Harris is part of the current administration and has been fully consistent on their line. So, no, it’s not different, and we do have a clear idea what she’ll do as president. She will say that what’s happening there makes her feel sad, then send a bunch more weapons unconditionally, and you’ll be proven completely wrong but it won’t give you a moment’s pause because Trump would’ve been worse, so what did it matter if what you were saying was true, as long as it helped her get elected and helped you push aside some cognitive dissonance?
Also, are you suggesting that the QAnon “trust the plan” line was/would’ve been valid before Trump was in office? Because it wasn’t.
It’s always counterfactuals, isn’t it? You think Gore would’ve been different on points that he never distanced himself from and that you can’t point to anything concrete to show he would’ve been different, in the exact same way that you think Kamala might be different. So what? That’s not evidence. That means nothing, it’s purely in your head, based off vibes.
I picked my username and pic because I believe in basing my beliefs on evidence.
And another thing, when politicians do lie about their positions, more often than not, it’s almost always for the worse. Or maybe they’re sincere on the trail but respond to established pressured once in office. I remember when Obama said he was going to end mass surveillance and protect whistleblowers, how’d that play out? Nowadays, they even skip the part where they promise good things entirely, and it doesn’t matter because no matter what they do or don’t do, you’ll find a way to explain how they’re secretly gonna do what you want.
Unlike the hard evidence you’re going with about a future Harris presidency? Do you have a time machine? A crystal ball?
Also, I never claimed to have any facts. I leave that up to the people who claim that Kamala Harris is a genocidal maniac so don’t vote for her. (Oops, too late.)
I have her statements and the actions of the administration she’s been a part of for the past four years. That’s evidence.
If I see that a person has murdered three people, I don’t have “proof” that they’re going to keep murdering people in the future, but I have strong enough evidence to say that they present a danger to society. Don’t play dumb and pretend that you don’t understand that actions and statements provide evidence for future behavior.
I see. You don’t know what the vice president’s job is or what her powers are. This all makes sense now. I suggest you look up the job. It doesn’t involve either setting or implementing policy.
Either you skipped basic high school civics or you are not American. Either way, I would recommend knowing what the vice president is and is not able to do.
I will give you a hint though: the vice president has exactly two jobs, neither of which involve setting policy on Israel in any way. I’ll leave it up to you to learn more, but something tells me you won’t.
Goebbles wasn’t the one who decided to invade France so his hands are clean, huh?
Despite your condescention, I do fully understand that the VP’s formal powers don’t involve setting foreign policy. I have never claimed this so it’s purely a strawman. What I have said is that it’s possible to predict, with reasonable confidence, what Harris is going to do, based on the actions of the administration she’s a part of and based on her public statements. You think that all of her statements on the issue are lies, and that she’s in stark disagreement with Biden on the issue but can’t do anything about it because her role is extremely limited, which you’re saying she also lies about, and all of it’s based on nothing. Well, actually, it’s quite clear what it’s based on, it’s based on what you want to be true, regardless of evidence or reason.
If you’re desperate enough to play that card, to disavow Biden and claim that Kamala’s role is extremely limited to only her formal duties, then I have to assume you’re running out of room to retreat to. You’re already playing the “not an American” card as well, which is always a sign that you can’t respond to what I’m saying so you have nothing left but to undermine my credibility.
The “hands are tied” excuse is so thin at this point that I don’t know how anyone can take is seriously, other than pure cope.
The only “card” I have played is that we can’t know whether or not her Israel policy will differ from Biden’s just because she isn’t going against him right now.
You’re the one here who seems to have some sort of crystal ball so you can know what is going to happen with certainty, not me.
Believe it or not, we might have an idea about the sort of things Trump might do if he’s president.
I’m sure you’ll figure out how that’s different from Harris if you think hard enough about it.
Removed by mod
Amazing how many people here are convinced that the vice president sets and controls policy.
Harris is part of the current administration and has been fully consistent on their line. So, no, it’s not different, and we do have a clear idea what she’ll do as president. She will say that what’s happening there makes her feel sad, then send a bunch more weapons unconditionally, and you’ll be proven completely wrong but it won’t give you a moment’s pause because Trump would’ve been worse, so what did it matter if what you were saying was true, as long as it helped her get elected and helped you push aside some cognitive dissonance?
Also, are you suggesting that the QAnon “trust the plan” line was/would’ve been valid before Trump was in office? Because it wasn’t.
You clearly didn’t read this part of my post, so I will repeat it:
It’s always counterfactuals, isn’t it? You think Gore would’ve been different on points that he never distanced himself from and that you can’t point to anything concrete to show he would’ve been different, in the exact same way that you think Kamala might be different. So what? That’s not evidence. That means nothing, it’s purely in your head, based off vibes.
I picked my username and pic because I believe in basing my beliefs on evidence.
And another thing, when politicians do lie about their positions, more often than not, it’s almost always for the worse. Or maybe they’re sincere on the trail but respond to established pressured once in office. I remember when Obama said he was going to end mass surveillance and protect whistleblowers, how’d that play out? Nowadays, they even skip the part where they promise good things entirely, and it doesn’t matter because no matter what they do or don’t do, you’ll find a way to explain how they’re secretly gonna do what you want.
Unlike the hard evidence you’re going with about a future Harris presidency? Do you have a time machine? A crystal ball?
Also, I never claimed to have any facts. I leave that up to the people who claim that Kamala Harris is a genocidal maniac so don’t vote for her. (Oops, too late.)
I have her statements and the actions of the administration she’s been a part of for the past four years. That’s evidence.
If I see that a person has murdered three people, I don’t have “proof” that they’re going to keep murdering people in the future, but I have strong enough evidence to say that they present a danger to society. Don’t play dumb and pretend that you don’t understand that actions and statements provide evidence for future behavior.
I see. You don’t know what the vice president’s job is or what her powers are. This all makes sense now. I suggest you look up the job. It doesn’t involve either setting or implementing policy.
Either you skipped basic high school civics or you are not American. Either way, I would recommend knowing what the vice president is and is not able to do.
I will give you a hint though: the vice president has exactly two jobs, neither of which involve setting policy on Israel in any way. I’ll leave it up to you to learn more, but something tells me you won’t.
Goebbles wasn’t the one who decided to invade France so his hands are clean, huh?
Despite your condescention, I do fully understand that the VP’s formal powers don’t involve setting foreign policy. I have never claimed this so it’s purely a strawman. What I have said is that it’s possible to predict, with reasonable confidence, what Harris is going to do, based on the actions of the administration she’s a part of and based on her public statements. You think that all of her statements on the issue are lies, and that she’s in stark disagreement with Biden on the issue but can’t do anything about it because her role is extremely limited, which you’re saying she also lies about, and all of it’s based on nothing. Well, actually, it’s quite clear what it’s based on, it’s based on what you want to be true, regardless of evidence or reason.
If you’re desperate enough to play that card, to disavow Biden and claim that Kamala’s role is extremely limited to only her formal duties, then I have to assume you’re running out of room to retreat to. You’re already playing the “not an American” card as well, which is always a sign that you can’t respond to what I’m saying so you have nothing left but to undermine my credibility.
The “hands are tied” excuse is so thin at this point that I don’t know how anyone can take is seriously, other than pure cope.
The only “card” I have played is that we can’t know whether or not her Israel policy will differ from Biden’s just because she isn’t going against him right now.
You’re the one here who seems to have some sort of crystal ball so you can know what is going to happen with certainty, not me.