this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2024
360 points (96.6% liked)
Political Memes
5490 readers
2181 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Kamala wants to change the rules to what Trump has demanded previously.
Trump would have the same option of notes, only he's afraid that someone organised would more readily call out his bullshit.
Source.
Again, source. Also there's a difference between a reporter lying in an interview, perhaps to elicit a reaction from the interviewee, and a reporter lying on behalf of Kamala (which you're implying), let alone at her request.
"Anything not on my side is biased" - you do not understand reality. Stop watching Fox News, that's not a news channel, it's fake entertainment, by their own admission under oath.
I don't watch Fox News
What conservative network are you referring to then?
I'm not referring to one in particular. I'd settle for any of them, including any that aren't on cable or sat. All the news networks broadcasts the debates anyway. If they want people to trust our election system, they need to have more than one debate on at least two different kinds of networks. Otherwise, people are going to believe it's rigged or that someone's probably got the questions ahead of time. It just makes it look worse when one candidate refuses to do it.
Here's you a couple of sources and you won't convince me the reporter lied to "elicit a reaction" If that were the case, they wouldn't only do it to a certain party. They'd do it to the other party as well. These MSM networks scream bias, especially when they're giving one party the questions ahead of time for a debate. I understand reality just fine.
https://nypost.com/2024/08/26/us-news/trump-considers-dropping-out-of-abc-news-debate-over-biased-interview-with-sen-tom-cotton/
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/abc-s-ridiculous-and-biased-cotton-interview-that-got-trump-questioning-only-harris-debate/ar-AA1psdci
Apologies for the delay in my reply here, I've only just got around to checking your links.
Both of these sources are primarily centred around Trump's tweet, repeating and amplifying it as if what he says is true.
The first one has a video clip where the reporter clearly slipped up and didn't have his facts straight. However, Cotton was also lying - he misrepresented Kamala's position, as if to say she would take things away from people. The private health industry in the US is diabolical and needs sorting out, such that it isn't tied to your employment. No one should be left in a situation where losing their job means they lose their healthcare. This is what Kamala was referring to by "abolish private health insurance on the job". This would eliminate private health insurance as we know it, but it wouldn't entirely eliminate private health insurance as you'd still be able to take out your own policy, separate from work. What she's talking about is healthcare that's free at the point of service, much like in Canada and the UK. Those systems aren't free for everyone, but you don't have the bullshit hoops with doctors being out of plan that insurance and the healthcare industry fleeces everyone with.
The first link also had a comment about veterans:
This is completely false. Trump has not been good for the military, and he's certainly not been good to veterans. He doesn't even pretend to be good to veterans.
The second article, hosted on MSN but originally written by "Hindustan Times", also goes into the healthcare thing, so I won't repeat that part. However it does elaborate more on the "How do you know that is not her position now?” and accuses her of hiding her position. This is simply bullshit: when a person campaigns on something, that becomes their mandate. A politician can't win an election and then use that as a mandate to do something else - which is exactly what the Republicans have done eg with repealing Roe vs Wade. There is no evidence that the Democrats are doing this, just a blind accusation from a party that already engages in this practice.
The reporter and Cotton then bickered about whether or not she had changed. Frankly, it's all a very shit interview, and the reporter doesn't come across as a very good journalist. However, to say that this proves the network is biased is a very weak argument. A reporter is supposed to be opposed to the person they're interviewing, particularly with politicians, in order to challenge them. A good reporter would challenge guests regardless of which way the guest leans, in such a way that they ask difficult questions. It can easily seem that they're biased if you only look at one interview, because they're not on side with that guest, but you need to see interviews of both side to determine this. Without an interview of a Democrat where the reporter/network is clearly on side with them and does not ask difficult questions, this is nothing but an excuse for Trump to try and weasel out of a debate he agreed to but is now afraid of.
And if you look back to the interview with Harris in 2019, the reporter then did ask difficult questions when she talked about changing the healthcare industry.
You seem to be taking the words of Trump, a serial liar, as gospel. That is a mistake and not something that you can rationally justify.
"This is completely false. Trump has not been good for the military, and he's certainly not been good to veterans. He doesn't even pretend to be good to veterans."
Sorry but I disagree completely with that statement. The MSM spews a bunch of made up nonsense about Trump and the military but Trump secured three pay raises for our troops and their families including the largest pay raise in over a decade. He rebuilt the military after 8 years of neglect under the previous administration with over $2.2 trillion in defense spending, including $738 billion for 2020. He created the space force as well which was the first new branch of the United States Armed Forces since 1947. He vetoed the FY21 National Defense Authorization Act, which failed to protect our national security, disrespected the history of our veterans and military, and contradicted our efforts to put America first. He protected America’s defense-industrial base, directing the first whole-of-government assessment of our manufacturing and defense supply chains since the 1950s. He also helped our Veterans out by giving them the ability to go to whatever doctor they want to go to so they would no longer have to wait so long that some of them were dying to be seen at the VA. And I believe that he would have done much more for our military if he wasn't being held down by all of phony Russia collusion nonsense.
Not quite correct:
Trump didn't secure the pay raise, he wanted to pay them less but was overruled. The other pay raises were also mandatory.
The increase under Trump was also only 2.4%, and the most in 8 years (not "over a decade"). Meanwhile the increase under Biden was 5.2%, the most in decades, plural, more than 20 years.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/senate-passes-defense-policy-bill-52-pay-raise-troops-biggest-boost-de-rcna129668
Spending in defense =/= good for servicemen and veterans. The vast majority of military spending does not go to personnel.
Splintering the USAF off and creating the Space Force arguably does not help the country. For one, the organisations' mandates and domains are so similar that the difference does not provide benefit (NASA covers both aeronautics and space, for good reason). Second, this makes it easier for enemies of the US to determine how much is being inveseted in space activities through separate public disclosures, making it harder for the US to maintain its military lead.
Trump vetoed a bill that had an overwhelming bipartisan majority behind it, knowing full well that his veto would be overruled. That's not a real veto, that's just for show, just to give him something to complain about on social media. The veto was also an attempt to halt funding to federal agencies, a common tactic of the Republican party, and one that hurts actual service members requiring them to continue working without pay.
Trump also stole classified documents and leaked them to Russia. Him running an "assessment" of US defense supply chains is more about him providing intel to foreign adversaries.
He helped the US healthcare industry by giving them more customers and overruled the VA's pricing system, such that the taxpayer pays more to exploitative corporations.
HAH. Trump has always been in bed with Russia, this has been public knowledge since the 80s. His young girl talent agencies were involved with Russian human trafficking.
You've got your head buried in the sand. Trump would rather gut and gimp the military so the US can roll over for Russia.
See, I can say the same about you. You've been brainwashed by the MSM into believing Trump is the next Hitler and that he's the antichrist etc. Trump is a worldwide businessman who's had dealings in a lot of countries, but there's still never been any proof of him colluding with Russia. Btw, what classified/top secret documents are saying he gave/sold to Putin? The Russian collusion was debunked long ago and the whole investigation into it was based on lies and a dossier that the Clinton campaign financed. One of their lawyers even got convicted of doctoring paperwork for the fbi in order to get the Fisa courts to let them wiretap Carter Paige and the Trump campaign. The fbi hid the fact that Carter Paige was working for the CIA and that his job was to talk to Russians and relay information back to them so the whole thing was just a scam. They also needed Obamas help to get the ball rolling on it which is why right before leaving office, Obama signed an executive order to give something like 17 different agencies full access to NSA data. They thought nobody would ever find out because they believed the American people would turn on Trump and he'd be out of office in 6 months to a year, but that didn't happen. John Kerry said as much in an overseas trip he was on back then. The MSM day in and day out screamed Russia Russia Russia for years without even having any proof. On the flip side of that coin, you've got the Bidens in which I've seen the photos of the checks made out to the Biden family from companies connected to the Chinese communist party for hundreds of thousands of dollars and right after the family pays Joe and Hunter the money. The money was sent through a bunch of shell companies to try to cover their tracks as well. Hunter has received countless gifts such as diamonds, cars, hookers, and millions of dollars from not only China, but other nations to and yet there's never been any proof of him providing any services for that money except for access to the Vice President/President/Joe Biden. Biden is on tape threatening to hold back a billion dollars in aid money if Ukraine didn't fire a certain prosecutor. Then you've got Hunters laptop that the MSM and members of the intelligence community kept saying was Russian disinformation when the fbi had possession of the laptop already and knew it was real. They held onto the laptop and claimed they didn't know where it was long enough to let the statute of limitations run up on a lot of the more serious crimes that the laptop gave them plenty of proof of and more than likely it was because they wouldn't have been able to charge Hunter without charging Biden. The crimes I'm talking about are things like money laundering, bribery, etc. I personally see it as treason. Also, I know Biden is not running for office now, but he is the President so if they're going to go after Trump for photographing inside section 60, it's only right to mention Joe has done the same and put it in his campaign video. As far as Trump goes, the military families that have loved ones in section 60 have come out in defense of Trump and said that they wanted the photos taken. Trumps team also had permission to do it in the first place. You talk about how bad Trump is for the veterans and for the military, but most of the military supports Trump over Biden or Harris. Same with Border Patrol and same with Police officers.
I don't think Trump is the next Hitler lol Hitler actually had some real carisma and intelligence. Your whataboutism turned into hyperbole is clearly flat and false.
Incidentally, do you know who it was who coined the term Mainstream Media, in the context of saying "you shouldn't believe Mainstream Media"? That was Joseph Goebbels. You are literally spouting Nazi propaganda.
I'm not brainwashed, I try to take in as many sources I can and review them impartially, then come to an objective conclusion. Unfortunately for you, reality and truth skew away from your beliefs.
Russian collusion has not been debunked. The investigations were quashed.
Yes, Biden was under direction from the President to sort out corruption in Ukraine, where Russia had been funnelling money through Ukraine's PrivatBank. Trump has been associated with this money laundering, and yet none of it has seen the light of day - the lawsuits in Delaware and the UK were both postponed until after Ukraine's lawsuit, which was scheduled for summer 2022. This never happened due to the Russian invasion.
You're still trying to bring up Biden being photographed at the cemetary while conducting his duties with Trump trying to take photographs explicitly for his election campaign. The two are not the same.
Most of the military does not support Trump. Hell, most of the US does not support Trump - he has never won a popular vote in his life. You're pulling things out your ass now, and I can smell that shit well before I can see you.
If that's really what she was referring to, why does she never say that? The reporters are definitely biased btw. All you have to do is look at the interviews they do with Kamala or Biden (the very few of them they've done) and then listen to the interviews they do with Trump or just about any Republican really. It's more than obvious. Yes, they're supposed to challenge the person they are interviewing and every now and then they'll ask Kamala a tough question, but then she'll give a completely false answer and they just move on to the next one. You never see them do a follow up on it just like when she said that she made it clear in 2020 that she wouldn't ban fracking. That's false. She said the exact opposite. She mentioned at the time that Joe wouldn't ban fracking, but said that she was for banning it. They never call her out on any of it. They also never sit there and fact check every sentence that comes out of the Dems mouth, but it's just the opposite with Trump. If Trump claimed he retired from the military under a rank that he didn't have, you'd never hear the end of it. Tampon Tim does it and they actively defend him. Also, more recently, the MSM goes on and on about Trump taking photos at Arlington National Cemetery in section 60, but Biden was the first to actually use photos he had taken in section 60 in a campaign ad. Does the MSM say anything about that? Not even a whisper/
If it's so obvious it should be easy for you to link to such an interview. Ideally, we should have two interviews from the same interviewer, one for either side, then we can determine the bias of that interviewer. Determining bias of the network would require much more evidence.
Trump lies with almost every breath and gets away without fact checking against the vast majority of it. You claim Kamala does this also, but your only example so far has been one where the very network you claim is biased towards her in fact corrected her, at that very moment. They followed up on that. That's what you said, now you're trying to claim that they don't follow up on her gaffes.
Perhaps it's a flaw with interviewing in general, because interviewers for sure don't fact check Trump very much. The fact checking comes after the fact, by other parties. However you can only be biased if you think Trump is fact checked more than Kamala, proportional to the amount of lies either of them make.
The fact is she makes fewer gaffes, that's why it seems like they follow up less - there's less to follow up on, and what is followed up on is usually less substantial. Meanwhile Trump lies all the time, and it becomes so tiresome trying to correct every word he says that most get overlooked, and can only be picked apart by in depth breakdowns that most people don't have the time to watch.
Tampon Tim, lmao, your mask is slipping and you're revealing how much kool-aid you've drank.
No one is comparing Tim to Trump. People are comparing Tim to Vance. Vice President nominee to Vice President nominee. JD Vance himself tried to dismiss Waltz's 24 years' service in the National Guard because he didn't see combat, while ignoring the fact that Vance was in a PR department of the marines - for far less time - and also did not see combat. Vance's military career was purely about getting a line on his resume, while you don't serve for 24 years without some genuine patriotism. Walz suffered hearing damage from firing artillery, meanwhile Vance can't even claim he developed carpal tunnel syndrome from his military service.
You also cannot genuinely claim that Walz's military career is glossed over. No one has challenged Vance's career up until now, while Walz has faced these accusations and won in spite of them time and time again since 2006. The reason he wins in spite of the accusations is because the accusations are vexatious.
The argument over Walz's rank is semantic. He was promoted, it's just that the promotion was conditional on him completing certain training after the promotion, which he never completed. Similarly, Donald Trump was indicted twice while President, it's just that his party's Senate elected not to actually remove him from the office of President. Walz was still promoted to that rank, and Donald Trump was still indicted twice. Walz was essentially offered a job that he eventually did not take up, meanwhile Trump committed crimes but went unpunished.
Biden had his photo taken while performing his duties as then-Vice President. He later re-used that photo in an election campaign. The photo was taken in 2010, then he used it in 2020.
Trump brought media with him to take photos during his election campaign for the purpose of using those photos in his election campaign.
The rules are clear, you're not allowed to do take photos for the purpose of election campaigning. Biden did not break that rule, he didn't even arrange the photo. You're free to take photos so long as it isn't for the purpose of election campaigning.
In spite of not breaking the letter of rule, I would agree that Biden violated the spirit of the rule. However, Biden is not running for President now, Trump is, and Trump's gaffe happened well after he had dropped out. Trump's getting desperate, and he's making bigger and bigger mistakes.
You also cannot say that Biden was at fault and disrespected the military without admitting that Trump disrespected the military.
Ultimately, it feels like talking to you is pretty pointless. You stubbornly refuse to concede anything, no matter how minor, chasing some proverbial "win". You've chosen to follow your favourite fiction, rather than embrace a search for objective truth. Frankly, I believe that clinging to ignorance, in spite of evidence to the contrary, is the greatest sin a human being can commit. It brings shame to your ancestors, to the good men and women who sacrificed their lives for you to live in relative comfort.