232
Good for them for outing his bullshit, though him and his "Team" (Cheung) will just lie about it anyway. They called him out for lying, and that's what's important.
When he got there, all of a sudden they were black. He hadn't noticed they were black before
They became black just for the interview.
It's a small thing, but when you watch it he stopped himself from saying "went black" and instead said "turned black". They're both pretty bad, but I just think it's funny that in his mind "turned black" was the way to say it.
I suspect the guy is so old, racist, and dementia riddled that he can't tell Nikki Haley and Kamala Harris apart. That would somewhat explain the "turned black" comment.
110% weirdo words, either way.
"You're turning black just to hurt me!"
Weird that he didn't notice.
Refuses to go if fact checked. Provides a bullshit excuse for not going, gets immediately fact checked about it.
Suck it, Damn Old Trump
It's so fucking annoying that the propagandists have already brainwashed his base into believing that fact checking is just "media lying" so they actively want Trump to refuse any fact checking...
We see it for the shit it is, and they like it. It doesn't hurt him at all.
Kinda off topic, but I appreciate how nice and clean Axios is without an adblocker, and how concise and bait free the articles (mostly) are.
I don't know how they stay sane and still make money, when the rest of the internet is worse than the Idiocracy TV.
I mean, we all know that virtually everything that comes out of Trump's mouth is 100% grade-A bullshit.
But when he says that he is unwilling to participate if he's going to be fact-checked means that he knows that everything is saying is a lie. He just admitted to it. Nobody who believes that they're telling the truth is afraid of being fact-checked, especially not to that degree.
He literally was telling the NABJ that he's not going to participate if he's not allowed to lie.
It's not quite the self-report that you think it is. Refusing to accept fact checking is a rational decision in the hypothetical framework that the participant is being honest and the checker is unreliable or dishonest.
I doubt he’s capable of such a complex thought
Saying 'nu-uh... you are....' is right up his alley.
Sure, but I was referring to how I doubt he’s capable of thinking of others beyond himself.
"I'm right. Everybody who disagrees with me is wrong. 'fact checkers' disagree with me, so they must be lying." Is well within the person woman man camera TV brain.
I can find some comfort that at least inviting both candidates was the norm and the invite extended to Trump wasn't a special one.
However, if anyone there was expecting anything other than the Trump campaign causing problems and blaming the hosts for it, I don't know what to say to them.
He should’ve just taken the L and 2hrs of news saying he refused to go on due to fact checking, but here we are lol
Huh. "Audio issues" must mean " I said things and they didn't instantly accept them as facts".
What a way that live.
What's worse is that (a) She's a FOX employee, (b) she repeatedly kowtowed to Trump throughout the interview, and (c) she was feeding him softball questions. And he still attacked her, blaming her for the "equipment issues" that nobody else was experiencing. And he kept doing it even after she went along with him about those "equipment issues".
It's like stockholm syndrome with some of these people. He attacks them, they bend the knee, and he attacks them more. And she went on FOX and defended him for it afterwards.
Axios Media Bias Fact Check Credibility: [High] (Click to view Full Report)
Name: Axios Bias: Left-Center
Factual Reporting: High
Country: United States of America
Full Report: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/axios/
Check the bias and credibility of this article on Ground.News
Thanks to Media Bias Fact Check for their access to the API.
Please consider supporting them by donating.
Footer
Beep boop. This action was performed automatically. If you dont like me then please block me.💔
If you have any questions or comments about me, you can make a post to LW Support lemmy community.
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
232 points (99.6% liked)
politics
19097 readers
5412 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS