By dodging the question twice she acted directly at odds with the line of argument in the debate.

My actual suspicion is the campaign decided this was good debate theatre without thinking it through at a policy level. It’s also possible that she wants to implement a dramatic social engineering program but doesn’t want to tell anybody.

First option seems sloppy, second one kind of weird. Neither make her look good.

It seems a little weird that I'm carrying water for Kamala Harris, since she's not one of my preferred candidates.

And it does seem to me that you are drawing absolutely unwarranted inferences.

That said, I wonder if you'd react the same way to similar silence of other candidates, and what the common characteristics could be of the candidates you'd hold to that standard.

Hmm.

You always go for the ad hominem, Quirt. At least you haven't compared me to Trump yet, at least directly.

Here's something to consider:

Maybe I actually like Kamala but just think she got a little sloppy this time. Or at least, I'm prepared to like her. Indeed you and I talked about that right here, I said just that, and mentioned that people I knew who had interacted with her had great things to say, you replied that friends of yours had the opposite experience.


Or maybe I just don't like women candidates. You know, despite voting for Hillary in the 2000 primary, the 2000 general, the 2006 primary, the 2006 general, the 2008 primary, the 2016 primary, and the 2016 general. I mean, I could have had a change of heart. Anything's possible.

It wasn't an ad hominem. It was a question.

The reason I wondered is because it doesn't seem as if an intelligent person could somehow read her answer to say that she is opposed to federally mandated busing. You could legitimately point out that she ducked the question, and say that she's being a coward.
But I don't see how an intelligent person could say that she said that she opposes federally mandated busing. So there must be some reason why you, an intelligent person, are reaching for such an absurd conclusion.

But I wonder why you're so touchy about it, and I wonder why you went straight for the gender issue. Harris has any number of characteristics in common with other candidates. What caused you to go for that one?

Obviously it’s whatever deep dark pathology you’re hinting at.


I mean, what else could it be?


Is there a reason to like or dislike a candidate other than melanin, sexuality or gonads?


That’s the new game. Endorsed by left and right.

Well, there's also too moderate or not moderate enough.

But you still haven't explained how you managed to come to such an absurd conclusion. Logic and plain reading don't explain it, so there must be something else.

You actually agree with my conclusion, at least if you take it as a whole. You just presume something else on top of it.


Again, my conclusion:

"And then a week later she equivocates a bit but clearly lands on not being in favor of federal mandated busing. Or at the very least, refuses to answer the question, leaving only the impression that it should be an option for districts to consider."

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:

My actual suspicion is the campaign decided this was good debate theatre without thinking it through at a policy level. It’s also possible that she wants to implement a dramatic social engineering program but doesn’t want to tell anybody.

First option seems sloppy, second one kind of weird. Neither make her look good.

My bet is on the first option. Opportunistic and sloppy.

I also see a third option that is not mutually exclusive with the first: after winning that debate point, subsequent polling/analysis of voter sentiment suggests that federal busing mandate as a position will devolve into a net negative for Harris going forward, so the Harris campaign adjusts accordingly.

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:
You actually agree with my conclusion, at least if you take it as a whole. You just presume something else on top of it.


Again, my conclusion:

"And then a week later she equivocates a bit but clearly lands on not being in favor of federal mandated busing. Or at the very least, refuses to answer the question, leaving only the impression that it should be an option for districts to consider."

No, I do not. Your conclusion is absurd. She refused to state outright what she had suggested (but not stated outright) in the debate. That’s not backtracking. Your conclusion is also inconsistent with everything we know about her.

It’s such a ridiculous reach that it’s obvious you want to reach the conclusion, for some unstated reason. The question is why.

quote:

Originally posted by Axtremus:

quote:

Originally posted by jon-nyc:

My actual suspicion is the campaign decided this was good debate theatre without thinking it through at a policy level. It’s also possible that she wants to implement a dramatic social engineering program but doesn’t want to tell anybody.

First option seems sloppy, second one kind of weird. Neither make her look good.

My bet is on the first option. Opportunistic and sloppy.

I also see a third option that is not mutually exclusive with the first: after winning that debate point, subsequent polling/analysis of voter sentiment suggests that federal busing mandate as a position will devolve into a net negative for Harris going forward, so the Harris campaign adjusts accordingly.

Or, rather, just decides to shut up about it.