529
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
529 points (98.5% liked)
politics
19226 readers
2966 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Meanwhile the newspapers: "FACT CHECK: It is incorrect to associate project 2025 with the Trump campaign" 🙄
Besides fox News and the like, who said that?
The Associated Press did
Saving everyone a click
That's everything they said. Those are quite literally the facts which they can report on: what Trump says.
Sure, but doing a fact check at all is very strongly suggesting that the person making the claim is lying in a way that would be materially significant.
It just seems wrong to report that well technically, the candidate himself didn't say those exact words (while ignoring that he communicates like a mafia don), and fit it in amongst other fact-checks where the candidate is literally libelling an entire community with things that are absolutely bare-faced lies with very very racist underpinnings?
You seem confused. Their reporting here was that trump claimed not to be associated with the document, but in reality is. Maybe you don't like their wording?
Nope. Not what you're saying it is. They call out its origin even.
They also briefly mention what he claims. That is in no way corroborating it. They are simply trying to avoid seeming biased. The other time "2025" appears in that page, it's a quote from Harris about how dangerous it is.
This is normal and decent journalism.
Well that's the article my boss used to "prove" to me that trump wasn't associated with it. It'd be nice if honest reporting wasn't immediately cast out as being leftist.
He read the sentence he wanted, essentially summarizing Trump's claim, and ignored everything else. What is AP supposed to do about that kind of idiocy? You could do that with practically any source of information
facts have a left-leaning bias
Just about all of them, FFS.
What you all are really saying is that you want media to be more left leaning. The example people keep citing is AP, but they literally called out that he was associated with the creators of the document. Should they have used the word "lie", well, yes I think so personally, but there is a danger in further appearing biased. I can settle for refuting his claim the way they did despite my preference. This is not some obvious right wing leaning like people ITT seem to think.
Those are some questionable sources.
A better start to that would be:
"Trump, a pathological liar, has said he doesn't know about Project 2025"
Unless he was diagnosed as a pathological liar, they should not. Not that he isn't, because he is, but as a news organization they should only provide the facts, quotes, and unbiased contextual information. That is what we should expect from the news. It should not be "left-leaning" or "right-leaning," because they shouldn't tell us what we should think about what they are reporting.
They should report that some of his former (and possibly current, if it's accurate) aids and expected cabinet members wrote, participated, or supported Project 2025. They should report what Trump's response was when asked about it, as well as including the factual context of how many people directly surrounding him that were openly involved (to give the lie to him "not knowing").
We need news to stop giving opinion. Period. They should strive to be as unbiased as possible, including reporting on events based on newsworthy-ness, not trying to be "fair" to the candidates by reporting on both in an equally negative way regardless of the severity of their respective news (e.g. Obama's tan suit vs. Trump's children in cages.)
Then they don't have to use the word "pathological". If they aren't reminding people that the fascist liar is a liar, then they are part of the problem.
I think "habitual liar" would be fair.
I would assume they're also wary to give any opportunities to the serial libel/slander suit filer with a history of decrying "fake news". Especially backed by the DOJ.
The election coverage I saw on AP this week confirms that they are compromised as well. They are dead to me.
This was likely true.
Trump didn’t need to know about it, and (since by all accounts, he’s functionally illiterate) he certainly never read it. Project 2025 is the brainchild of the same groups who chose Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Cavanaugh. Trump likely knew very little about them, too.
Trump was chosen because he’s easy to manipulate and is too incurious to care much about actual governance, so he won’t get in their way. All they need is for him to sign whatever they put in front of him between rounds of golf.
Trump likely didn’t know much about Project 2025 – but that absolutely did not mean it wasn’t the plan all along.
Yikes, they should show how its related to him.
They should also mention that most everything he says is a lie.
What am I missing here? Two sentences telling us his claims isn't the complete failure of journalism y'all seem to be insinuating it is...
Its more of selectively picking what he's said, also not including the previous versions
sause So only including the part where he distanced himself from it is very sketchy.
It is a fact that Trump claimed not to know anything about it