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

[rjs330]

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.

I don't remove us a viewers. But the press shouldn't be doing it no matter what we find entertaining. I don't care who is doing it.

I've been in favor for a long time of the press just being honest about what side they are on. They should HAVE to list on their stations, websites and on their printed materials that they are right or left. That way they can't pretend they are objective to try and fool anyone.

 

[BPPLEE]

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.

Her values haven't changed according to her

 

[rjs330]

Where's the proof of that statement?

Okay maybe they aren't. Maybe they are just stupid. Us lowly people who's job isn't to root out the truth can figure it out. Why can't they? It's their job. They are either lying, which I am.inclined to believe based upon their behavior or they are flat out stupid.

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

If they are roo dumb to know if what they are claiming I'd true or false then they ought to keep their mouths shut. I'm just a nobody, but I've been able to debunk their claims. They are the ones who narwhal supposed to be doing this for their JOB.

Based upon their behaviors of being in the tank for Harris, only fact checking Trump and how they worded questions I'm more inclined to believe they were lying and not stupid.

 

[rjs330]

Her values haven't changed according to her

Well apparently they have. A lot. She was for Mandatory buy backs, but isn't anymore. Thats a change in values. Some goes for the criminality of illegal immigration.and fracking for two more.

 

[Always in His Presence]

eating cats.

Fact

x.com

x.com

 

[GoldenBoy89]

eating cats.

Fact

x.com

x.com

If it’s on Twitter it must be true.

 

[Aldebaran]

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

An example of another flip-flop, or another example showing she's inconsistent and can't be trusted by either side?

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

That's not how laws work. Try again.

 

[Aldebaran]

That's not how laws work. Try again.

It's how judges who don't respect the law work.

 

[RileyG]

That's not how laws work. Try again.

What about law?

Abortion still isn’t health care just like the slaves weren’t property.

Try again.

 

[childeye 2]

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

That's not the definition of a combat zone. And a drone attack at a U.S. base does not qualify as combat. Look up the terms combat and combat zone.

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

Sorry, but no. Stating that Trump will implement all or some of project 2025 is a prognosis, not a lie.

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.

I grant you that Trump indicated in the article if they kill someone, they should lose their life, and I also grant you that this example is closer to being disingenuous than any of the rest.

But making claims that are untrue doesn't fully qualify as lying, because people can be mistaken as in not fully informed. The fact checker would have to prove she had read the article and that she fully comprehended the intent. However, the article is titled bring back the death penalty and that is what she is likely referring to.

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.

She stipulates it was made clear in 2020, not 2019. And she qualifies it by saying she signed the Inflation Reduction Act. She obviously meant as Vice President she made clear she would be supporting Biden's position.

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.

Kamala's statement has to be taken as a presupposition. The fact checker would have to show that Kamala knows someone who intentionally got pregnant and carried it to term because she wanted to get an abortion, for Kamala to be lying.

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.

Sorry, but no. Saying that Trump said that there were very fine people on both sides is not a lie. And just because he condemned the Neo-Nazis and the white nationalists after being pressured by reporters doesn't explain away the obfuscating. The fact remains that Trump did say there are fine people on both sides, and he also said that there were bigots, violence, and hatred on many sides. Trumps sentiments still show that he was making both sides out to be equally responsible.

Read the local news in Charlottesville, all accounts show that those who were there to protest the removal of the statue were the alt-right political movement; The white Nationalists, The white supremacists, the KKK, Antisemite militias, The Neo-Nazis.

 

[childeye 2]

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.

I'd imagine the anti-gun movement probably thinks the same thing. Personally, I think she would like to get rid of assault style rifles. But I also think she's smart enough to consider that it's not feasible without creating an underground market that could end up being worse than the present predicament.

 

[childeye 2]

Okay maybe they aren't. Maybe they are just stupid. Us lowly people who's job isn't to root out the truth can figure it out. Why can't they? It's their job. They are either lying, which I am.inclined to believe based upon their behavior or they are flat out stupid.

Maybe they're just reporting what authorities are telling them. As was the case with the city manager.

If they are roo dumb to know if what they are claiming I'd true or false then they ought to keep their mouths shut. I'm just a nobody, but I've been able to debunk their claims. They are the ones who narwhal supposed to be doing this for their JOB.

Based upon their behaviors of being in the tank for Harris, only fact checking Trump and how they worded questions I'm more inclined to believe they were lying and not stupid.

There is a reality and being in the tank for reality isn't bias.

 

[childeye 2]

An example of another flip-flop, or another example showing she's inconsistent and can't be trusted by either side?

In a left/right political dichotomy there are two opposing subjective views which creates two opposing subjective positives/negatives. The objective view is at the center. An objective articulation can easily be portrayed as a flip-flop or as inconsistent by any propagandist. That's why politicians are loathe to take questions.

Personally, I think she would like to get rid of assault style rifles. But I also think she's smart enough to consider that it's not feasible without creating an underground market that could end up being worse than the present predicament.

 

[BPPLEE]

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.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Well apparently they have. A lot. She was for Mandatory buy backs, but isn't anymore. Thats a change in values. Some goes for the criminality of illegal immigration.and fracking for two more.

People need to stop trying to equate policy positions to values. They can intersect, but, if, for example, Harris values moving towards more renewable energy and protecting the environment, then that may translate to being for a fracking ban at some point, but against one at another as more information becomes available or techniques change or we realize that renewables aren't at the point where they can supplant gas yet. Likewise, if she values reducing gun violence and stopping mass shootings, that may lead her to advocate for an assault weapon ban and buyback, then later modify that to just a ban because that's more likely to pass.

If values are the goal, then policy is the means by which that goal is accomplished. Policy can, and should, change over time because no plan is perfect.

 

[BPPLEE]

People need to stop trying to equate policy positions to values. They can intersect, but, if, for example, Harris values moving towards more renewable energy and protecting the environment, then that may translate to being for a fracking ban at some point, but against one at another as more information becomes available or techniques change or we realize that renewables aren't at the point where they can supplant gas yet. Likewise, if she values reducing gun violence and stopping mass shootings, that may lead her to advocate for an assault weapon ban and buyback, then later modify that to just a ban because that's more likely to pass.

If values are the goal, then policy is the means by which that goal is accomplished. Policy can, and should, change over time because no plan is perfect.

Policy can change what we don't usually see is a complete reversal on numerous issues

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Policy can change what we don't usually see is a complete reversal on numerous issues

Is it actually a complete reversal though? Is Harris now saying that we should have zero gun control measures and unlimited fracking? Or has she just backed away from certain extreme policy positions that she has realized aren't feasible in favor of more moderate positions that still support the same values (if not quite as well), but are more likely to actually become law?

 

[childeye 2]

View attachment 354519

large letters won't make them true words.

 

[Hans Blaster]

large letters won't make them true words.

Frankly, I just scroll past these "text images" with their mega-sized fonts. It's text, just cut and paste it into your posts, people!