4 ms·

Here is one example from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/30/politics/fact-check-trump-free-health-care-immigration https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/30/politics/fact

Here is one example from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/30/politics/fact-check-trump-free-health-care-immigration https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/30/politics/fact-check-trump-fre... It's really not hard to find this information. All the major news sites are covering it.

AnimalMuppet 1y ago
Thanks. But about your last paragraph: A post is written once, but read many times. If you make your readers look for the information, then N people have to do searches. If you search, it only has to happen once. So it's much more efficient for the post author to do so. And if you don't when you're contradicting someone else, and neither of you supplies evidence, then it looks like "he said, she said". If the evidence is on your side, show it.
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  The information is everywhere. Anybody who can't find it doesn't really care.
lazyeye 1y ago
[flagged]
- amanaplanacanal 1y ago
  You would be assuming wrong. The administration is lying, because otf they told the truth, nobody would support them. They are fucked and they are holding on by their fingernails. It's only a matter of time.
- Tadpole9181 1y ago
  For the viewers at home, CNN is not remotely an "arm of the Democratic Party". They're owned by Warner Bros (and are one of the few American media conglomerates not directly beholden to a single partisan billionaire). Pretty much every single bias rater puts CNN as "slightly left leaning", and they are regularly under fire from the left for facilitating the normalization of alt-right or far right rhetoric. I'd love to hear what media sources you call unbiased.
- AnimalMuppet 1y ago
  So far, all you've said is "from what I understand" and "I'm going to assume". Others have supplied at least some evidence; you have supplied none. You may not like their source. That's fine. But do you have any evidence for your position?

AnimalMuppet 1y ago

Thanks. But about your last paragraph: A post is written once, but read many times. If you make your readers look for the information, then N people have to do searches. If you search, it only has to happen once. So it's much more efficient for the post author to do so. And if you don't when you're contradicting someone else, and neither of you supplies evidence, then it looks like "he said, she said". If the evidence is on your side, show it.

amanaplanacanal 1y ago
The information is everywhere. Anybody who can't find it doesn't really care.

lazyeye 1y ago

[flagged]

amanaplanacanal 1y ago
You would be assuming wrong. The administration is lying, because otf they told the truth, nobody would support them. They are fucked and they are holding on by their fingernails. It's only a matter of time.
Tadpole9181 1y ago
For the viewers at home, CNN is not remotely an "arm of the Democratic Party". They're owned by Warner Bros (and are one of the few American media conglomerates not directly beholden to a single partisan billionaire). Pretty much every single bias rater puts CNN as "slightly left leaning", and they are regularly under fire from the left for facilitating the normalization of alt-right or far right rhetoric. I'd love to hear what media sources you call unbiased.
AnimalMuppet 1y ago
So far, all you've said is "from what I understand" and "I'm going to assume". Others have supplied at least some evidence; you have supplied none. You may not like their source. That's fine. But do you have any evidence for your position?