Yes, but it's conversation. The two people may or may not agree after any amount of conversation, maybe they won't even agree on the reality of what policies she even enacted or talked about enacting, but they can talk about specific policies and realities. It moves people towards understanding, especially the people watching who can sort of identify patterns of who's consistent and is willing to provide evidence for what they're saying, and who's just kind of gibbering and changing the subject and making attacks.

If both people are just doing the gibbering, or doing pure accusations (like you're doing) about what the other person would have done with a reasonable response, then that never happens, and no one learns anything. To me, the most relevant part about the whole thing is that one person at least seems roughly open to the idea of talking about the underlying facts, and one person is just ignoring questions and making accusations with no pretense at all of being open to backing up what they're saying.

Which is why I said the person who is explicitly rejecting the idea of even approaching that kind of factual or reasonable exchange would be right at home on Lemmy.