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

[7thKeeper]

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.

I see you did not answer me. Which states allow you to terminate a baby after it has been born? I'm guessing none since you refused to name any and instead started talking about something different. Trumps claim is that Democrats support after birth abortion, so that you can give birth at 9 months and then decide to kill the baby. Yet it's not legal anywhere. Funny that.

Edit: and before you try to claim that that's not what he said, he said "after birth" which would mean even after 9 months. Yet no state allows it and no one is trying to pass such a law.

 

[BPPLEE]

large letters won't make them true words.

They're lies. You're correct

 

[Hammster]

large letters won't make them true words.

Dismissing them doesn’t make them lies.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

They're lies. You're correct

Dismissing them doesn’t make them lies.

There seems to be some disconnect here.

 

[Aldebaran]

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.

The objective view is not at the center. If Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews, and the Jewish leadership opposed that idea altogether, does that mean that the objective view is to kill only half the Jews?
Sometimes wrong is just wrong.

 

[Aldebaran]

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.

Then when she says her values haven't changed when people ask her about her policy positions, is she just trying to change the subject?

 

[childeye 2]

They're lies. You're correct

Funny guy, the words amount to assertions that Kamala lied.

 

[BPPLEE]

Funny guy, the words amount to assertions that Kamala lied.

You’re correct again that’s what I’m asserting. You’re batting 1,000

 

[childeye 2]

The objective view is not at the center. If Hitler wanted to exterminate all the Jews, and the Jewish leadership opposed that idea altogether, does that mean that the objective view is to kill only half the Jews?
Sometimes wrong is just wrong.

You're mistaken. The qualifier for a true left/right dichotomy is both opposing subjective sides have to be equally valid views such as buyer/seller or employee/employer. That is precisely why the objective view is at the center.

What you've done is filled in the blanks with anti-killing Jews/pro-killing Jews.

Obviously, the view that it's right to murder people for being Jewish is not a valid view. Therefore, the issue you bring forward belongs in a Positive/Negative dichotomy, not a left/right dichotomy. Examples of positive/negative dichotomies ---> Right/Wrong, True/false, faithful/unfaithful.

 

[childeye 2]

You’re correct again that’s what I’m asserting. You’re batting 1,000

In post#147 you said your assertions are lies.

 

[childeye 2]

Then when she says her values haven't changed when people ask her about her policy positions, is she just trying to change the subject?

You can value protecting the water table from fracking and at the same time realize the need for energy production. Finding solutions to problems such as extracting needed resources while preserving the environment are typical circumstances that politicians deal with. It's the propagandists that play the ends against the middle in the Left/Right dichotomy.

 

[BPPLEE]

In post#147 you said your assertions are lies.

Incorrect I said her statements are lies. And you had a streak going.
Two out of three ain't bad though

 

[Aldebaran]

You're mistaken. The qualifier for a true left/right dichotomy is both opposing subjective sides are equally valid views such as buyer/seller.

What you've done is filled in the blanks with anti- killing jews/pro-killing jews. Obviously murdering people for being Jewish is not a valid view. The issue you bring forward belongs in a Positive/Negative dichotomy not a left/right dichotomy.

You say that as if Left/Right is simply opinion and does not contain right/wrong values.
Alright, then instead of an "anti- killing jews/pro-killing jews" example, let's use something else.
If you own a home and the title is in your name, and then a Left wing politician advocates taking your home and giving it to a group of 6 illegal aliens to live in, and Right wing politician defends the homeowner that the home belongs solely to the homeowner who's name is on the title, do you think the objective thing to do is kick the homeowner out of his home and allow only 3 of the illegals to live there?

 

[Aldebaran]

You can value protecting the water table from fracking and at the same time realize the need for energy production. Finding solutions to problems such as extracting needed resources while preserving the environment are typical circumstances that politicians deal with. It's the propagandists that play the ends against the middle in the Left/Right dichotomy.

Dude, she either said she was going to ban fracking or she didn't. Quit trying to wordsmith her out of her flip-flopping positions that are only meant to please whoever she's talking to.

 

[BPPLEE]

There seems to be some disconnect here.

Yes, you're obviously confused

 

[Niels]

Some of these "lies" aren't so much factually incorrect as they are the other side's position. Don't agree on every point? Then the opposition must be liars. This doesn't necessarily follow, of course, but there is often more to political "lies" than simple mistruths. Hearing what they want to hear, trying to put the other guy on the defensive, misunderstanding, etc.

 

[childeye 2]

Incorrect I said her statements are lies.

Which makes your statements unproven assertions which is why I said --->
childeye 2 said:
large letters won't make them true words.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Yes, you're obviously confused

Clearly. The two contradicting posts are confusing.

 

[BPPLEE]

Clearly. The two contradicting posts are confusing.

They’re not contradicting. Kamala’s statements are lies. It’s simple.

 

[rjs330]

I see you did not answer me. Which states allow you to terminate a baby after it has been born? I'm guessing none since you refused to name any and instead started talking about something different. Trumps claim is that Democrats support after birth abortion, so that you can give birth at 9 months and then decide to kill the baby. Yet it's not legal anywhere. Funny that.

Edit: and before you try to claim that that's not what he said, he said "after birth" which would mean even after 9 months. Yet no state allows it and no one is trying to pass such a law.

I gave you three. Why don't you believe me?

That's not Trumps claim. His claim is you can abort babies in the 9th month. He also claims that an aborted baby that is alive can be killed. He's correct. I gave you three states. With all the states that have no restrictions you could absolutely have an abortion up until the moment the baby pops out. Often called partial birth abortions.

Sorry I'm not buying what you are selling.