I've got a proposition for you. You complain that Kamala Harris doesn't answer a direct question with a direct answer. Hold Trump to that same standard. Do a head to head comparison of questions asked to Kamala and questions asked to Trump. Kamala answers questions more directly than Trump has done for YEARS. My proposition is simple. All the things you complain about Kamala, HOLD TRUMP TO THE SAME STANDARD. Don't make excuses for him. Don't say "oh he said X, but what he really meant was Y". Don't claim "oh, but he's actually really intelligent by going off on tangents", while complaining "Kamala is really dumb because she doesn't immediately answer the question she's asked." You talk about Trump Derangement Syndrome, but you have Kamala Derangement Syndrome. You refuse to treat her the same as you would Trump. Why is that?
Why just me? The entire mainstream media hold Trump to that standard and he meets it. Forgive me if this sounds harsh, but if you don't know Trump's position on energy, immigration, taxes, Israel, trade, abortion, and others, you simply haven't been listening. I'm not going to go down the whole list - you can find Trump's positions in numerous interviews and campaign rallies on the Internet, including RUclips. But to give just one example, if asked what he would do about immigration, he says, (1) finish the wall, (2) mass deportations, (3) resume remain in Mexico, and (4) makes it clear that he is referring only to unlawful immigration and that he supports and encourages legal immigration. Harris, on the other hand, when asked the same question, invariably changes switches into "blame Trump mode" - in this case, blaming him for the Senate's failure to pass an "immigration bill" that even several Democrats voted against, never mind that the bill is unnecessary since the president already has the power, which Trump exercised when he was president, to close the border. The reason Harris can't give a direct answer on immigration is because the public overwhelmingly supports Trump's position, but the open-border-pro-amnesty base of her party opposes it and she needs the votes of both groups to win, so she fudges. That even prominent Democrats, such as CNN talking head and former Bill Clinton senior advisor Dave Axelrod, call Harris's responses as "word salads" ought to tell you something.
@@theokayboomer9745 What part of the mainstream media holds Trump to the same standard as Kamala? All of the discussion about Kamala is "her plans are not clear" or "she isn't providing detail." Trump is talking about sharks, batteries, Hannibal Lecter and "they're eating the dawgz". Trump stopped answering questions at a townhall but instead swayed to music for nearly 40 minutes. And there are NO discussions or concerns that Donald Trump is not providing detail despite NEVER providing details anywhere near the level that Kamala does. How can you POSSIBLY with a straight face declare that he is being held to the same standard. Trump was THREE TIMES IN A ROW whether he supported Ukraine over Russia. HE REFUSED TO ANSWER. He did EXACTLY THE SAME THING you are accusing Kamala of doing yet you give him a pass.
@@theokayboomer9745 To dig deeper onto one of your points - you declare Trump has a clearly spelled out position on immigration. You then proceeded to deliver a sane-washed interpretation of his remarks, while outright IGNORING the words that he LITERALLY SPOKE. You claim "(1) finish the wall, (2) mass deportations, (3) resume remain in Mexico, and (4) makes it clear that he is referring only to unlawful immigration and that he supports and encourages legal immigration." Trump has REPEATEDLY said that he would deport immigrants are here LEGALLY because he PERSONALLY DISAGREES with them being here - he has said this about the Haitian migrants in Springfield REPEATEDLY. In other words, Trump does NOT care about the law, he cares about his feelings and values those over the rule of law. You said that I'm not paying attention to what he has said, but here you are outright LYING about what he has said.
@@theokayboomer9745 Hey Gene, let's engage in a debate on the facts. Please. Let's talk about your points. "Why just me? The entire mainstream media hold Trump to that standard and he meets it." Forgive if this sounds harsh, but what media are you watching? In all honesty, what media? Because the media criticism of Harris is "she's not specific enough" or "she's not providing details" or "we just don't know exactly what she's going to do". Trump on the other hands, spouts slogans like "drill baby drill", "round them up and kick 'em out", "they are the enemy within", and "we'll have tariffs, big beautiful tariffs". Biden talked to a person off camera and the media made out he was talking to no one. Trump hugged a flag and a chart that weren't there, swayed on stage to music for nearly 40 minutes and occasionally just stands for 30-60 seconds simply saying nothing when the crowd is expecting him to speak. In *what* way is Trump even *remotely* held to the same standard as Harris in terms of policy, or even to the same standard as Biden with regards to his mental competence to do the job? Trump's position on energy: "drill baby drill" and "America will be energy independent". The former is a slogan, and there are NO details on how he will achieve the latter, or even any acknowledgement that America is producing more oil than any time previous in history. In other words, Trump is not advocating for anything meaningfully different from what is occurring now. Taxes: He already proved his position on taxation. It's tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, while everyone else get left behind. Not a good plan for the average American. Israel: His plan is to let Israel do whatever they want, no matter how many Palestinian civilians are killed in the process. Trade: His plan is massive tariffs - which he thinks other countries pay. They don't. Americans end up paying them. His knowledge of trade is abysmal. Abortion: Again, we already know his plan, which was to install judges who lied under oath that Roe vs Wade was settled law, who then overturned over 50 years of precedent and allowed states to introduce abortion bans that has caused some doctors to not perform abortions even when required to save the life of the mother for fear of being prosecuted. However, to dig into immigration in more detail. 1 - Finish the wall. Trump built a tiny fraction of the wall he claimed he would build in his previous term, and it proved woefully ineffective in stopping people crossing the border. Simply put, he was grossly incompetent in being able to deliver on it the first time (and Mexico never paid a penny for it, unlike he claimed in his election slogans), it was over budget, and didn't achieve what he claimed it would. It was in fact a massive waste of taxpayer money. 2 - Mass deportations. Let's tie this in the "makes it clear that he is referring only to unlawful immigration and that he supports and encourages legal immigration". On multiple occasions, Trump has talked about how he would deport Haitians from Springfield, despite the fact that they are there legally, and are actively and positively contributing to the community there. So no, he does not support legal immigration, he supports immigration that he *personally* finds acceptable, and it does not matter what the law is. 3 - Resume remain in Mexico. Sure. I don't have a strong disagreement with this position, PROVIDED that the person's life is not in danger if they remain in Mexico. If it would be in danger from remaining in Mexico, then America does have a international duty of care to prevent someone from *being murdered*. I think we all respect human life sufficient that we can agree on not allowing someone to be murdered, right? "Harris, on the other hand when asked the same question ... blaming him for the Senate's failure to pass an "immigration bill" that even several Democrats voted against" Firstly, Harris is not avoiding a direct answer. That bill is what she is says she would do to deal with immigration. That means she doesn't have simply slogans (which is what Trump presents), it's not just a policy (which Trump doesn't at all), it is bill crafted by a bi-partisan committee that would make meaningful and direct action in dealing with immigration issues. She is not dodging the question, she is DIRECTLY ANSWERING IT. That you don't *like* the answer doesn't mean that she's not answering the question, it simply means that you don't like the answer that she's giving. That would be the basis for valid criticism based on facts an details but you're not doing that, you're simply dismissing it out of hand. Furthermore, your points about "several democrats voted against" - yes. The democrats ALLOW independent voting, and WITHOUT forever ostracizing those who don't fall in line. It's a non-issue. But since you want to make it an issue, why didn't you also note that several Republican Senators voted FOR the bill? Why only note some Democrats didn't vote for it (including Chuck Schumer who did so tactically so that he could raise it again at a later date), but REFUSE to acknowledge that some Republicans voted *FOR* it? Those Democrats voting for it WOULD NOT have got it across the line and passed as legislation, so yes, Republicans blocked the bill. And WHY did they block the bill? Because Donald Trump *TOLD* them to, so that he could CAMPAIGN on immigration as an issue and say "see, the Democrats haven't done anything." It's like a man that asks for your gun, shoots you with it, and then tells you "these people who shoot others with their own guns are a huge problem". He literally caused the problem he's complaining about and campaigning on. Trump's "positions" on these issues are nowhere near as detailed as the policies Harris has put forward - he has slogans and no details, just like the "concepts of a plan" that he has for healthcare, one which he's supposedly been working on the better part of a decade and was always "2 weeks away". At some point, even the most ardent of his supporters surely has to admit that he's been lying for all that time?
@@Richard-sy1ej Somebody has a lot more free time on his hands than I do, so I must be brief: Media: I don't know how, but apparently, you missed the "CBS editing scandal," where, after interviewing her, CBS deleted one of her word-salad answers and replaced it with another answer from an entirely different question. And to this day, CBS refuses to release a full, unedited transcript. Re "drill, baby, drill," Trump has said that he would resume the Keystone Pipeline, reverse Biden's prohibition and re-allow drilling in Anwar, approve the permits that Biden disapproved for drilling in the Gulf - in a nutshell, reverse all the executive orders Biden signed re energy and restore all the Trump executive orders that Biden reversed. Taxes: House Budget Committee: "Despite CBO's Predictions, Trump Tax Cuts Were a Boon for America's Economy and Working Families" (bit.ly/40moYPP) Israel: You said it, yourself. Trump's "plan is to let Israel do whatever they want, no matter how many Palestinian civilians are killed in the process." Just like FDR's plan for England and France in WWII. Of course, Hamas, by invading Israel and massacring 1,200 Israelis, bears sole responsibility for every death in Gaza that has occurred and will occur until all of Hamas surrenders, leaves Gaza or dies. You're welcome to disagree, but your point was specificity. What's not specific? Trump has been clear on multiple occasions: He believes that Israel should pursue victory and if elected, he will provide Israel with all the materiel and diplomatic backing she needs to achieve that. If you need a detailed list of every weapon and ammunition down to the last bullet, most people would think that's asking too much. Abortion: You can read what Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said about Roe here: bit.ly/3Afnn3M . No one said Roe is settled law, they said it was "precedent," like any Supreme Court decision. Both justices affirmed that the Court needs to take precedents into account when hearing new cases and think hard about reversing one, but the Court does and has overturned earlier decisions. Here is what one justice, Gorsuch, said about Roe at his nomination (emphasis mine): "“Of course. I listen to all arguments,” Kavanaugh said. “You have an open mind. You get the briefs and arguments. And some arguments are better than others. Precedent is critically important. It is the foundation of our system. BUT YOU LISTEN TO ALL ARGUMENTS.” If you think the Court erred when Brown v. Board of Education reversed the long-standing "separate but equal" precedent of Plessey v. Ferguson, we'll just havSe to "agree to disagree." But bottom line, GOP president's SCOTUS nominee said at his nomination that Roe was "settled law." No one lied. I'm constantly amused by liberals who complain that Dobbs "overturned over 50 years of precedent," but apparently are not bothered that Roe overturned hundreds of years of precedent in multiple states. Trump's post-Dobbs statements on abortion have been specific: Dobbs returns abortion policy to the states, where he believes it belongs and that he would veto any bill that tried to impose a single nationwide abortion standard, either pro or anti. He also said that one state's law prohibiting abortion after six weeks was too restrictive and that he thought 15 weeks was a good limit. Immigration: If General Motors decides to build a new factory in Detroit on the site of the old Packard factory, which would, of course, involve first demolishing the original decrepit, dilapidated building, no one with common sense would argue with CEO Mary Barra if she says she is "building a new factory." Likewise, if Trump has to tear down hundreds of miles of "smaller, dilapidated barriers," before erecting new, modern, more effective walls, he's "building a wall." Specifically, Trump built 52 miles of "new primary border barriers" and 402 miles of "replacements of smaller, dilapidated barriers." As the source article's (bit.ly/4e5GbAu) title says, "How many miles of border wall did Donald Trump build? It depends on how it’s counted." You count your way, I'll count mine, but recognize that it's an argument about semantics, not facts. At some point, a factory manufactured wall sections, workers were hired to put them up and the number of miles of manufactured sections those workers put up totaled 458 miles. I could go on, but sadly - or should that be fortunately, as I do have a life - your replay is quite long and, frankly, getting tedious, straying from arguing specificity to arguing against Trump's positions - which, of course, must be specific or how would you know them to argue against them? And, as with your GOP SCOTUS nominee "settled law" "fact," many of your facts are simply wrong. But in the end, one would think that what past administrations have done matters less than what a new administration will do. People agree or disagree over what Trump will do if he wins, but no one argues that they don't know WHAT he will do. And to be fair, Kamala Harris did give one specific answer as to what a Harris administration would do. When asked what she would do differently from what Joe Biden did, she replied that she could not think of anything. Not one thing. So, I must, in fairness, concede that on the issue of specificity, you are indeed correct insofar as saying specifically what she would do if she wins: everything Joe Biden did. And in nine days, we all get to decide whether we want a second Biden administration exactly like the current one - which Kamala, herself, has SPECIFICALLY said we will get if she wins.
That woman belongs in a straight jacket 😮
Donald trump belongs in a straight jacket more than Harris does demiteia don is a weirdo habitual liar felon
is this guy for real
be careful when a person plays the accordion
I've got a proposition for you. You complain that Kamala Harris doesn't answer a direct question with a direct answer. Hold Trump to that same standard. Do a head to head comparison of questions asked to Kamala and questions asked to Trump. Kamala answers questions more directly than Trump has done for YEARS.
My proposition is simple. All the things you complain about Kamala, HOLD TRUMP TO THE SAME STANDARD. Don't make excuses for him. Don't say "oh he said X, but what he really meant was Y". Don't claim "oh, but he's actually really intelligent by going off on tangents", while complaining "Kamala is really dumb because she doesn't immediately answer the question she's asked."
You talk about Trump Derangement Syndrome, but you have Kamala Derangement Syndrome. You refuse to treat her the same as you would Trump. Why is that?
Why just me? The entire mainstream media hold Trump to that standard and he meets it. Forgive me if this sounds harsh, but if you don't know Trump's position on energy, immigration, taxes, Israel, trade, abortion, and others, you simply haven't been listening.
I'm not going to go down the whole list - you can find Trump's positions in numerous interviews and campaign rallies on the Internet, including RUclips. But to give just one example, if asked what he would do about immigration, he says, (1) finish the wall, (2) mass deportations, (3) resume remain in Mexico, and (4) makes it clear that he is referring only to unlawful immigration and that he supports and encourages legal immigration.
Harris, on the other hand, when asked the same question, invariably changes switches into "blame Trump mode" - in this case, blaming him for the Senate's failure to pass an "immigration bill" that even several Democrats voted against, never mind that the bill is unnecessary since the president already has the power, which Trump exercised when he was president, to close the border.
The reason Harris can't give a direct answer on immigration is because the public overwhelmingly supports Trump's position, but the open-border-pro-amnesty base of her party opposes it and she needs the votes of both groups to win, so she fudges.
That even prominent Democrats, such as CNN talking head and former Bill Clinton senior advisor Dave Axelrod, call Harris's responses as "word salads" ought to tell you something.
@@theokayboomer9745 What part of the mainstream media holds Trump to the same standard as Kamala? All of the discussion about Kamala is "her plans are not clear" or "she isn't providing detail." Trump is talking about sharks, batteries, Hannibal Lecter and "they're eating the dawgz". Trump stopped answering questions at a townhall but instead swayed to music for nearly 40 minutes. And there are NO discussions or concerns that Donald Trump is not providing detail despite NEVER providing details anywhere near the level that Kamala does.
How can you POSSIBLY with a straight face declare that he is being held to the same standard.
Trump was THREE TIMES IN A ROW whether he supported Ukraine over Russia. HE REFUSED TO ANSWER. He did EXACTLY THE SAME THING you are accusing Kamala of doing yet you give him a pass.
@@theokayboomer9745 To dig deeper onto one of your points - you declare Trump has a clearly spelled out position on immigration. You then proceeded to deliver a sane-washed interpretation of his remarks, while outright IGNORING the words that he LITERALLY SPOKE.
You claim "(1) finish the wall, (2) mass deportations, (3) resume remain in Mexico, and (4) makes it clear that he is referring only to unlawful immigration and that he supports and encourages legal immigration."
Trump has REPEATEDLY said that he would deport immigrants are here LEGALLY because he PERSONALLY DISAGREES with them being here - he has said this about the Haitian migrants in Springfield REPEATEDLY. In other words, Trump does NOT care about the law, he cares about his feelings and values those over the rule of law.
You said that I'm not paying attention to what he has said, but here you are outright LYING about what he has said.
@@theokayboomer9745 Hey Gene, let's engage in a debate on the facts. Please.
Let's talk about your points.
"Why just me? The entire mainstream media hold Trump to that standard and he meets it."
Forgive if this sounds harsh, but what media are you watching? In all honesty, what media? Because the media criticism of Harris is "she's not specific enough" or "she's not providing details" or "we just don't know exactly what she's going to do". Trump on the other hands, spouts slogans like "drill baby drill", "round them up and kick 'em out", "they are the enemy within", and "we'll have tariffs, big beautiful tariffs". Biden talked to a person off camera and the media made out he was talking to no one. Trump hugged a flag and a chart that weren't there, swayed on stage to music for nearly 40 minutes and occasionally just stands for 30-60 seconds simply saying nothing when the crowd is expecting him to speak. In *what* way is Trump even *remotely* held to the same standard as Harris in terms of policy, or even to the same standard as Biden with regards to his mental competence to do the job?
Trump's position on energy: "drill baby drill" and "America will be energy independent". The former is a slogan, and there are NO details on how he will achieve the latter, or even any acknowledgement that America is producing more oil than any time previous in history. In other words, Trump is not advocating for anything meaningfully different from what is occurring now.
Taxes: He already proved his position on taxation. It's tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans, while everyone else get left behind. Not a good plan for the average American.
Israel: His plan is to let Israel do whatever they want, no matter how many Palestinian civilians are killed in the process.
Trade: His plan is massive tariffs - which he thinks other countries pay. They don't. Americans end up paying them. His knowledge of trade is abysmal.
Abortion: Again, we already know his plan, which was to install judges who lied under oath that Roe vs Wade was settled law, who then overturned over 50 years of precedent and allowed states to introduce abortion bans that has caused some doctors to not perform abortions even when required to save the life of the mother for fear of being prosecuted.
However, to dig into immigration in more detail.
1 - Finish the wall. Trump built a tiny fraction of the wall he claimed he would build in his previous term, and it proved woefully ineffective in stopping people crossing the border. Simply put, he was grossly incompetent in being able to deliver on it the first time (and Mexico never paid a penny for it, unlike he claimed in his election slogans), it was over budget, and didn't achieve what he claimed it would. It was in fact a massive waste of taxpayer money.
2 - Mass deportations. Let's tie this in the "makes it clear that he is referring only to unlawful immigration and that he supports and encourages legal immigration". On multiple occasions, Trump has talked about how he would deport Haitians from Springfield, despite the fact that they are there legally, and are actively and positively contributing to the community there. So no, he does not support legal immigration, he supports immigration that he *personally* finds acceptable, and it does not matter what the law is.
3 - Resume remain in Mexico. Sure. I don't have a strong disagreement with this position, PROVIDED that the person's life is not in danger if they remain in Mexico. If it would be in danger from remaining in Mexico, then America does have a international duty of care to prevent someone from *being murdered*. I think we all respect human life sufficient that we can agree on not allowing someone to be murdered, right?
"Harris, on the other hand when asked the same question ... blaming him for the Senate's failure to pass an "immigration bill" that even several Democrats voted against"
Firstly, Harris is not avoiding a direct answer. That bill is what she is says she would do to deal with immigration. That means she doesn't have simply slogans (which is what Trump presents), it's not just a policy (which Trump doesn't at all), it is bill crafted by a bi-partisan committee that would make meaningful and direct action in dealing with immigration issues. She is not dodging the question, she is DIRECTLY ANSWERING IT. That you don't *like* the answer doesn't mean that she's not answering the question, it simply means that you don't like the answer that she's giving. That would be the basis for valid criticism based on facts an details but you're not doing that, you're simply dismissing it out of hand.
Furthermore, your points about "several democrats voted against" - yes. The democrats ALLOW independent voting, and WITHOUT forever ostracizing those who don't fall in line. It's a non-issue. But since you want to make it an issue, why didn't you also note that several Republican Senators voted FOR the bill? Why only note some Democrats didn't vote for it (including Chuck Schumer who did so tactically so that he could raise it again at a later date), but REFUSE to acknowledge that some Republicans voted *FOR* it? Those Democrats voting for it WOULD NOT have got it across the line and passed as legislation, so yes, Republicans blocked the bill. And WHY did they block the bill? Because Donald Trump *TOLD* them to, so that he could CAMPAIGN on immigration as an issue and say "see, the Democrats haven't done anything." It's like a man that asks for your gun, shoots you with it, and then tells you "these people who shoot others with their own guns are a huge problem". He literally caused the problem he's complaining about and campaigning on.
Trump's "positions" on these issues are nowhere near as detailed as the policies Harris has put forward - he has slogans and no details, just like the "concepts of a plan" that he has for healthcare, one which he's supposedly been working on the better part of a decade and was always "2 weeks away". At some point, even the most ardent of his supporters surely has to admit that he's been lying for all that time?
@@Richard-sy1ej Somebody has a lot more free time on his hands than I do, so I must be brief:
Media: I don't know how, but apparently, you missed the "CBS editing scandal," where, after interviewing her, CBS deleted one of her word-salad answers and replaced it with another answer from an entirely different question. And to this day, CBS refuses to release a full, unedited transcript.
Re "drill, baby, drill," Trump has said that he would resume the Keystone Pipeline, reverse Biden's prohibition and re-allow drilling in Anwar, approve the permits that Biden disapproved for drilling in the Gulf - in a nutshell, reverse all the executive orders Biden signed re energy and restore all the Trump executive orders that Biden reversed.
Taxes: House Budget Committee: "Despite CBO's Predictions, Trump Tax Cuts Were a Boon for America's Economy and Working Families" (bit.ly/40moYPP)
Israel: You said it, yourself. Trump's "plan is to let Israel do whatever they want, no matter how many Palestinian civilians are killed in the process." Just like FDR's plan for England and France in WWII. Of course, Hamas, by invading Israel and massacring 1,200 Israelis, bears sole responsibility for every death in Gaza that has occurred and will occur until all of Hamas surrenders, leaves Gaza or dies. You're welcome to disagree, but your point was specificity. What's not specific? Trump has been clear on multiple occasions: He believes that Israel should pursue victory and if elected, he will provide Israel with all the materiel and diplomatic backing she needs to achieve that. If you need a detailed list of every weapon and ammunition down to the last bullet, most people would think that's asking too much.
Abortion: You can read what Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said about Roe here: bit.ly/3Afnn3M . No one said Roe is settled law, they said it was "precedent," like any Supreme Court decision. Both justices affirmed that the Court needs to take precedents into account when hearing new cases and think hard about reversing one, but the Court does and has overturned earlier decisions.
Here is what one justice, Gorsuch, said about Roe at his nomination (emphasis mine): "“Of course. I listen to all arguments,” Kavanaugh said. “You have an open mind. You get the briefs and arguments. And some arguments are better than others. Precedent is critically important. It is the foundation of our system. BUT YOU LISTEN TO ALL ARGUMENTS.”
If you think the Court erred when Brown v. Board of Education reversed the long-standing "separate but equal" precedent of Plessey v. Ferguson, we'll just havSe to "agree to disagree." But bottom line, GOP president's SCOTUS nominee said at his nomination that Roe was "settled law." No one lied.
I'm constantly amused by liberals who complain that Dobbs "overturned over 50 years of precedent," but apparently are not bothered that Roe overturned hundreds of years of precedent in multiple states.
Trump's post-Dobbs statements on abortion have been specific: Dobbs returns abortion policy to the states, where he believes it belongs and that he would veto any bill that tried to impose a single nationwide abortion standard, either pro or anti. He also said that one state's law prohibiting abortion after six weeks was too restrictive and that he thought 15 weeks was a good limit.
Immigration: If General Motors decides to build a new factory in Detroit on the site of the old Packard factory, which would, of course, involve first demolishing the original decrepit, dilapidated building, no one with common sense would argue with CEO Mary Barra if she says she is "building a new factory." Likewise, if Trump has to tear down hundreds of miles of "smaller, dilapidated barriers," before erecting new, modern, more effective walls, he's "building a wall." Specifically, Trump built 52 miles of "new primary border barriers" and 402 miles of "replacements of smaller, dilapidated barriers." As the source article's (bit.ly/4e5GbAu) title says, "How many miles of border wall did Donald Trump build? It depends on how it’s counted."
You count your way, I'll count mine, but recognize that it's an argument about semantics, not facts. At some point, a factory manufactured wall sections, workers were hired to put them up and the number of miles of manufactured sections those workers put up totaled 458 miles.
I could go on, but sadly - or should that be fortunately, as I do have a life - your replay is quite long and, frankly, getting tedious, straying from arguing specificity to arguing against Trump's positions - which, of course, must be specific or how would you know them to argue against them? And, as with your GOP SCOTUS nominee "settled law" "fact," many of your facts are simply wrong.
But in the end, one would think that what past administrations have done matters less than what a new administration will do. People agree or disagree over what Trump will do if he wins, but no one argues that they don't know WHAT he will do. And to be fair, Kamala Harris did give one specific answer as to what a Harris administration would do. When asked what she would do differently from what Joe Biden did, she replied that she could not think of anything. Not one thing.
So, I must, in fairness, concede that on the issue of specificity, you are indeed correct insofar as saying specifically what she would do if she wins: everything Joe Biden did.
And in nine days, we all get to decide whether we want a second Biden administration exactly like the current one - which Kamala, herself, has SPECIFICALLY said we will get if she wins.