this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2024
22 points (100.0% liked)

politics

24577 readers
2441 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris has repeatedly claimed that she worked at McDonald's while getting her undergraduate degree in the 1980s. This claim has been reported by multiple reputable news outlets, but aside from Harris' own testimony, there is no independent evidence such as a photo, employment record, or confirmation from a friend or family member to verify the story. Harris has invoked the alleged McDonald's work experience throughout her political career, including in a 2024 presidential campaign ad and during a 2024 appearance on "The Drew Barrymore Show." Other prominent Democrats, such as former President Bill Clinton, have also repeated the anecdote. However, some internet users have challenged the claim, with unverified reports that "McDonald's Corporate sources" have no record of Harris working at their locations. Snopes reached out to Harris' campaign and McDonald's headquarters seeking evidence to corroborate the claim, but as of the report's publication, no such proof has been uncovered. Without tangible evidence to independently confirm or debunk the story, Snopes has rated the claim "Research In Progress" as they continue to investigate.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

one year on and the documents about my employment history have not yet been received. (want to re-iterate that i just applied for a copy of my work history including earnings and employer name, i'm not applying to get an SSN or for benefits). DOGE took a hammer to the SSA so sadly this delay isn't unexpected... but definitely worth re-iterating that if this could have helped Harris, it wouldn't have been possible for these to come in time.

just posting the one year follow up to this in case anyone is still watching (or in the future if someone wants to try what i did - in the latter case, to follow for further updates, go to https://fedia.io/m/AmerExit/t/2379602/Australian-Computer-Society-assessment )

it also points to the following possibility to do things better in the future - right now presidential candidates (with the one stupid exception) are generally seen as needing to comply with the norm of releasing their tax returns from the IRS.

perhaps going forward, it would be best if presidential and vice presidential candidates should also apply for and obtain their employment history from the SSA. since getting a campaign set up usually starts a couple of years early, this would mean that the required documents are available before the election is held. (likewise, even in a re-election year, perhaps a primary should always be held anyways, to make sure that the president and VP are in fact re-electable.)

edit: someone who wanted to remain anonymous DM'd me about this, and i thought a couple of items were worth addressing publicly.

point one - did the OC (original commenter who i responded to, basically the thread starter) lie about being able to get history from the SSA?

after all, you can't. from the online link, https://secure.ssa.gov/ec2/eligibility-earnings-ui/earnings-record , you can only see earnings but not employer name. for the non-americans among us, here are publicly available screenshots of what this looks like, https://www.socialsecurityintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/earningsrecord.jpg.webp & https://ssa.tools/calculator & https://www.reddit.com/r/SocialSecurity/comments/l45u64/earnings_record_problem/

but, this is quite a serious claim, and thus would require serious evidence. Both Occam's and Halon's razor require us to consider alternative explanations first.

i don't know why [email protected] @[email protected] has never responded to this, but this person does deserve the benefit of the doubt here. elsewhere, see https://lemmy.world/comment/12783783 , the OC claims to be a disabled veteran. i can't rule out that, at least pre-DOGE, there was a view on SSA's website where you could see these docs if you were either disabled, a veteran, or both. since the OC can't change the status of the OC (can't click a button and say you're no longer a veteran, for example), the OC might have had no way of knowing that for nonveteran and nondisabled folks the SSA doesn't provide the same documents. (unless the SSA had big red text on the front of the page saying "THIS IS ONLY AVAILABLE IF YOU ARE A DISABLED VETERAN" which seems unlikely to me in the extreme.)

most likely this would have taken the form of submitting supporting documents to prove one is disabled or a vet (or a disabled vet if both are required) which would have included sending a copy of docs from your old employers/ this might have a relatively short time after the OC left McDonalds (say less than seven years post-leaving), and thus copies the records were still easily obtainable from banks and the IRS.

the softer version here is that the OC is still being honest but make an unintentional mistake and obtained the history from the Dept. of Vet. Affairs website or something instead of from the SSA, and simply got the specific gov't agency wrong.

finally, i can't rule out that due to some SSA website glitch, the OC was able to see employer name and all that from https://secure.ssa.gov/ec2/eligibility-earnings-ui/earnings-record despite it officially not being possible (even in the pre-DOGE days).

point two - isn't the OC showing an anti-Harris bias here, by lying and claiming that it was easy for Harris to get proof of working at McDonalds from the SSA when it isn't?

another serious claim that requires serious evidence. in fact, i'd say that can't be the case unless the OC was knowingly lying about that point. rather, if the OC was truthful or at least unintentionally mistaken, then there's a different and more reasonable explanation.

we need to hold our leaders and politicians to account. if they say something untruthful, it needs to be called out immediately. so - provided that the OC believed that the statements were truthful - the OC was simply performing a necessary civic duty here.

it was just a shame that, since Harris is neither disabled or a veteran, she likely wouldn't have been able to obtain the proof quickly like the OC did.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

10 months isn't a year champ...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Thanks for the callout and enjoy your upvote!

Counting back from today, I applied to SSA for my work history over a year ago plus change. Then the snopes article that lead to this thread came about a few months later... (but the confusion is understandable and reasonable as I was and still am being deliberately vague on the exact timeline).