Apologies forgot to include the source. Toronto Sun. So what. She said those things, I’ve seen several of the clips. Rambling speeches that make no sense.
Sure try to argue out of context or make Trump comparisons. I’m no fan of Trump.
I’ve cringed at some Kamala sound bites myself. Not the best. But I read each one of those quotes and, even out of context, I think the majority of them are fine if not fairly eloquent for what I assume is public speaking.
If Manhattanboy has issues with the argument against his lazy copy paste maybe he could actually put a bit of effort in and illustrate what problem he has or issue he faced understanding each quote individually?
Will either illuminate the validity of his point or his own limitations.
I’ve cringed at some Kamala sound bites myself. Not the best. But I read each one of those quotes and, even out of context, I think the majority of them are fine if not fairly eloquent for what I assume is public speaking.
If Manhattanboy has issues with the argument against his lazy copy paste maybe he could actually put a bit of effort in and illustrate what problem he has or issue he faced understanding each quote individually?
Will either illuminate the validity of his point or his own limitations.
Well surely you’ve seen the multiple clips of the unburdened by what has been nonsense. Maybe she’s getting bad advice.
And re the last one I have no doubt that all of us here could explain inflation and its detrimental effects in a more effective manner.
Well surely you’ve seen the multiple clips of the unburdened by what has been nonsense. Maybe she’s getting bad advice.
And re the last one I have no doubt that all of us here could explain inflation and its detrimental effects in a more effective manner.
You can't know anything without the context. People always use simplistic language as a rhetorical device to illustrate just how simple a concept is. But if that's excised from the context, it sounds stupid. Here's just one of the many examples from your list:
Quote:
This issue of transportation is fundamentally about just making sure that people have the ability to get where they need to go.
So that sounds stupid on its own if you assume she's trying to say something profound. But in the context of the speech, it makes more sense; she's saying "yes, it's a simple concept, but it can still pose challenges for people with disabilities":
Quote:
And I, again, want to thank the Secretary for your work. This issue of transportation is fundamentally about just making sure that people have the ability to get where they need to go. It’s that basic. But we know the obstacles to that goal can be great.
The Following 24 Users Say Thank You to opendoor For This Useful Post:
Further to opendoor’s point, actual tone changes can change the meaning of a quote.
Thinking of the children/community quote, it’s fairly likely to me she’s saying that the children of the community are the children OF the community, as in, they are not just children that live in the community but children raised by the community, which is a pretty big thing in a lot of communities in the US, especially lower income neighborhoods.
Tough to find the context of each as most of the results are right wing outlets. I also had to laugh at finding that Toronto Sun article and realizing it was written by Larry Elder, a writer for the Epoch Times who happens to be an out misogynist.
But that context probably doesn’t matter either, I guess.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
In August 2021, Elder came under criticism for his long history of disparaging statements about women. Elder has contended that "Women know less than men about political issues, economics, and current events" when citing a 2017 Cambridge study[104] by Toni Alexander Ihme and Markus Tausendpfund; mocked women who took part in the 2017 Women's March as "obese"; mocked premenstrual syndrome by saying PMS stands for "Punish My Spouse"; endorsed pregnancy discrimination by employers; reposted an article on his website that likened single mothers on welfare to stray cats; and claimed that statistics about domestic violence against women are exaggerated to promote feminism.[105] Elder has asserted that Democrats achieve more success among women voters because they have "emotionally driven, but often unsound policies."[106]
Ooof, wow. I'd be embarrassed to know I had shared something posted by a guy like this. Worse, though, is the The Sun publishes his stuff, presumably giving him money for it. Gross.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
How can someone supposedly so bright and articulate (prosecutor, senator, committee member) say such stupid things?
I was seriously pondering what side of the argument you're trying to be on here. If you're serious, that's a massive self-burn
Quote:
“So, there’s a big difference between equality and equity. Equality suggests, ‘Oh everyone should get the same amount.’ The problem with that, not everybody’s starting out from the same place. So, if we’re all getting the same amount, but you started out back there and I started out over here, we could get the same amount, but you’re still going to be that far back behind me. It’s about giving people the resources and the support they need, so that everyone can be on equal footing, and then compete on equal footing. Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place.” — November 2020
Sure there's a bit of muddled bit in the middle which is normal for a transcript of speech, but generally speaking this is just a very normal version of people explaining the difference between equality and equity, something which needs explaining because most people, especially conservatives, clearly don't understand the difference.
Quote:
“We invested an additional $12 billion into community banks because we know community banks arein the community, and understand the needs and desires of that community as well as the talent and capacity of community.” — September 2022
There's nothing weird about this, it's obvious even from just the text where the emphasis goes and what the point is.
Quote:
“It’s time for us to do what we have been doing, and that time is every day. Every day it is time for us to agree that there are things and tools that are available to us to slow this thing down.” — January 2022
Eh, a bit muddled but again it's obvious where the emphasis goes and what the point is. You will find stuff like this in any speech.
Quote:
“I think that, to be very honest with you, I do believe that we should have rightly believed, but we certainly believe that certain issues are just settled. Certain issues are just settled.” — July 2022
Again, it's obvious that this is just a transcript of someone looking for the exactly right wording, which is absolutely normal when people are talking. Also, her point is the right one: that certain things that conservatives have been pushing back on are stuff that a lot of people thought were settled already as political issues, like abortion and child labor, and it's a shock that conservatives have been rolling those back.
Quote:
“The brilliance of this inaugural class and its leaders is the ability to see what can be, unburdened by what has been, and then to make it real in a way that will be replicated around our country.” — February 2024
Seriously, I don't see any problem, this is basic inspirational speech stuff, if you don't get it you gotta be pretty effing dumb.
Quote:
“So, Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So, basically, that’s wrong, and it goes against everything that we stand for.” — March 2022
Again, not stupid. Just very, very simplified. It's also how Trump talks almost all of the time. It's also impossible to say from the context, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was delivered in a satirical tone, because this type of "oversimplification" is super normal when using a somewhat satirical tone.
“But we all watched the television coverage of just yesterday. That’s on top of everything else that we know and don’t know yet, based on what we’ve just been able to see. And because we’ve seen it or not doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.” — March 2022
Eh okay, this wording is an absolute mess, but I can still clearly make out what she's saying, and the message itself is fine. Bad wording, not stupid.
Honestly, do conservatives not understand what stupid even means?
It means that you're saying something that doesn't make sense.
Saying that your opponent has stolen her platform from you and that it's a terrible platform is stupid, no matter how cleverly you word it.
Telling people that what they've seen on TV about a topic is just a tip of an iceberg is not stupid, no matter how poorly you word it.
Quote:
“The significance of the passage of time, right? The significance of the passage of time. So, when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time.” — March 2022
Again, this is how Trump talks all of the time. Repeating key phrases is extremely normal when giving a speech, there's nothing stupid, and this is so completely out of context that it's impossible to say more.
Quote:
“You know, when we talk about our children — I know for this group, we all believe that when we talk about the children of the community, they are a children of the community.” — May 2023
Already explained.
Quote:
“This issue of transportation is fundamentally about just making sure that people have the ability to get where they need to go.” — July 2023
Already explained.
Quote:
“I think the first part of this issue that should be articulated is AI is kind of a fancy thing. First of all, it’s two letters. It means artificial intelligence, but ultimately what it is, is it’s about machine learning.” — July 2023
I really don't see the point here, the "fancy thing" is clearly an admission that most people don't get what we're about to talk about, and then she tries to explain what we're talking about.
This is how that continues:
Quote:
“...part of the issue here is what information is going into the machine. That will then determine... what then will be produced in terms of decisions".
“So to reduce it down to its most simple point... what (information) is going into a decision? And then whether that decision is actually legitimate and reflective of the needs and the life experiences of all the people”.
This is just correct. There's was originally a lot of unnecessary words around it which makes it rhetorically bad because it comes difficult to follow, but that's not stupidity.
I am actually more convinced that she's smart after hearing this, this is more than I would most non-technical people to understand about AI, and understanding this is quite important in understanding the current LLM-driven "AI-revolution".
This is especially important to understand for a politician, since many if not most issues where people are hoping of a policy intervention from the government are directly related to the machine learning side of AI development.
Quote:
“So, I will say what I know we all say, and I will say over and over again: The United States stands firmly with the Ukrainian people (and) in defence of the NATO alliance.” (Ukraine is not part of NATO.) — March 2022
Yeah Ukraine is not part of NATO, but she also doesn't say that it is. She's saying US stands firmly with two things that are directly related, which they are.
This is just correct, and it's a huge self-burn to try to make it into something it's not.
Quote:
“Let’s start with this: Prices have gone up, and families and individuals are dealing with the realities of — that bread costs more, that gas costs more. And we have to understand what that means. That’s about the cost of living going up. That’s about having to stress and stretch limited resources. That’s about a source of stress for families that is not only economic but is on a daily level something that is a heavy weight to carry. So that is something that we take very seriously, very seriously. … So it’s a big issue, and we take it seriously, and it is a priority, therefore.” — November 2021.
Again, this is just correct and I don't see the problem. Inflation isn't just about things costing more, and economic hardship is about more than money itself. It's not about the TicTacs.
The only thing you've managed to convince me is that conservatives are so stupid that they can't even tell what is stupid.
Oh, and Harris isn't the best when it comes to rhetorics, but I knew that already.
Last edited by Itse; 08-19-2024 at 04:20 AM.
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
The fact that it came from Larry Elder should have been the first indicator it was not going to be genuine and was going to be highly edited to try and make Harris look dumb. As you pointed out, without the appropriate emphasis and full context the statement may be hard to follow, but the minute you understand the context everything comes to together.
Example: “The significance of the passage of time, right? The significance of the passage of time. So, when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time.”
This is actually quite easy to work through. Harris is essentially replying to a question, rhetorical or not, and then responding accordingly. The first utterance of the term (significance of the passage of time) is a confirmation of that the subject was heard/understood. “The significance of the passage of time, right?" Essentially confirming that the issue to be discussed is what was raised. Common practice during an interview or public question.
The second utterance is the statement of the question, as someone would do as they begin to structure their response. "The significance of the passage of time." She has established the issue she is about to discuss. Consider this the thesis statement.
The third utterance is the beginning of the answer itself. "So, when you think about it, there is great significance to the passage of time.” This is where she begins to peel back the details of the issue and begin the actual answer. Consider this the introductory statement/paragraph to the meat of the answer.
Of course there is a #### ton of information left on the cutting room floor, but that doesn't matter.
Conversely, go through this transcript from Trump's recent Arizona rally. Try and follow this or understand what the #### he's saying. He meanders more than the Elbow river. He's unintelligible most of the time. Compare this transcript to anything that Elder cobbled together and tell me who is coherent?
Seriously, if that's the best they can find, Harris is a lot smarter and better speaker than I would have thought.
That was my thought as well looking at the original list - 3 years worth of quotes lifted out of context, and that's the worst they could come up with.
Thanks for putting in all the work on that response Itse.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SutterBrother For This Useful Post:
If you wanted to give Harris crap for saying silly things, you could have just posted the Daily Show bit.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
If you wanted to give Harris crap for saying silly things, you could have just posted the Daily Show bit.
Yup. Same basic lines quoted, but it's not trying to say something which isn't true (she's dumb), but something that is at the very least true enough: that can at times be difficult to understand.
...in a way that's admittedly quite funny, when pointed out by good comedy writers like the Daily Show team
