ABC News Moderators Blasted For Extreme Bias, Fact Checking Trump But Not Harris

[Aldebaran]

"Abortion loophole"?

Do I need restate the definition? Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy intentionally without a birth. Unrestricted abortion *cannot* legalize infanticide of newborns.

That's where the re-imagining comes in. When people want to change the cultural or political landscape badly enough, it only takes some re-imagining and a twisting of the English language to change things. Calling abortion "reproductive healthcare" is one way of doing that.

 

[Aldebaran]

When I checked the provided evidence for one of these particular claims, they showed that Harris at one time supported a buy back guns program.

That's another way of saying she was for it, and is now denying that stance just before an election.
So which one is the voter supposed to believe?

 

[rjs330]

So what state(s) allow(s) the killing of a baby after birth.

three states, New York, Illinois, and Minnesota—under current Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz—have actively removed protections for babies born alive following an abortion, and an additional 12 states have never had protections for these babies.

In fact Harris was one of the Democrats rhat voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in 2019.

The media lied about it in the debate.

 

[rjs330]

Blank assertions are not exactly productive discourse. And both sides should dial back the hyperbole. If we sow the wind, we will reap the whirlwind. A charge of lying should be accompanied with evidence showing that the person being charged knows the actual truth but intends to deceive. Otherwise, the one making the charge could just as well be labelled a liar and the entire discourse becomes bad fruits.

Of course they know they are lying. If they don't know the truth they should keep their mouths shut. Especially if they are in the media and moderators of a debate. Stay out of the debate. Don't debate the candidate. If one is a member if the media and intend to fact check a candidate you better be right. Otherwise you are harming the candidate by making them sound like they are wrong when they aren't. And when you do not do the same to both candidates you are nothing more than a shill for one party and a propagandist rather than a real journalist.

 

[rjs330]

When I checked the provided evidence for one of these particular claims, they showed that Harris at one time supported a buy back guns program.

She supported a MANDATORY gun buy back program. In other words people had to give up their guns. Getting money for them is not an excuse fir forcing them to give them up.

 

[rjs330]

Things have changed with the rise of the internet, and we can't just blame the press. How is it that there's way more money to be made by spreading disinformation and sensationalism? It's like no one wants to hear the boring truth.

Yes we can blame the press. They are supposed to be our guardians between the powers that be and the rest of us. I stead they have become political shills and mostly for Democrats. They should be neutral and go after everyone and not just one person or party.

 

[BPPLEE]

That's another way of saying she was for it, and is now denying that stance just before an election.
So which one is the voter supposed to believe?

I've seen video of her saying she supports a MANDATORY gun buy back program

 

[Aldebaran]

I've seen video of her saying she supports a MANDATORY gun buy back program

I posted one somewhere. It was less than 10 seconds long. It was from Youtube, but now I can't seem to find it.
Maybe her campaign manager discovered it and notified Google to deal with it.

 

[childeye 2]

Here’s the fact check that ABC didn’t give Kamala Harris

So since ABC didn’t do its job, here are some of the fact checks they should have made:

nypost.com

Kamala claim: “As of today, there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century.”

Fact check: Our troops in Middle East are absolutely in a combat zone, under attack from Iran, which the Biden-Harris administration has allowed to grow more aggressive in its use of proxies. In January this year, three US soldiers in Jordan were killed by a drone attack from an Iran-aligned group, and dozens of others have been wounded in similar strikes.

This is spin. It shows bias language telling us who to blame, ---> "the Biden-Harris administration has allowed to grow more aggressive in its use of proxies".

Combat zone ---> an area in a theater of operations where combat forces operate. ---> A drone attack on a U.S. base does not qualify as a theatre of combat operations.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kamala claim: “What you’re going to hear tonight is a detailed and dangerous plan called Project 2025 that the former president intends on implementing if he were elected again.”

Fact check: The Heritage Foundation, an independent think tank, produced Project 2025, not the Trump campaign. Trump has repeatedly said he wasn’t involved in its writing, does not believe in its policies and won’t implement it.

We did hear about 2025 from Harris. Harris is not quoted as claiming it was produced or written by the Trump campaign, nor denying the heritage foundation produced it.

The fact checker claims Trump doesn't believe in the policies presented in project 2025 nor will he implement them. But contrary to that claim here is what Trump said: Number one, I have nothing to do, as you know and as she knows better than anyone, I have nothing to do with Project 2025. That's out there. I haven't read it. I don't want to read it, purposely. I'm not going to read it.

Any reasoning formed on a falsehood ends in a contradiction. This is why proper cross examination will expose someone talking out of both sides of their mouth. Obviously, if Trump hasn't read it as he claims, this undermines the contradictory claim that he doesn't believe in its policies and that he wouldn't implement them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kamala claim: “Let’s remember, this is the same individual who took out a full-page ad in the New York Times calling for the execution of five young black and Latino boys who were innocent, the Central Park Five. Took out a full-page ad calling for their execution.”

Fact check: Trump’s 1989 advertisement did not call for the execution of the Central Park Five. He talked about a woman raped in the park, but did not mention the names of suspects or who they were. Titled “Bring Back the Death Penalty. Bring Back the Police,” Trump simply bemoaned how generally unsafe New York City had become, and that criminals needed to be held accountable. His cri de cœur preceded what would become a general backlash against disorder in Gotham that led to the election of Rudy Giuliani as mayor and more proactive policing.

The fact check is spin. The title "bring back the death penalty" implies execution. Not naming the suspects doesn't mean he was not referencing the Central Park Five.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kamala claim: “I have not banned fracking as vice president of the United States, and in fact, I was the tie-breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened new leases for fracking.”

Fact check: Harris passed the bill because it was packed with left-wing giveaways. Those new leases were not the point of the bill, and only begrudgingly included to assuage Sen. Joe Manchin. Later, Manchin would accuse President Biden and Harris of going back on their word, saying new regulations were undermining the lease promises. “This is bulls–t,” he told Politico. “So they’re gonna basically starve us out of energy that we have a tremendous, abundant supply of because of their aspirational thoughts?”

The Harris claim is that she has not banned fracking as vice president and gives supporting evidence of the tie-breaking vote. The fact check says nothing that proves any of that to be false. Manchin was talking about limits to offshore acreage not fracking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kamala claim: “Nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion. That is not happening.”

Fact check: As the Daily Signal points out, Minnesota had a 2015 law that required doctors to report whether abortions resulted in the live birth of a baby. In 2021, it happened at least five times, but no measures were taken to keep them alive. In 2023, Gov. Tim Walz stripped out that reporting requirement as part of an abortion law that has no limitations on how late in a pregnancy it may happen.

The Kamala claim is that a woman doesn't get pregnant and then carry it for nine months because she wanted to get an abortion. Nothing in the fact check disputes that claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kamala claim: “Let’s remember Charlottesville, where there was a mob of people carrying tiki torches, spewing antisemitic hate, and what did the president then at the time say? There were fine people on each side.”

Fact check: Harris, along with Biden, always leaves out what Trump said next: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists.” Snopes has labeled “false” the idea that Trump praised neo-Nazis.

Noting what Kamala left out is not exactly a fact check. There's a lot of contradictory language that actually began with Trump saying "we condemn all hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides".

Trump did say this: You're changing history, you're changing culture, and you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay?

Leaving out that Trump said white nationalists and Neo-Nazi's should be condemned is not exactly lying, particularly since the context in the debate is about Trump inciting a crowd on January sixth, by causing them to believe that the election had been stolen from them.

But in response to the complaint of leaving out that Trump said white supremacists' and Neo-Nazis should be condemned, Trump did say this: But you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group — excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures as you did — you had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

The problem with all of this is that many people see that among Trump's avid supporters there are neo-Nazis, white supremacists, KKK, white Nationalists and alt-right militias, and these were the very people that came to Charlottesville and who were on the side protesting the removal of the statue and the renaming of the park.

 

[childeye 2]

She supported a MANDATORY gun buy back program. In other words people had to give up their guns. Getting money for them is not an excuse fir forcing them to give them up.

PolitiFact says she once talked about an assault weapons mandatory buyback in 2019 and she's presently not for that.

 

[childeye 2]

I've seen video of her saying she supports a MANDATORY gun buy back program

I appreciate the heads up in CAPS. PolitiFact says she once talked about an assault weapons mandatory buyback in 2019 and she's presently not for that.

 

[childeye 2]

Yes we can blame the press. They are supposed to be our guardians between the powers that be and the rest of us. I stead they have become political shills and mostly for Democrats. They should be neutral and go after everyone and not just one person or party.

I said we can't just blame the press alone. It was disclosed that fox news deliberately peddled disinformation because that is how they increased their viewership. As viewers, we are partly to blame if we find slander and gossip entertaining.

 

[childeye 2]

Of course they know they are lying.

Where's the proof of that statement?

If they don't know the truth they should keep their mouths shut.

If we don't have proof they're lying, then we need to apply that same reasoning to ourselves.

 

[childeye 2]

That's another way of saying she was for it, and is now denying that stance just before an election.
So which one is the voter supposed to believe?

Well, she was for it just before an election too, so I personally think she doesn't currently believe the majority of Americans will want that.

 

[BPPLEE]

I appreciate the heads up in CAPS. PolitiFact says she once talked about an assault weapons mandatory buyback in 2019 and she's presently not for that.

She's presently not for most things she once supported

 

[BPPLEE]

So what state(s) allow(s) the killing of a baby after birth?

x.com

x.com

 

[RileyG]

three states, New York, Illinois, and Minnesota—under current Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz—have actively removed protections for babies born alive following an abortion, and an additional 12 states have never had protections for these babies.

In fact Harris was one of the Democrats rhat voted against the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act in 2019.

The media lied about it in the debate.

Yikes! How sad.

 

[RileyG]

That's where the re-imagining comes in. When people want to change the cultural or political landscape badly enough, it only takes some re-imagining and a twisting of the English language to change things. Calling abortion "reproductive healthcare" is one way of doing that.

Yup. Language matters.

 

[rjs330]

.

This is spin. It shows bias language telling us who to blame, ---> "the Biden-Harris administration has allowed to grow more aggressive in its use of proxies".

No it's not. If our soldiers are ATTACKED by a foreign entity they are under combat conditions.

We did hear about 2025 from Harris. Harris is not quoted as claiming it was produced or written by the Trump campaign, nor denying the heritage foundation produced it.

She lied about it. She made claims about it and Trump that were untrue. A lie.

The fact check is spin. The title "bring back the death penalty" implies execution. Not naming the suspects doesn't mean he was not referencing the Central Park Five.

Another lie by Harris. Trump.did not call for execution of the five like she claimed. If there is any spin it was on Harris' part.

The Harris claim is that she has not banned fracking as vice president and gives supporting evidence of the tie-breaking vote. The fact check says nothing that proves any of that to be false. Manchin was talking about

This was maybe a poor quote by them. Harris said. "Let's talk about fracking, because I made that very clear in 2020 I will not ban fracking," Harris responded. "I have not banned fracking as Vice President of the United States, and in fact, I was the tie breaking vote on the Inflation Reduction Act which opened new leases for fracking."

That's a lie because in 2019-2020 she promised to ban fracking. So it was a lie for to claim rhat she made it clear she wouldn't ban fracking.

The Kamala claim is that a woman doesn't get pregnant and then carry it for nine months because she wanted to get an abortion. Nothing in the fact check disputes that claim.

Maybe not. But she has no idea if that is correct. There are nine states that have no restrictions to abortion. So to make a claim like that she would have to prove that none have been done in those nine states. So while their fact check is a bit off she still lied about a claim she can't make.

Trump did say this: You're changing history, you're changing culture, and you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists, okay?

See Harris did lie about it. This lie has been debunked many times. And you proved it yourself. She's a liar for relying to make him sound like he's defending racists and Nazis. Liar.

 

[rjs330]

PolitiFact says she once talked about an assault weapons mandatory buyback in 2019 and she's presently not for that.

She was. She hasn't given a single reason why she's not for that anymore. Makes us think she still is, but can't do anything about it because she has no power to do so.