Trump tried — and failed — to catch Harris in a lie about McDonald's (www.msnbc.com)

submitted 1 month ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 49 points 1 month ago

It's clearly a lie. Kamala said she "did fries and ice cream," but the soft serve machines at McDonald's are always broken, so there's no possible way she actually ever served it. Science fact! Take that, libtards!

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 10 points 1 month ago

Someone has to break it, a broken ice cream machine isnt free, bub

[-] BalooWasWahoo@links.hackliberty.org 6 points 1 month ago

Is it any surprise that a shitty, failed business owner doesn't understand the difference between a resume and a background check with listed employment? Every half brain dead applicant can quickly search resume advice and figure out they should tailor their resume to the job they're applying for. The smart ones actually tailor what they say they did at each job in addition to just showcasing jobs.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -5 points 1 month ago

MSNBC - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for MSNBC:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/donald-trump-lies-reality-based-attack-kamala-harris-election-2024-rcna169531

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[+] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -33 points 1 month ago

Wait so did she prove it?

The article and the one it links to never said she did, just that she gave a (valid) reason it wasn't on a resume later.

But like, you can verify on SSA.gov in under five minutes, every place that you've ever worked and OASDI deductions.

I just don't like how everyone is treating it as proven when it hasn't been. It doesn't matter if she worked there, it matters if she just bald faced made it up tho.

It's just something incredibly easy to prove, so I don't see the point in saying she did if she didn't.

[-] jewbacca117@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago

I don't have my part time college jobs on my resume either. It's just not relevant to what I'm doing now

[-] Chip_Rat@lemmy.world 23 points 1 month ago

Did Trump's campaign have credible evidence she didn't? Was there any reason for them to suspect she was lying?

It's a waste of time to prove every little facet of someone existence, not matter how "easy" it would be.

Instead, let's ignore wild bullshit accusations of lying unless we are presented with some sort of evidence that backs it up, or come up against a strong reason to need to know (I can't even think of a decent reason in this example...)

If Harris is caught in a lie about something related (lied about her qualifications during a campaign speech or something) THEN maybe demanding she look up her records and print some proof would carry some weight.

As of now, I'm just tired of this double standard. They squaxk and squak and demand proof for every little thing, it's just to waste time and energy.

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 8 points 1 month ago

But like, you can verify on SSA.gov in under five minutes, every place that you've ever worked and OASDI deductions.

Have you actually done that though? I did - and it gives me all the money contributed by myself and my employers BUT it does not list the employers, just the monetary totals.

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah, it appears you have to complete an offline form to get the itemized history

https://www.ssa.gov/forms/ssa-7050.pdf

Edit: Oh, and it takes four months for them to process. So kinda moot at this point and has been since she got the nomination.

this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2024

85 points (95.7% liked)

politics

19138 readers

3328 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News