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

[7thKeeper]

You could never have prepared against the bias of the moderators no matter what he would do. Trump does pride himself as going live with living in the moment thinking or hoping his assertiveness will win the day. Not really though but his voters will LOOK at his policies. That's why they'll vote for him. As for people tired of the same old song and dance.....that pretty much sums up of what think of mainstream media debates anyway. It's got old and I'm tired of the dance of seeing such an obvious display of their showing bias. As far as I"m concerned they the debates all belong in the trash! The question is what's the basic thing one is saying about policies.......

I may not care or see eye to eye with the package by which they're delivered but WHAT do the Dems stand for....and what does Trump stand for. I've seen this in the work force. Having been employed by a large company I've had many bosses....different divisions etc. Some of my superiors I just couldn't stand on a personal level....but I'll tell you more times than not they were the best bosses I've had! They always got things done and addressed our issues......other's more likeable on a personal level were horrible at being able to make the work floor function. Harris indeed may be more likeable or even know who to speak showing a little bit more diplomacy but she can take you down the road to being taxed to death and not so good things happening in the nation. That's what's called looking at the BIGGER PICTURE.

There's also a part in there about traffic infrastructure and city planning and related things. Watched a video on YouTube by CityNerd on some of the planned things there and didn't sound very pretty.

 

[rjs330]

It would've already been completed or nearing completion at the time of that speech.

Really? So you don't know that it was done or that Trump had read it yet. He had said many times he doesn't agree with all of the plan and likes some of the ideas he has heard about. So, you have no evidence that he fully endorses the plan. I honestly wish he would come out and endorse it and support it. Irs a good plan. At least the parts I've read so far are.

so which is it?

He likes some of rhe things he's heard about and isn't endorsing the whole thing. He's said that. Its a big plan. It may have stuff in it that I don't agree with either. But I haven't read it all yet. Haven't you ever known of a big plan or project rhat you agree with absolutely everything? I've worked for 40 years aty currently profeasion and have read and heard of a lot of plans. A lot of them sound really good until you get into the weeds. Then I found things I didn't agree with even though I liked many of the ideas. Liking the ideas of something doesn't mean you like or support everything. Very few of us humans do.

yes I have. I have it downloaded on my machine and I've read it a couple times.

Excellent, finally someone who has actually read it.

I don't want ro make this a thread about project 2025. So I will just say I don't think rhats immoral at all. I haven't got to the tax part yet. So is this a flat tax or do we keep taxes the same but only have two brackets?

 

[childeye 2]

You could never have prepared against the bias of the moderators no matter what he would do. Trump does pride himself as going live with living in the moment thinking or hoping his assertiveness will win the day. Not really though but his voters will LOOK at his policies. That's why they'll vote for him. As for people tired of the same old song and dance.....that pretty much sums up of what think of mainstream media debates anyway. It's got old and I'm tired of the dance of seeing such an obvious display of their showing bias. As far as I"m concerned they the debates all belong in the trash! The question is what's the basic thing one is saying about policies.......

I may not care or see eye to eye with the package by which they're delivered but WHAT do the Dems stand for....and what does Trump stand for. I've seen this in the work force. Having been employed by a large company I've had many bosses....different divisions etc. Some of my superiors I just couldn't stand on a personal level....but I'll tell you more times than not they were the best bosses I've had! They always got things done and addressed our issues......other's more likeable on a personal level were horrible at being able to make the work floor function. Harris indeed may be more likeable or even know who to speak showing a little bit more diplomacy but she can take you down the road to being taxed to death and not so good things happening in the nation. That's what's called looking at the BIGGER PICTURE.

Correcting Trump more than Harris doesn't constitute bias. If Harris is factually more accurate than Trump, that would explain it without relying upon negative prejudice so as to blame the moderators. Trump's policies have generally been based more on his personal bias rather than a facts-based reasoning to begin with.

From day one of Trump's campaign in 2016 he spoke as if he saw the desperate and destitute people coming to our southern border as a problem that needed to be fixed. He did not see that there was a problem that was causing these people to flee to America. He therefore showed no compassion, but even worse he said these people were the criminals, the insane, and basically the refuse from other countries dumped at our doorstep.

When I first heard his words, the Word of God rose up in my heart, whenever you saw me naked and clothed me whenever you saw me hungry and fed me, whatever you do to the least of my brethren you do unto me. Trump's sentiments were grieving The Spirit of Christ in me. Anyone who disagreed with Trump were against making America being great, and the greatest enemies of America were those who didn't like Trump, and the MAGA movement had begun.

What do the Dems stand for? Well, Obama halved the national budget deficit in his first term, just like he said he would. Despite the austerity, the government conformed, at first, and the economy grew with a service-oriented resilience that was both steady and upward growth.

Trump had inherited an economy that was stable and growing, and he immediately removed the austerity. Every time he says he rebuilt the military; he's also saying he increased spending by eliminating the decrease in spending that had been implemented during the Obama administration. Then Trump decreased revenue. Trump gave 1.3 trillion in tax cuts, which would further increase the budget deficit. That decrease in revenue was supposed to stimulate the economy. Instead, it mostly went into corporate buybacks of stock, but there was enough leftovers spread around to give the temporary impression that things had suddenly become better than Obama's economy even if it was all borrowed from the future.

 

[rjs330]

But the real problem with project 2025 is that it is propaganda designed to characterize the move away from democracy and towards autocracy as the intention of restructuring the inefficiency of institutions through removing the mechanisms that also happen to be the inhibitors of a dictatorship. By the centralizing of power into the presidency, it allows one person the right to impose/dictate their vision of what's best for all people on all levels of government.

No it doesn't. I've been reading it. That characterization is leftist propaganda.

Examples would be the forced implementation of the authoritarian approach to governance, giving the federal government the power to charge elected state attorney generals or other state officials for not carrying out federally mandated positions of ideology, and/or the hiring and firing of people in government positions according to whether they agree or disagree with an autocrat's personal views.

I do think that the hiring and firing of federal people should be implemented in the Executive Branch. If you are actively working to undermine and oppose the president's agenda for the executive branch then you should be fired.

Here's what project 2025 has to say about the prosecutors.

Where warranted and proper under federal law, initiate legal action against local officials—including District Attorneys—who deny American citizens the “equal protection of the laws” by refusing to prosecute criminal offenses in their jurisdictions. This holds true particularly for jurisdictions that refuse to enforce the law against criminals based on the Left’s favored defining characteristics of the would-be offender (race, so-called gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) or other political considerations (e.g., immigration status).

There would need to be Federal Law that would allow this. But we have seen left leaning prosecutors fail to prosecute and protect it's citizens. However I do t agree with the Federal government getting involved. I think we should leave it up to the jursidictional voters to remove someone from office if they don't like how the prosecutor is acting.

But once again I point out out that like me if Trump has read rhe plan he most likely won't agree with all.of it. To make a claim.he is planning on implementing the plan is dishonest. Especially after he has said he won't.

Good grief do we honestly think that the plan was competed and that Trump went through it in the next 6 days and read it all and decided he wanted to implement it? Not a chance.

I mean he's said he hasn't read it. Harris needs to quit lying about it.

 

[FenderTL5]

Really?

Yes really.
I've been searching for Project 2025s actual date and the only one that keeps coming up is April 21, 2022 - the very day Trump spoke to the Heritage Foundation and his speech quoted previously. While it's not the be all, end all authority, Wikipedia says:
Established April 21, 2022; 2 years ago
Purpose Reshape the U.S. federal government to support the agenda and ideologies of Donald Trump
If you can show otherwise, please do so.

You may think that Trump saying "The critical job of institutions, such as Heritage to lay the groundwork. And Heritage does such an incredible job at that. And I’m telling you, with Kevin and the staff, and I met so many of them now.. But this is a great group. And they’re going to lay the groundwork and detail plans for exactly what our movement will do.." on the very day Project2025 was established (or perhaps a week after by another account), while speaking to the group that created it, is pure coincidence.
I don't.

I don't want ro make this a thread about project 2025. So I will just say I don't think rhats immoral at all.

If you support the concept of raising taxes on the poorest in our communities while simultaneously reducing taxes on the very richest as an upright thing to do, then you and I have very different values concerning morality.

I haven't got to the tax part yet. So is this a flat tax or do we keep taxes the same but only have two brackets?

The Project 2025 tax plan maintains the same basic income tax premise but calls for two tax brackets and eliminates most deductions. It is not a flat tax but makes significant strides in that direction. I linked it earlier.

 

[Canuckster]

What do you mean?

x.com

x.com

 

[Canuckster]

x.com

x.com

 

[ralliann]

I keep hearing about how Harris was telling lies all night, but no one seems to be able to articulate what those lies were. Maybe you can?

It was talked about on the news. Don't know which news you listen to.
His bloodbath comments
His comments during the Charlottesville riots
project 2025 agenda
IVF, just off the top of my head....

 

[ralliann]

Yep. Just like I said. Blaming everyone but Trump for Trump’s behavior before the nation last night. He’ll never learn if you guys keep coddling him every time he messes up.

Their bias was a disservice to all.

 

[childeye 2]

No it doesn't. I've been reading it. That characterization is leftist propaganda.

It's not leftist propaganda. It's my own centrist evaluation using subjective semantic analysis. In other words, the sentiments in the document itself show the heart and mind of the author. The document itself shows that it is right wing propaganda.

I do think that the hiring and firing of federal people should be implemented in the Executive Branch. If you are actively working to undermine and oppose the president's agenda for the executive branch then you should be fired.

There are over 2.5 million federal employees who do their jobs day in and day out serving the people, and who see Presidents come and go. And there are mechanisms in place to prevent the threat of being fired or underfunded based on one president's autocratic personal carnal vision of greatness. Because objectively speaking, no single person should have the autocratic power to fire lower-level government workers who either disagree with their agenda or otherwise won't betray the common faith of the people by refusing to carry out a radical agenda (either right or left). We the people believe it is our right to follow our conscience.

Why does project 2025 want these mechanisms removed? Why does one person need that kind of massive power?

Here's what project 2025 has to say about the prosecutors.

Where warranted and proper under federal law, initiate legal action against local officials—including District Attorneys—who deny American citizens the “equal protection of the laws” by refusing to prosecute criminal offenses in their jurisdictions. This holds true particularly for jurisdictions that refuse to enforce the law against criminals based on the Left’s favored defining characteristics of the would-be offender (race, so-called gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.) or other political considerations (e.g., immigration status).

It uses the word "LEFT" right there. This is propaganda against "the left", plain and simple. The left/right dichotomy has to have two opposing equally valid subjective views for there to be an objective center. Unbiased hearts and minds do not think nor speak this way.

There would need to be Federal Law that would allow this.

More precisely the standing federal laws would have to be done away with or made impotent by a new law, or ignored all together according to an alternative interpretation of the law.

But we have seen left leaning prosecutors fail to prosecute and protect it's citizens.

What does this mean? It's propaganda to me.

However I do t agree with the Federal government getting involved. I think we should leave it up to the jursidictional voters to remove someone from office if they don't like how the prosecutor is acting.

Well said. I concur.

But once again I point out out that like me if Trump has read rhe plan he most likely won't agree with all.of it. To make a claim.he is planning on implementing the plan is dishonest. Especially after he has said he won't.

I haven't seen him say he won't. I've seen him say he will in his speech at the heritage foundation.

Good grief do we honestly think that the plan was competed and that Trump went through it in the next 6 days and read it all and decided he wanted to implement it? Not a chance.

That's a fair point.

I mean he's said he hasn't read it. Harris needs to quit lying about it.

He said there's radical things in it, I would assume he's at least read those things. I don't recall Harris saying Trump read it, so I don't see where she's lying. Nor do I want to split hairs over how much was/wasn't read.

 

[Hammster]

It's interesting to see the MAGA faithful turn on the Heritage Foundation, an instituion that until recently , was the holy grail of the cultural warriors on the right. Their policies play well in a GOP primary....but not in the general elecition. Trump certainly recognizes this....hence his disowning of Heritage / Project 2025.

Disagreeing with Project 2025 is not turning on the Heritage Foundation.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Disagreeing with Project 2025 is not turning on the Heritage Foundation.

Which is another distinction between Republicans and Democrats -

 

[childeye 2]

x.com

x.com

The snippet from X makes no sense because the context is missing. I watched the full interview where she is explaining what she calls an opportunity-oriented plan for the economy. And she elaborates by talking about ideas that will address the current state of affairs such as lack of housing and high prices which shows that she perceives it as a problem of supply/demand. But she's also interested in plans that will address future capacity and other future challenges.

 

[7thKeeper]

Which is another distinction between Republicans and Democrats -

Yes. With Republicans, disagreeing with Trump means you're a RINO/communist/anti-American/etc. Pick the most suitable for the situation or speaker. Please, don't try to pretend that the Republicans are somehow a bastion of allowing people to disagree.

 

[childeye 2]

Yes really.
I've been searching for Project 2025s actual date and the only one that keeps coming up is April 21, 2022 - the very day Trump spoke to the Heritage Foundation and his speech quoted previously. While it's not the be all, end all authority, Wikipedia says:
Established April 21, 2022; 2 years ago
Purpose Reshape the U.S. federal government to support the agenda and ideologies of Donald Trump
If you can show otherwise, please do so.

April 14, 2022:

Heritage Announces 2025 Presidential Transition Project, Hiring of Paul Dans to Direct New Initiative​

WASHINGTON—The Heritage Foundation today announced the launch of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, a new initiative exclusively focused on preparing the next administration with conservative policy recommendations and the properly vetted and trained personnel needed to take back America.

www.heritage.org

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts released the following statement on the launch of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project:

“The Washington, D.C., bureaucrats responsible for crafting and implementing policy can be just as damaging to our country as those elected to lead it.

“It is not enough to elect conservative leaders who articulate the right policies. We must ensure that the men and women surrounding these leaders also cherish American greatness, hold an unwavering fidelity to our Constitution, and believe in the supremacy of our God-given rights.

“That is why we are standing up the 2025 Presidential Transition Project almost three years out from the next administration. Heritage will help provide not just the intellectual firepower to policymakers, but also do everything we can to ensure the right people hold positions of influence in Washington—and are empowered to root out those who no longer serve the interests of the American people.

“I am excited for the great things Paul Dans and our team will do to make this vision a reality. His extensive experience in personnel matters, coupled with his love for this country and the principles that make us great, will be invaluable tools as we begin the process of restoring America and uniting the conservative movement around doing so.”

 

[Always in His Presence]

Yes. With Republicans, disagreeing with Trump means you're a RINO/communist/anti-American/etc. Pick the most suitable for the situation or speaker. Please, don't try to pretend that the Republicans are somehow a bastion of allowing people to disagree.

RFK - nuff said.

 

[eleos1954]

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

ABC News‘ David Muir and Linsey Davis faced intense backlash online during Tuesday night’s presidential debate for their obvious bias against Republican nominee Donald Trump.The bias manifested itself in several ways, from asking Trump more hostile “gotcha” questions than they asked Harris to...

www.dailywire.com

ABC News‘ David Muir and Linsey Davis faced intense backlash online during Tuesday night’s presidential debate for their obvious bias against Republican nominee Donald Trump.

The bias manifested itself in several ways, from asking Trump more hostile “gotcha” questions than they asked Harris to pressing Trump with followup questions while allowing Harris to evade answering questions with no followup to fact checking Trump while allowing Harris to lie with impunity.

The moderators by injecting their own opinions/comments ("fact checking") made this debate pretty much null in void imo.

Moderators are supposed to ask questions and let the candidates respond .... nothing more.

 

[FenderTL5]

April 14, 2022:

Heritage Announces 2025 Presidential Transition Project, Hiring of Paul Dans to Direct New Initiative​

WASHINGTON—The Heritage Foundation today announced the launch of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, a new initiative exclusively focused on preparing the next administration with conservative policy recommendations and the properly vetted and trained personnel needed to take back America.

www.heritage.org

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts released the following statement on the launch of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project:

Thank you.
There it is on the Heritage Foundation website. It was a week prior to Trump's speech in their presence, leaving little (no) doubt that he was at least aware of it.

 

[RDKirk]

I think Harris had only one mission that night: To demonstrate that Trump can't keep his mind on task and can be led like a child merely by pushing his buttons. And I think she accomplished that mission.

 

[childeye 2]

Thank you.
There it is on the Heritage Foundation website. It was a week prior to Trump's speech in their presence, leaving little (no) doubt that he was at least aware of it.

You're welcome.
Check out these two paragraphs with language that sounds MAGAdonian:

“It is not enough to elect conservative leaders who articulate the right policies. We must ensure that the men and women surrounding these leaders also cherish American greatness, hold an unwavering fidelity to our Constitution, and believe in the supremacy of our God-given rights.

“That is why we are standing up the 2025 Presidential Transition Project almost three years out from the next administration. Heritage will help provide not just the intellectual firepower to policymakers, but also do everything we can to ensure the right people hold positions of influence in Washington—and are empowered to root out those who no longer serve the interests of the American people.