The left is literally all about propaganda and misinformation. I mean, Kamala Harris will never take a vaccine made under the Trump admin right? She said that repeatedly, yet she took it today.
What a lovely example. Do please provide a citation, because I just tried to google it and found out she'd said something significantly different (https://youtu.be/p7WD8l0Dc1I), which gee, actually makes you the liar and not her. She'd said she'd take the word of medical professionals, and not of Trump. And that she'd be first in line to take it if the medical establishment said it was okay. She'd just not trust Trump on it,
Which is exactly the essence of great propaganda. She said, and was widely reported as saying - "But if Donald Trump tells us that we should take it. I’m not taking it." There's no process in the United States where a vaccine can be administered based on that standard. So why did she say it? literally to undermine public confidence in a vaccine produced in record time by the Trump admin for her own political gain.
Lest you have any doubt on her goal, here's the comment from the follow up, where she deliberately undermines even the public health officials signing off on a vaccine (again for here own gain).
When asked by Bash whether she thought that public health experts and scientists would get the last word on the efficacy of a vaccine, Harris predicted that they will not.
"If past is prologue that they will not, they'll be muzzled, they'll be suppressed, they will be sidelined," Harris said. "Because he's looking at an election coming up in less than 60 days and he's grasping to get whatever he can to pretend he has been a leader on this issue when he is not."
And while undermining that any approval will be the result of the good faith decisions of the public health officials she talks out of the otherside of her mouth about trusting Dr. Faucci. It's literally double speak where she says both things - "don't trust a vaccine approved by Trump's admin" and "trust the vaccine approved by this prominent Democrat doctor," even though its exactly the same vaccine in exactly the same process on both tracks.
The media wants to cover for her so they widely broadcast the attack portion to target any Trump benefit on the vaccine and undermine confidence. Effectively, don't vote for Trump because he oversaw a record breaking vaccine development (less than a year, apparently the prior record was 4 years for the Mumps), because he only did by "cutting corners." Oh but hey, now that I have to take the vaccine totally safe because you know it was approved by "process" and Dr. Faucci says so.
That's the essence of propaganda, media handlers selectively using even contradictory quotes to support the person they want to support and undercut the person they want to cut down.
Thank you for bothering to look, but please next time hold your research to the same standard you would apply in Trump's case (you know, like for example, continually citing to his "failure" to condemn racism in Charlottesville, when that lie was refuted in the very same speech).
So, why don't you try again with an actual lie by her, rather than prove my words with a lie by you?
Sure, here's a classic Harris lie: "The president said it was a 'hoax.” referring to the Coronavirus.
Or, how about, her classic lie about who she was listening to when she smoked pot (an album that hadn't been released at the time).
I found this fun write up of 24 lies in a single debate, backed with references, most of the claims were not actively fact checked by the supposedly neutral fact checkers for some reason. Gee I wonder why.
https://thehayride.com/2020/10/the-24-lies-kamala-harris-told-at-last-nights-debate/I would suggest getting off Google and trying a less filtered search engine if you want balanced information, Google biases searches for Harris's lies to favor debunking by fact checkers of easy ones. Effectively, Google is running a giant strawman fallacy engine. Try Duck Duck Go with a politically sensitive search and see if you don't get shockingly different results.
As for lies by Trump, gee let's start with today: "“Breaking News: In Pennsylvania there were 205,000 more votes than there were voters. This alone flips the state to President Trump.”
Is that a Trump quote? As I understand it that's something that was tweeted on his account and that the media believed was a quote from someone else. In any event, the media promptly claimed to debunk the underlying basis of the quote, though it's not clear that's what they did, more like they mansplained it.
As I understand it, at the moment, there are statistically more votes recorded in PA than there are voters recorded as having voted. The explanation is that certain counties (and it won't surprise anyone if they go look at the names of the counties involved) have not actually updated the required records onto a second system that the state maintains on voter history. Therefore, it's literally true that it appears there are more ballots than voters.
How then is that a lie? It's not. It could a misrepresentation if it were willful, but for Trump to retweet it? At worst its wishful thinking and not being informed. If you want to presume bad faith you could recast in a similar vein to Kamala's knowing false propaganda statements.
And then let's proceed with his entire life history. Let me quote from wikipedia:
Trump has promoted a number of conspiracy theories that have lacked substance. These have included Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories from 2011. Known as "birther" theories, these allege that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.[64][65][66] In 2011, Trump took credit for pushing the White House to release Obama's "long-form" birth certificate, while raising doubt about its legitimacy,[67] and in 2016 admitted Obama was a natural-born citizen from Hawaii.[68]
You guys really have TDS over this. It will never be true that it can be proven that Obama was born in Hawaii or born in Kenya. It will always be true that Hawaii certified him as born there. No matter how much you wish it, the latter doesn't guarantee the former.
I mean in the history of "dirty tricks" this controversy barely rates a 10% on the scale of most unfair tricks of all time. Obama and his allies contributed to it for years with some of them using his "Kenyan" birth for marketing before it was relevant to his Presidential aspirations. Here for example here is a link to one such instance being "explained," though there's literally no reason that the error would have been made in the first place if it didn't come from Obama, nor that he wouldn't have corrected it.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/born-kenya-obamas-literary-agent-misidentified-birthplace-1991/story?id=16372566. Compare that to falsely claiming someone is a Russian agent? Or a Racist? as you guys like to do. This just shows how double standards work, with anything eggregiously pro left being "fair" and even basic attacks fed by the person on the left and leftist operatives are "crimes of the century."
Honestly, given the real history where do you even get off claiming that no one could reasonably have questioned this? Materials that Obama would have approved said. Are you going to say its unfair going forward to claim that Hillaria Baldwin said she was born in Spain now that the lie has been blown up?
He later falsely stated that Hillary Clinton started the conspiracy theories.[68][69][70]
Okay... given it's widely known and was reported real time that Clinton allies were heavily involved in spreading it as an initial matter, and that even her campaign manager acknowledged they had to fire a staff member for spreading emails about it what is actually your beef? Literally everyone in politics knew the "expanded" team Clinton was pushing the story even if they were taking pains to be make sure no one on "official" team Clinton could be connected. They did the same thing against Trump and countless other times to undermine negative press. There's a reason that "friends of Bill" is a widely known concept.
The Clintons have a lot of hanger arounds that do their dirty work in a coordinated fashion without any paper trails.
Within six months of Trump's announcement of his presidential campaign, FactCheck.org declared Trump the "King of Whoppers" stating, "In the 12 years of FactCheck.org's existence, we've never seen his match. He stands out not only for the sheer number of his factually false claims, but also for his brazen refusals to admit error when proven wrong."[71]
Shrug. FactCheck.org is in my opinion a left biased organization. Most "fact checkers" are, they are literally journalists pretending to have more credibility. Journalists are overwhelmingly left. Anyone remember when reporters were actually supposed to be fact checkers, lol.
In 2016, Trump suggested that Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He also claimed that he lost the popular vote in the 2016 election only because of "millions" of illegal voters.[72][73]
Sigh. Really?
During his campaign, Trump claimed that his father, Fred Trump, had given him "a small loan of a million dollars," which he used to build "a company that's worth more than $10 billion,"[74] denying Marco Rubio's allegation that he had inherited $200 million from his father.[75] An October 2018 New York Times exposé on Fred and Donald Trump's finances concludes that Donald "was a millionaire by age 8," and that he had received $413 million (adjusted for inflation) from his father's business empire over his lifetime, including over $60 million ($140 million in 2018 currency) in loans, which were largely unreimbursed.[76]
I read the expose. I found it to spend a lot of time mischaracterizing values. By being a "millionaire" at age 8, for example, it seems to have meant that his father had transferred to him some less than $100,000. In "today's value" circa 2018, those payments are "worth" a million dollars. So for example Trump was receiving "$200,000" a year by age 3, really means he was receiving less than $18,000 a year in reality.
Big whoop.
You should read the critiques of the Times piece as well. Forbes for one really tore apart much of the claims the NYTimes passed off on the valuation "illegalities" as nothing to write home about. What Forbes covered, is literally the case in hundreds of thousands of valuation decisions every year that have never been questioned, never will be questioned, and would hold up in tax court or any other court, but the NYT can rephrase them to sound nefarious.
Honestly, when the headline has repeatedly been that Trump's father "gave" him at least $413 million dollar, yet much of that comes from Fred's estate when he died and all of it has been inflated to present value (circa 2018, regardless of when the transfers were made - generally at times where the multiple ranged from 13:1 to 6:1, very little at less than a 2:1 ratio). It ignores that often times these transfers were not of cash at all, or even necessarily of accessible assets. Forbes also pointed out that by the same measure Trump's worth was still a very large increase and that Trump had never been shy about spending money, which means the actual revenues involved were greater still.
Is the point that rich kids have a leg up? No question. Getting hire straight out of school by the family companies for highly compensated positions, totally an advantage. Having parents set up trusts, partnerships and companies to facilitate wealth transfers to their kids, totally an advantage.
Pretending that just being rich is enough to explain Trump? Delusional. There are countless stories of rich kids that never did and never could have replicated that success. Heck, his own siblings are in that number.
On the million dollar loan, if I recall that was a claim in connection with a specific company set up by Donald Trump for Manhattan Real Estate, separate from his father's companies. There's no question as a priviliged person Trump had other advantages, not least of which was access to better banking relationships and an experienced guide on government subsidy programs.
Was Ted Cruz's father involved in the assassination of JFK, Seriati? But I guess according to you that lie is just perfectly, same as all other Trump lies and same as your own lies - as long as they serve Trump.
Maybe you can pull your quote. The articles I've seen have Trump highlighting a National Enquirer article with a picture that purported to be Ted Cruz's father with Lee Harvey Oswald. Is there something more or specific?
Is everyone that links to dubious source somehow "lying" in your mind as well? Trump has repeatedly retweeted others words, and somehow that translates in your head into Trump not only stating those words but also additional made words attached to them?
I thought you were disputing the idea of propaganda above, and yet you seem to be relying on it here.
