Lao Tse
Verified User
this is why you're losing.Check your privilege.
this is why you're losing.Check your privilege.
did she work at McDonald's?Off topic, but Hitchen's razor applies perfectly to the claim that Harris never worked at McD's.
She said she did and I believe her. Do you have proof that she didn't?did she work at McDonald's?
she needs proof she did.She said she did and I believe her. Do you have proof that she didn't?
Off topic, but Hitchen's razor applies perfectly to the claim that Harris never worked at McD's.
She said she did and I believe her.
You have it backwards. She damn well doesn't have to prove anything. trump needs to prove that she was somewhere other than Alameda, CA in the summer of 1983.she needs proof she did.
it was an educated bet that he won.To be fair, it applies equally to her initial claim to have done so.
Trump's error was to state categorically that she never worked there without evidence. Had he instead pointed out that there's been no verifiable proof she ever worked at McDonald's, he'd have been on solid ground.
BTW, the concept is named for Christopher Hitchens, and is therefore expressed as "Hitchens's".
Hitchens's razor - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Pedantic, aren't I?
Ok...thanks for sharing...Ignorance seems to be the only thing you have going for you.
No more so than me. I looked it up before replying because I hadn't heard of the term.To be fair, it applies equally to her initial claim to have done so.
Trump's error was to state categorically that she never worked there without evidence. Had he instead pointed out that there's been no verifiable proof she ever worked at McDonald's, he'd have been on solid ground.
BTW, the concept is named for Christopher Hitchens, and is therefore expressed as "Hitchens's".
Hitchens's razor - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Pedantic, aren't I?
Why does there have to be proof of such an absurd claim? That's giving trump way too much power.Be reasonable.
That's not good enough. She said/he said is not empirical, is it?
There's no proof either way.
No more so than me. I looked it up before replying because I hadn't heard of the term.
I don't think Harris has to prove anything just because trump thinks she does.
Why do you think Harris is required to even respond to, let alone prove anything to congenital liar trump? And about working at McDonald's forty years ago, for god's sake? This is just trump taking his absurdities to a new level.it was an educated bet that he won.
Why does there have to be proof of such an absurd claim?
I'm making the argument that no politician has to rise to every allegation the opposition puts out. And saying also that if trump knows something about KH's work history, he should just outright show it and end the argument by shaming her publicly with it.What we "think" i.e. bias/prejudice doesn't rise to the level of proof. I'm not into double standards. Are you?
Why do you think Harris is required to even respond to, let alone prove anything to congenital liar trump?
I'm making the argument that no politician has to rise to every allegation the opposition puts out. And saying also that if trump knows something about KH's work history, he should just outright show it and end the argument by shaming her publicly with it.
You don't understand my point. Questioning her teenage fast food job from 40 years ago has zero to do with what she's doing today. Harris could claim that trump never worked on his father's construction sites as a teen and who could prove her wrong? None of this teenage stuff is relevant.Empiricism.
Is there a different standard applicable to claims we want to believe?
As previously stated, Trump would have been perfectly correct to have demanded proof of Kamala's claim and when none was forthcoming, to mock her for it.
She made an error. He made one, too, by stating without evidence that she lied.
All she has to do is prove she worked at McDonald's.
It doesn't help me because it's an infinitesimal point that doesn't matter in the scheme of things. Any more than trump's unproven claim that he labored on his father's construction sites as a teen. What do either of those thing have to do with campaigning for president?She made the claim.
The standard of proof is universal. Claims made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
At this point, neither the claim that Kamala worked at McDonald or the claim that she didn't holds water.
The issue is in doubt until proven otherwise.
Hope that helps.