a job in college.
Trump is asserting that Harris is lying.

This might be acceptable logic in bongo bongo land, but I live in a first world nation. We have standards of logic that extend beyond faith-based arguments. "This person said it, so it must be true, you can't say otherwise unless you prove them wrong" is not a quality argument here in America. You'll have to do better.

Well, no. Not just because she said it. As I said, if she said she'd walked on the moon then I'd not believe her until she supplied some good evidence. I believe her because she said it AND because I don't see why she'd lie about it AND because no-one who knows her has called her out on it being a lie AND because it's a plausible claim - again, kids having a menial job while at college is very common. So it's a combination of things.

What's the difference between a claim that you've walked on the moon versus worked on McDonald's aside from your personal belief regarding them? This is simply an argument of "I believe her, therefore she's correct".

Not in the slightest. You said it was an issue that she didn't list a shitty summer job on a resume 4 years after she supposedly finished the job. That's a silly take which deserves ridicule, and thus earns you ridicule.

And yet "people will omit their job at McDonald's until they run for president" is your, somehow not-ridiculous, take of the day. Curious.

Pointing this out does not in any way imply that I think Kamala worked at McDonald's. I don't know if she did, nor do I feel any desire to form an opinion on the matter. If anything, it's Weird that you do.

Nice opinion.

[Pete Svarrior]

And yet "people will omit their job at McDonald's until they run for president" is your, somehow not-ridiculous, take of the day.

Why are you so determined to lie about my takes? I thought your core point here was that lying is bad.

[Rushy]

And yet "people will omit their job at McDonald's until they run for president" is your, somehow not-ridiculous, take of the day. Curious.

Why are you so determined to lie about my takes? I thought your core point here was that lying is bad.

I just got done saying that Harris isn't necessarily lying. Perhaps you need to take a breather and read the thread before posting.

[Lord Dave]

Harris isn't necessarily a liar. Maybe she really does believe she worked at McDonald's, despite having never worked there.

How did you come by this assertion?

Where do you see an assertion in my post?

despite having never worked there.

That part.  Its pretty clear you consider her lying.  A claim without evidence is not a lie, its simply unproven.  Perhaps unprovable. 

Of course, according to one of her freinds, she did.

From the article I liked on page 15

A friend of Harris, Wanda Kagan, told the New York Times that she recalled Harris having worked at McDonald's around that time. That recollection was based on what Harris' mother, who died in 2009, told her years ago, the Times reported.

Its not great evidence, but its still evidence.  More than Trump has that she didn't.

[AATW]

I live in a first world nation. We have standards of logic

You’ll have to tell your president elect that.
He wouldn’t know logic if it slapped him round the chops.

"This person said it, so it must be true, you can't say otherwise unless you prove them wrong" is not a quality argument here in America.

Lucky that’s not the argument I’m making then.

What's the difference between a claim that you've walked on the moon versus worked on McDonald's

I have explained this, but once again for the cheap seats. The main difference is how credible the claim is. Which is obviously subjective. But I think most people would agree that a person claiming they had a summer job at college is a more credible claim than a person claiming they’d been to the moon.

Which doesn’t mean Harris is telling the truth here. I’m inclined to believe her as it seems like a silly lie. I just find it weird if you go through life demanding people prove claims no matter how plausible they are. Assuming you work, if you ask a colleague on a Monday what at the weekend and they say they went to the movies do you demand they prove it? I don’t because I’m not a loony. If they told me they’d gone to the moon for the weekend then I think I’d want to see some evidence.

[Rushy]

That part.  Its pretty clear you consider her lying.

As I just told Pete, I've never claimed she is lying. Whether she worked at McDonald's doesn't necessitate a lie.

Its not great evidence, but its still evidence.  More than Trump has that she didn't.

For some definition of "evidence".

You’ll have to tell your president elect that.
He wouldn’t know logic if it slapped him round the chops.

My president elect? He? It seems your long line of assumptions never end.

I have explained this, but once again for the cheap seats. The main difference is how credible the claim is. Which is obviously subjective. But I think most people would agree that a person claiming they had a summer job at college is a more credible claim than a person claiming they’d been to the moon.

How credible the claim is for you?

Which doesn’t mean Harris is telling the truth here. I’m inclined to believe her as it seems like a silly lie. I just find it weird if you go through life demanding people prove claims no matter how plausible they are. Assuming you work, if you ask a colleague on a Monday what at the weekend and they say they went to the movies do you demand they prove it? I don’t because I’m not a loony. If they told me they’d gone to the moon for the weekend then I think I’d want to see some evidence.

I don't see how your interactions with the people around you are directly relevant to a political candidate. Are you routinely having conversations with Harris? No? Then I don't see why you would bring up such a silly analogy.

[Tom Bishop]

Why should I trust Kamala when I can trust McDonald's?

https://www.offthepress.com/mcdonalds-says-it-has-no-record-of-kamala-working-there/



https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4942757-donald-trump-mcdonalds-pennsylvania/

[markjo]

Do you really expect a fast food franchise with a high employee turnover rate to keep employee records from 40 years ago?

[honk]

The manager has been working there for forty years? I seriously doubt that, and even if it were true, how could they be reasonably expected to remember one of the undoubtedly hundreds of employees they've had over the years?

[Pongo]

Do you really expect a fast food franchise with a high employee turnover rate to keep employee records from 40 years ago?

The IRS will have records assuming Kamala paid taxes. But, I’ll bet you a shiny nickel that the current administration won’t have the IRS verify these claims. Spoilers: it’s because they don’t exist.

[honk]

Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that the IRS is hanging onto records of the income tax that a fast-food worker paid forty years ago; secondly, there's no good reason (both in the sense of Kamala's political interests and the public interest) to ask them to try to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; thirdly, that's not a thing the IRS would do even if there was a good reason to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; and fourthly, Trump and his supporters would immediately label any evidence the IRS produced as fabricated, so what would even be the point? Nobody who isn't already a ride-or-die Trump fan doubts that Kamala worked at McDonald's when she was younger, because it's entirely believable and would be an utterly pointless thing to lie about.

[Pete Svarrior]

I just got done saying that Harris isn't necessarily lying.

That has nothing to do with you lying about my takes, specifically. How sad!

I'll throw you a bone: it sounds like you didn't read the thread very thoroughly and started mixing me up with AATW. There, now you have an easy way out!

Why should I trust Kamala when I can trust McDonald's?

Because that would require you to distrust Trump, which would clash with your established character.

After all, McDonald's made no statement along the lines Trump is claiming, and they released an internal memo which tacitly accepts Harris's claims.

So, that's why you can't trust McDonald's. They didn't say the right things, and they did say the wrong things.

[AATW]

My president elect? He? It seems your long line of assumptions never end.

It's a prediction more than an assumption. I briefly had hope that Harris would beat Trump but that is fading somewhat, I now believe Trump will win. I could be wrong and hope I am. Not that I think Harris is a great candidate but as with politics over here it's usually about choosing the least bad option.

How credible the claim is for you?

Do you know what subjective means? But I would suggest that pretty much everyone would regard someone's claim that they had a summer job at college more credible than a claim that they'd walked on the moon.

I don't see how your interactions with the people around you are directly relevant to a political candidate. Are you routinely having conversations with Harris? No? Then I don't see why you would bring up such a silly analogy.

OK. So your scepticism arises from the fact she's a political candidate and your belief that they routinely lie for political gain.
In which case fair enough I guess.

But I don't think her inability to evidence it or McDonald's inability to confirm it or her failure to mention it on her CV when applying for a job which was nothing to do with it are evidence either way. So we are both working on gut feeling and our personal level of credulity.

[Pongo]

Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that the IRS is hanging onto records of the income tax that a fast-food worker paid forty years ago; secondly, there's no good reason (both in the sense of Kamala's political interests and the public interest) to ask them to try to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; thirdly, that's not a thing the IRS would do even if there was a good reason to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; and fourthly, Trump and his supporters would immediately label any evidence the IRS produced as fabricated, so what would even be the point? Nobody who isn't already a ride-or-die Trump fan doubts that Kamala worked at McDonald's when she was younger, because it's entirely believable and would be an utterly pointless thing to lie about.

Wow, what a convent slew of semi-plausible excuses.

“IRS doesn’t have it”
“If they do have it, it doesn’t matter”
“If it does matter, they won’t release it”
“If they do release it, then it’s fabricated”
“If it isn’t fabricated, then it’s not relevant”

It reminds me of the narcissist’s prayer. Which I guess is fitting for Kamala.

[Lord Dave]

Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that the IRS is hanging onto records of the income tax that a fast-food worker paid forty years ago; secondly, there's no good reason (both in the sense of Kamala's political interests and the public interest) to ask them to try to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; thirdly, that's not a thing the IRS would do even if there was a good reason to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; and fourthly, Trump and his supporters would immediately label any evidence the IRS produced as fabricated, so what would even be the point? Nobody who isn't already a ride-or-die Trump fan doubts that Kamala worked at McDonald's when she was younger, because it's entirely believable and would be an utterly pointless thing to lie about.

Wow, what a convent slew of semi-plausible excuses.

“IRS doesn’t have it”
“If they do have it, it doesn’t matter”
“If it does matter, they won’t release it”
“If they do release it, then it’s fabricated”
“If it isn’t fabricated, then it’s not relevant”

It reminds me of the narcissist’s prayer. Which I guess is fitting for Kamala.

Why did you mash two sides of the argument?

[Rushy]

Firstly, it's extremely unlikely that the IRS is hanging onto records of the income tax that a fast-food worker paid forty years ago; secondly, there's no good reason (both in the sense of Kamala's political interests and the public interest) to ask them to try to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; thirdly, that's not a thing the IRS would do even if there was a good reason to verify Kamala's McDonald's employment; and fourthly, Trump and his supporters would immediately label any evidence the IRS produced as fabricated, so what would even be the point? Nobody who isn't already a ride-or-die Trump fan doubts that Kamala worked at McDonald's when she was younger, because it's entirely believable and would be an utterly pointless thing to lie about.

Of course, honk. We're now on a tangent of "there's no evidence, and even if there were, we shouldn't waste time asking for it". What's next up on the slippery slope to "I believe it because I just do, okay?"

That has nothing to do with you lying about my takes, specifically. How sad!

I'll throw you a bone: it sounds like you didn't read the thread very thoroughly and started mixing me up with AATW. There, now you have an easy way out!

Giving up on your attempt this easily, eh? I'm glad you at least read the thread and veered off into a different point, but you could at least come up with something more interesting to discuss. I expect better from you.

It's a prediction more than an assumption. I briefly had hope that Harris would beat Trump but that is fading somewhat, I now believe Trump will win. I could be wrong and hope I am. Not that I think Harris is a great candidate but as with politics over here it's usually about choosing the least bad option.

Harris will win unless the Democrats forgot to set the voter machines to "Harris_Votes = Trump_Votes + 1000" this time

Do you know what subjective means? But I would suggest that pretty much everyone would regard someone's claim that they had a summer job at college more credible than a claim that they'd walked on the moon.

I think the chances of people walking on the moon and Harris working at McDonald's are about the same. Now, I don't know who these other people are, but I would prefer you stop trying to drag them into the thread. They obviously aren't posting here.

OK. So your scepticism arises from the fact she's a political candidate and your belief that they routinely lie for political gain.
In which case fair enough I guess.

But I don't think her inability to evidence it or McDonald's inability to confirm it or her failure to mention it on her CV when applying for a job which was nothing to do with it are evidence either way. So we are both working on gut feeling and our personal level of credulity.

As I said before, her lying is not required.