517
submitted 2 weeks ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 36 points 2 weeks ago
[-] someguy3@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago

Saving everyone a click

THE FACTS: Trump has said he doesn’t know about Project 2025, a controversial blueprint for another Republican presidential administration.

The plan was written up by many of his former aides and allies, but Trump has never said he’ll implement the roughly 900-page guide if he’s elected again. He has said it’s not related to his campaign.

That's everything they said. Those are quite literally the facts which they can report on: what Trump says.

[-] perviouslyiner@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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?

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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?

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

Nope. Not what you're saying it is. They call out its origin even.

The plan was written up by many of his former aides and allies,

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.

[-] zaph@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

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

[-] affiliate@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

facts have a left-leaning bias

this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2024
517 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19126 readers
1993 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS