USA Trump vs. Wallace Interview

[Josiah]

It's all over the news and media...

The interview on Sunday by Chris Wallace of President Trump.

Trump said that Biden wants to defund the police. Wallace flat-out denied that, saying "Sir, Biden does NOT want to defund the police."

Trump insisted Biden does. Wallace essentially called him a liar, demanding proof.

The News is reporting this as a great embarrassment for Trump.


Here's what Associated Press is reporting:

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. Biden said he supports redirecting some police funding to address mental health or to change the prison system.

Wait a minute.... If Biden said he supports "redirecting some police funding" isn't the exactly the same thing as "defunding" the police? If you have $100. And someone takes $25.00 away from you to give to someone else, aren't you thus defunded? You didn't GAIN money did you? Do don't have the SAME amount of money, do you? Did your funds go up, down or stay the same?

Trump is being reported as a lair for saying Biden wants to defund the police.... when AP and others are reporting that Biden said he wants to REDIRECT funds away from the police to other things. It seems to me this is "news" at it's worse. Yes, Biden did not say the word "defund" but he did say "redirect funds" and anyway you cut it, it's the exact same thing. And Wallace knows that. And AP knows that (even though it's claiming Trump lied by saying Biden wants to defund the police when he actually wants to re-direct funds away from the police.

Where Trump erred is in thinking that statement was in the contract Biden signed with the communist/liberal left wing of the party. It's not there. It was in an interview Biden did that obvously the AP (and all the press) knows about.

This is just ONE example of why the press has lost the esteem and trust it once had.


I don't like Trump. I didn't vote for him in 2016. But I tell you, the liberals (and their press servants) are sure pressing me....





.



.

 

[NewCreation435]

defunding means to me that they essentially would not exist anymore because they wouldn't have the money to run any of their programs. Defunding is not the same as decreasing.

 

[tango]

defunding means to me that they essentially would not exist anymore because they wouldn't have the money to run any of their programs. Defunding is not the same as decreasing.

The trouble with terms like "defunding" is that they mean whatever the speaker wants them to mean at any given time. Proponents of defunding talk of ways that police budgets could be reduced, whether through not automatically replacing retiring officers or redirecting funding from after-the-fact enforcement to before-the-fact prevention and the like. Others use "defund" to mean eliminating the police departments entirely, although it seems only the most radical nutjobs are serious about doing that.

In many ways it's similar to terms like "common sense gun control". People use it to assuage their supporters while also suggesting to their opponents that there's nothing to fear because it will be Someone Else on the receiving end of new legislation. But later on they show their true colors when it becomes clear that "assault weapon" doesn't mean what anyone who knows guns would expect it to mean, it means anything that might be even remotely useful for self-defence (i.e. just about any gun currently in circulation).

It's spectacularly unhelpful when speakers on both sides of the political divide play silly semantic games with exactly what something means, as if things were an all-or-nothing proposition. There may very well be merit in the approach of reducing funding to the police and using the money saved to undertake more preventative means of reducing crime - I doubt you'd find much opposition to the idea of preventing it in the first place rather than trying to catch people after the fact (even if you did find much disagreement on the best way to achieve that) - but for as long as things are couched in terms that are vague that let politicians arguably present totally different propositions to different groups using the same words it's hard to see how even discussions can be considered useful.

At least Snopes offers concepts like "partly true" that would allow for a bit of granularity in assessing a claim. Saying Biden "supports defunding" could be taken to mean he wants to get rid of the police, saying he "does not support defunding" could be taken to mean he doesn't want to reduce the budget by as much as a dime, and if the reality is that he wants to reduce the police budget and redirect the money elsewhere is it such a big ask that we get the full picture of his proposals? You know, he is running for the highest office in the country after all, it doesn't seem so unreasonable to want to know just what he stands for.

 

[Josiah]

defunding means to me that they essentially would not exist anymore because they wouldn't have the money to run any of their program Defunding is not the same as decreasing.

I disagree.

To "defund" means to have less funds. Now, IF Trump had said, "COMPLETELY defund" that would mean to eliminate funding, but Trump didn't say that.

I've read many a statement from those in favor of "DEFUNDING" (the word they use) the police and they STRESS that this does NOT mean eliminating the police and ALL funding for the police, but rather in TAKING AWAY some funding of the police and re-directing it to other things (especially social services); they STRESS "defunding" = "redirecting funds." And what SPECIFICALLY, VERBATIM did Biden tell the interviewer? We should REDIRECT police funds to other things. This is precisely what the supporters of "DEFEND THE POLICE" insist is what they desire, precisely what Biden said he supports. And the Press had reported exactly that.

So, Associated Press mocks Trump for saying Biden wants to re-direct funds away from the police and they they go on to note that's EXACTLY what Biden said.




.