“This needs context” of being 100% accurate
(media.scored.co)
Comments (34)
sorted by:
So the context is MSM code for 'we don't know how to spin this'
It’s an emotional modifier, they know when their readers see it they’ll cry “deboonked” anytime it gets brought up again despite being completely accurate. They’ll pretend an answer during a questionnaire on policy… doesn’t indicate policy.
Pretty much, it's like how idiots use 'Trump sounds mean' as a reason not to vote for him, just bypassing any need to argue on policy.
It's these kinds of idiots that give monarchists and those that want to bring in a social credit score just a non Chinese version legitimacy if these are the idiots that can sway an election.
I think most people who advocate for monarchy where it doesn't exist are somewhat simple-minded, but an advantage of monarchy over our collectivistic oligarchy is that the rulers will only sometimes be evil, and not always.
I think this continues as "her spokesman said that she is not running on that questionnaire". Not even a denial or repudiation.
There is no depth to which they will not sink to stop Trump. Actual election interference and in-kind campaign contributions.
Meanwhile they bring up random internet schizoposts as "Trump is running on X".
''I'm not running on that.'' = ''I will do it but you shut up about that.''
Really, they just need to rewrite their "context" explanation.
I don my hipster glasses and hair bun.
First, that was 5 years ago, so basically ancient history, bruv. Unless she proposed it in this current campaign, Trump saying "now" is incorrect.
Second, the questionnaire might have just been asking about her support of a hypothetical policy. It might not have been her idea in the first place, thus not her true intention (should said intentions ever be conceived in the first place).
I'm slowly coming to the upsetting conclusion that the vast majority of people are too stupid to have a say in anything, including what they eat for breakfast.
Context: But Orange Man Bad!!!
The EU did the exact same thing, BTW. Set up an 'anti-disinformation' site which included facts where their 'rebuttal' was basically 'BUT WE ARE REALLY ANGRY ABOUT PEOPLE POINTING THIS OUT".
It's such an insane thing to say that there's simply no way they can morph it into sounding reasonable.
I hate the term “gender affirming care”.
See also: Gizortnik
Solar system
It is used exactly for that reason why this "needs context".
The "operations" term from Trump is very upfront of what it means. Gender affirming care though is much nicer though. "Care" usually doesn't mean surgery. Palliative care. Mental Health care.
It's intentionally used to water down what is happening. Transgender kids need care, right? Easier to have people say "yes" to instead of to "we should mutilate transgender kids bodies".
Good point. I miss the days when care for transgender meant addressing the fact it is a delusion
It's gender denial mutilations.
It's nuspeak sheltering for "We castrate retards". Just like how "MAID" is nuspeak for euthanasia, "The PATRIOT Act" is nuspeak for when the US Government got to sneak in declaring war on American Citizens and "Abortion" is old nuspeak for child sacrifice.
Crazy how they even shut down conversion therapy for people who go voluntarily want to seek help. Also interesting how one day you can claim to be gay and it’s immediately accepted but if you decide you would rather be in a heterosexual relationship after dating the same sex that isn’t valid.
Guess it boils down to trying to destroy the norm
Indeed
You really can’t despise MSM enough.
Someone else posted a similar "fact check" published by NBC:
https://archive.is/ZLW0c
Hilarity ensues when they say "this needs context" for what is a factual statement but they said "This is true, though Trump says differently." When Harris 100% took his comment about having a bloodbath in the auto industry out of context to try and say that he was going to start an uprising if he wasn't elected.
No matter how much you hate journalists, you don't hate them enough.
Is there anyone on the planet who has enough hatred for urinalists?
Since it’s “inhumane” to execute serial criminals and alien invaders, I 100% endorse castrating them.
Archive that shit!
I got you
This is from the NYTimes, but what's funny is that there's about half a dozen other sites that all basically did the exact same thing, claiming to debunk this claim while simultaneously verifying it. Almost like they all have a shared script...
thank you kindly, though it is OP who should be archiving it.
it's almost as if there was a giant movement in the gaming circle that uncovered this shit.
Remember during the 2020 debate, Trump brought up Coyotes taking advantage and killing immigrants, and people fact checked that in fact there was no case of coyotes(animals) targeting immigrants.
I'm not a surgeon.
~Kamala, probably
The context is that she wants to do transgender operations on illegal aliens that are in prison.
Fact checking sure is hard work.
The context is that it is 100% true: https://files.catbox.moe/kdeuz8.mp4