Lao Tse
Verified User
this is why you're losing.
Vast majority of Americans support photo ID requirement to vote, new poll says 84% of Americans favor requiring a photo ID to vote, Gallup Poll finds
- Thread starter ExpressLane
- Start date
Lao Tse
Verified User
did she work at McDonald's?
christiefan915
Catalyst
She said she did and I believe her. Do you have proof that she didn't?
Lao Tse
Verified User
she needs proof she did.
The Harris Administration
Official
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
Pedantic, aren't I?
The Harris Administration
Official
Be reasonable.
That's not good enough. She said/he said is not empirical, is it?
There's no proof either way.
christiefan915
Catalyst
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.
Lao Tse
Verified User
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?
TOP
Retired Teacher
Ok...thanks for sharing...
christiefan915
Catalyst
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
Pedantic, aren't I?
I don't think Harris has to prove anything just because trump thinks she does.
The Harris Administration
Official
christiefan915
Catalyst
Why does there have to be proof of such an absurd claim? That's giving trump way too much power.
The Harris Administration
Official
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.
What we "think" i.e. bias/prejudice doesn't rise to the level of proof. I'm not into double standards. Are you?
christiefan915
Catalyst
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.
The Harris Administration
Official
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.
christiefan915
Catalyst
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.
The Harris Administration
Official
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.
The Harris Administration
Official
Kamala should accept that everything she says she did (excepting her opinions) has to be backed by independently verifiable proofs.
Likewise, Trump.
That's how it works.
christiefan915
Catalyst
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.
christiefan915
Catalyst
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?
I'm not talking about theory and empiricism, where this might be a good argument to make in a logic textbook. I'm talking about in practical terms. trump's claim is noise and deflection. He wants to pretend that it's meaningful but it's not.