The suspiciously similar wording... these "news" outlets all get their marching orders from the same source. I'll have to track down what the "lies" supposedly are.
From the Post article, the only two "falsehoods" I could find:
Trump, in turn, called Biden’s actions “absolutely criminal,” and falsely alleged that Biden “gets paid by China” and is a “Manchurian candidate,” assertions that are not backed up by any evidence. Trump, unprompted, also brought up the recent criminal conviction of Biden’s son, Hunter.
[ ... ]
Tapper pressed [Trump] by repeating his question [about his role on January 6], and Trump falsely shifted blame for the attack to then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, then attacked the bipartisan House committee that investigated the assault.
This is lame. So, as to the first assertion that Trump's in-China's-pocket claim is a falsehood: you can characterize it as being without evidence for now, but at worst, it's angry speculation, and plausible, based on what we know from Hunter's miraculous laptop, the gift that keeps on giving. And as for the second assertion: there is now recently released video evidence of Nancy Pelosi openly stating that "we" (which must include her) were fully responsible for the security foul-up (more precisely, she said, "We did not have accountability... and we should have"—an admission of negligence). There is also paperwork confirming that Trump had indeed offered Pelosi extra National Guard protection before January 6, which she (and, I think DC Mayor Bowser) rejected (also on record).
So the second assertion by the Post is itself a lie.
Keep coping, lefties.
5 comments:
From the BBC:
From the deficit to abortions, Trump did not tell the truth
published at 09:10
Donald Trump gave a confident performance in the Atlanta debate - but there were also clear falsehoods:
"He's got the largest deficit in the history of our country"
Trump claimed that Biden has led the US to a record deficit. According to data from the US treasury, external, the deficit peaked while Trump was in the White House at $3.13tn (£2.48tn). By 2023, with Biden in office, it had declined to $1.7tn
"He wants open borders. He wants our country to be destroyed or he wants to pick up those people as voters"
Joe Biden has never endorsed an open US border. When he took office, Biden did reverse some of Trump's immigration policies, including a programme that required migrants to remain in Mexico while waiting for their US asylum hearings. But Biden has embraced some restrictive policies
"The problem they have is they’re radical because they will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month, and even after birth, after birth"
Trump said that some Democratic-run states will allow "babies" to be killed "after birth". This is not true. Infanticide is illegal in all 50 states. Even in states with expansive abortion access, abortions after 21 weeks pregnancy are rare and difficult to obtain - representing less than 1% of all abortions, external in the US
[Part 1]
I wouldn't rely on the very biased BBC for my info.
The US House of Representatives (admittedly also biased) breaks down, in detail, the ways in which Biden has worsened the economy, in particular the national debt (true, the debt isn't the deficit), since entering the Oval Office. I'll leave it to you to read through the details.
Quick summary of the above, from the website:
The American public deserves transparency and accuracy when it comes to our national debt. The CRFB’s analysis significantly underestimates the contribution to the national debt from President Biden’s policies and inflates the fiscal impact of President Trump’s policies.
By not incorporating the true cost of legislative and executive actions, as well as failing to account for the broader economic consequences (higher interest rates and inflation) of President Biden's policies, the CRFB report is incomplete and inaccurate.
The "CRFB" mentioned above is the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The BBC has long had an anti-Trump agenda, like The Guardian, and it would be naive to trust anything Trump-related that emanates from it. By citing the House report, I'm not trying to say the House report is any more accurate; I'm pointing out that bias is everywhere and in everything, and a charitable interpretation of Trump's claims is that, at worst, they're mistaken, but not outright lies. Then again, based on the House report, there's a chance Trump's claims aren't mistaken. That said, yes, Trump is given to hyperbole given his bombastic, salesman-like personality. It's a debate; you score points through emotion, not logic. Is hyperbole the same as lying? Hey, I'm neither a lawyer nor a Talmudic scholar. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan had a jokey moment dealing with the distinction.
Biden's eleventh-hour embracing of restrictive border policies are one last flailing attempt at doing what he should have done at the start of his term instead of pettily dismantling Trump's measures via misguided executive orders. Biden's actions since that dismantling, and the resultant hemorrhage of illegals, clearly indicate his desire to flood the country via an open border. You can't get much more open than what we have now, and the US Border Patrol mostly hates Joe Biden.
[Part 2 to follow.]
[Part 2]
Regarding this:
Infanticide is illegal in all 50 states.
I guess you didn't follow what happened in the Commonwealth of Virginia, my home state, back when Ralph Northam was governor (the current governor is Republican Glenn Youngkin). Northam subtly argued for abortions right up to and beyond birth, essentially, the murder of a fully born baby. I find that insane. So-called "fact-checkers" on the left immediately pushed back against rightie outrage directed at Governor Northam (see this CNN article, for example) after he was interviewed on this point, but if you listen to the governor's words, you'll hear that he's fine with post partum termination as long as the decision is via a consensus between the mother and at least two doctors. Outraged conservatives were characterized as interpreting the governor's words in "bad faith" because, the governor's defenders said, his point was more about not involving government in what is essentially a personal decision by the mother. I can see that point of view, even agree with it, but it's also obvious from the governor's own words that he's fine with an abortion being performed essentially after birth. I'd argue that, if it's after birth, it's no longer an abortion but outright murder—i.e., infanticide. And the legislation being discussed in that video clip (legislation not authored by Northam) would make that legal.
[TRIVIA: My own stance on abortion is more nuanced than what you're seeing in the context of this comment. See my blog post here.]
As to the issue of what Joe Biden believes about abortion: he is on record saying he would sign a law reinstating Roe v. Wade (source). As for Trump's claim that some states will allow post partum termination: if ex-governor Ralph Northam is any indication, yes, some states might. I'm guessing that Trump was thinking specifically of Northam, and the BBC's pushback against Trump is an attempt to gaslight the public into forgetting that the idea of post partum termination has already been discussed on video in at least one state by at least one leftist governor.
So again: only two claims against Trump, neither with much force, from an untrustworthy source. If you want to convince someone of the rightness of your point, your best bet is to do so by speaking your interlocutor's language. If I'm a Christian trying to convince an atheist about some point of Christian morality, I can't expect Bible verses to be persuasive evidence. I have to speak the atheist's language. If that's not possible because we share such completely different premises, then we're at an impasse.
The left is deeply invested in the idea that Trump is a serial liar. On an abstract level, I have no doubt that Trump has spewed many lies, denied much reality, and twisted many facts (or "facts") to his purposes. But the specific claims of lying that I've seen arising from this debate with Biden are all laughable. Biden's horrible record speaks for itself, and he's told a slew of whoppers that are all on video.
I also find it suspicious that every left-wing outlet is framing the debate in exactly the same way: Trump's lies, Biden's stumbles. This is a deliberate attempt to remain consistently anti-Trump (a lie is morally worse than a stumble), and the entire media apparatus is marching in zombie-like lockstep. This is The Message, and it must be broadcast far and wide.
Thing is, it's too late, and it won't work. Everyone already believes what they're going to believe.
Let's assume that Northam is/was pro infanticide, which he clearly isn't in the way it's being portrayed by Trump. He is just one man and his view is not the mainstream democratic view. Surely you wouldn't want to have the batshit insanity from MTG or any of the others on the lunatic fringe to be described as mainstream Republican orthodoxy?
One last thing, do you personally believe Trump's denials when he says he didn't sleep with either of the two porn-stars he paid off?
From your other comment:
"The problem they have is they’re radical because they will take the life of a child in the eighth month, the ninth month, and even after birth, after birth"
I think you need to watch the video of Northam at the link I provided. He is clearly talking about third-trimester and post partum terminations, which is in line with the quote you provided from Trump. Where's the inaccuracy? True, Northam tries to be delicate and circumspect in how he addresses the matter, but the bald implication of what he's saying is that such procedures are fine by him as long as they arise from a decision made by the mother and at least two doctors. Northam would never describe himself as "pro-infanticide," but in talking the way he does about post partum termination, that's basically what he is: on a personal level if not a legal one, he's sanctioning murder. My own stance on more typical cases of abortion isn't absolutist by any stretch, but the extreme case(s) that Northam brings up is (are) a bridge too far.
He is just one man and his view is not the mainstream democratic view.
Gonna have to disagree with you, there. Have you seen how American liberalism has been taken over by wild-eyed leftist extremism? I can talk rationally with a liberal even if I don't agree with him; I can't talk with a leftist.
re: porn stars
I think I've addressed this issue already, in response to either you or Brian, but to reiterate: I think it's perfectly plausible that Trump cheated with porn stars. His denials are almost certainly lies. (And Stormy Daniels, as part of the original payout, had voluntarily signed a nondisclosure agreement that she promptly violated.) But if your larger argument is that Trump ought to be some sort of moral paragon or non-hypocrite, what should we say, then, about JFK or Bill Clinton? Or Lyin' Joe Biden? Presidents throughout history have been real pieces of... work, but I don't judge these people as if they were a local church leader: I judge them by their policies, priorities, and how steadfastly they stand by them. I think you're determined to show that Trump somehow fails even these standards, and by extension, you're trying to demonstrate how he's unfit to be president, but your position is that of the naive idealist—noble, but not practical or realistic. No president is—pardon the pun—unimpeachably good. All of them fail strict standards, and it's often the case that we have to pick the least bad from a menu of nothing but bad options. Trump is unpalatable on the personal level, as I've said repeatedly, but I overall agree with his policies and priorities, and I enjoy how he ruffles feathers on both sides of the aisle.
Post a Comment