234
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
234 points (100.0% liked)
politics
30908 readers
1566 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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary 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. Attempting to manipulate up/down votes is grounds for account deletion.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
If you read that whole page you linked to you would see they haven't produced fake news so much as they consistently misrepresent facts to suit a conservative narrative.
So arguing it could be AI means you failed to actually read their fucking reasoning for the low credibility and bias claims. None of it had to do with facts not being true, but rather presenting those true facts within a conservative narrative. Whitmer is mentioned several times, and in each case it was rooted in real facts but presented with a conservative slant.
Screaming "fake news" is unhelpful.
Vetting sources absolutely is helpful.
It's clear they didn't actually vet the source or read what mediabiasfactcheck said then, because at no point did they make "fake news." So the likelihood of this being AI is near zero.
Taking the top line that some group made and not actually looking at the details is not vetting a source, it's taking a quick glance as gospel. It matters that they don't make fake news because it makes this video likely real.
But I mean you do you if you just take a quick glance as gospel and don't actually, you know, fucking read anything yourself.
You keep putting "fake news" in quotations like it's something they said.
Oh so claiming it's quite possibly AI isn't directly making a claim that it's most likely fake? Interesting.
It's not even something I said lol. They're clueless.
You're not inspiring confidence in people here when purporting an obvious strawman fallacy. Please quote where I said they're "fake news" as you put in quotes no less.
Second, one demonstrates an unfortunately low level of comprehension skills, given I stated, "Don’t trust this to be anything more than AI" -- which suggests by comparative logic that there are possibly other things I trust equal to or lower than AI.
"Don't trust this to be any more than AI" directly implies that it must be fake.
Cool. Whatever. Find me a better source.
lmao, jesus. Sorry I asked you to read and ripped a hole in your pulled out of your ass AI theory.
They don't have a history of making shit up. They have a history of being extremely biased. This video has no commentary.
Soooooo no other source beside some shithole far-right subpar slop?
Last chance!
Sure, no other source, except for the video and hot mic recording of her saying exactly what's being reported here.
Here's another news source, which includes the actual recording.
But of course, we can all see that truth is not what you're actually after here.
Oh I'm sure there's plenty of sources here for this obviously surreptitiously recorded video. /s
Dismissing the source when the facts are real is in, a word, stupid.
Why don't you prove to me they have a history of making shit up? Oh yeah, because your own source proves that wrong, ding-a-ling.
Dismissing the source is a genetic fallacy. They comment on someone else creating a fallacy and cant see their own. Their cognitive dissonance is in over drive
LOW CREDIBILITY
Should be easy to find a better source reporting on this, if vetted! Hell, even Fox News!
I mean, things take time. The Drudge Report wasn't wrong about Monica, he was just an asshole. Assholes can be right and still refer to facts but present those facts in a different ideological context.
but I clearly was never going to get through to you.
Cool buddy, just wake me up when that happens ;)
Not even Snopes could verify it.
Even Snopes says its authentic you fucking moron, but I guess it's "nothing more than AI" whatever.
Dispelling the myth of a 2 party system is being a Nazi? Like Clinton said, you need a public and a private position, Whitmer's private position is now public
False Premise fallacy. We've not yet established the premise to be true. You sure trust far-right sources an awfully lot.
And you sure distrust them despite there being zero evidence that they make up items like this.
I would distrust their slant, but this is a video with no commentary. What slant is there?
There's a major difference between faking shit and misrepresenting shit.
If their facts are still true, I don't know what to say, but you do you man.
You sure trust a far-right outlet with LOW CREDIBILITY a lot.
Tagged nazi. Thanks for playing.
lmao I trust what mediabiasfactcheck says, which is that they are BIASED not FAKE.
If it were fake as Whitmer claims they could have captured and provided the audio from one or several of the other cameras on them at the time. Theyve had over month to do something. SNOPES confirmed the comments. Democrats dont give AF about the working class anymore than republicans
Lots of Democrats do, actually! But that's another topic. Be careful, lots of Russian and Republican trash on here trying to spread misinformation and stop people from voting Democrats, helping fascist Republicans win in November!
Snopes only acknowledges footage happened and audio occurred but could not independently verify or make out what was said, which means anyone could use AI to inject what they want her to say. They left Unrated.
I'll make it simple for you, democrats are fascist. Pointing out that BlueMAGA operates on the same frequency as MAGA isnt spreading misinfo, its breaking down their similarities.
IF you read the story they confirmed what was said but couldnt clarify the context.
lol you righties keep trying to make this stick but it's not going to work.
This is where anyone with an IQ above room temperature stops reading.
Thats where your cognitive dissonance kicks in and triggers an uncomfortable response.
Do we seriously have to insinuate that people are Nazis every half a second? Could we just like, instead, not do that? Here on the threadiverse?
The point you're trying to make is frankly weaker for it.
The truth is, their point is made weaker for using a far-right trash source with low credibility. Why they used that specific source should raise serious eyebrows.
In fairness, I simply asked a question; how they responded reveals so much more. Though if you're regurgitating the most fringe fucking garbage right-wing media points that just so happens to have wedge-drive the left, yes, I think that raises some red flags.
I will continue to call such people out, and if they instead turned around and went, "Hey yeah you're right, this source is dogshit and Snopes couldn't even verify what was said in the video, so sorry for spreading this bullshit nazi trash" I'd say no harm no foul.
Edit: By the way, I never said they were center-right; I was citing MBFC. Please, I encourage one to read more carefully. Though anyone with half a brain knows by the standards of Overton Window, that means far-right in US politics. If you disagree, then congratulations, you're enabling fascism or should review the rightward trajectory of the Overton Window.
My brother in Christ you already described it as being center-right and now you're exaggerating that to try and make your point more sailient
I agree that its an irreputable source and that the quality of the source should always be pointed out. But if you seriously think using a less than reputable source on a link aggregator site when it confirms their biases makes someone a Nazi I'm pretty damn confident your bar is set cartoonishly low.
I don't care whether you think they have credibility, you can make your case that they don't; calling anyone and everyone a Nazi still damages yours. Your point would be stronger sans that assertion.
I didn't downvote you, but I think you can see lots of others did-- I guarantee you'd be more well received if you left out the heinous personal attacks without adequate basis and just stuck to your very strong argument that the source is uncredible and not something we should trust blindly.
I'm not familiar with the outlet but heard about the story on Breaking Points. Since the sub requires an article, I just searched for one and this is what popped up.