About a week ago, the local MAGAs parroted Trump's claim that Harris stole HIS idea for lowering tax on tips:
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/politics-and-religion-39/kopycat-kamalas-rookie-mistake-446247
http://news.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-no-taxes-tips-072050096.html
Trump Says 'No Taxes On Tips' Was His Idea. It Was A GOP Candidate's Proposal Years Ago.
.
"Former President Donald Trump took to social media late Saturday night to claim that he came up with an idea to end taxes on tips despite another Republican candidate proposing such a policy over a decade ago. ...
.
" “This was a TRUMP idea - She has no ideas, she can only steal from me,” claimed the former president in one post. He continued in another post, “Kamala has no imagination, whatsoever, as shown by the fact that she played ‘COPYCAT’ with, NO TAXES ON TIPS!”  ..."
.
I meant to bring this up last week on that thread but didn't. I don't want to bump it so I'm extending it here.  
.
1. Trump steals credit for Biden's $35 insulin.  
http://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/fact-check-trump-lower-insulin-prices-false/
"In a June 8 post on Truth Social, the former president’s social platform, Trump wrote: “Low INSULIN PRICING was gotten for millions of Americans by me, and the Trump Administration, not by Crooked Joe Biden. He had NOTHING to do with it.” ... We rate Trump’s claim False."  
.
"In July 2020, Trump signed an executive order establishing the “Part D Senior Savings Model,” a temporary, voluntary program ..." that could have affected up to 800,000 medicare recipients." I can't find the final statistics but "very few" insurance programs volunteered to participate and far fewer than 800,000 benefited.  
.
It had been written into law that Medicare was forbidden to negotiate drug prices with drug companies. Over the years, Dem administrations had been trying to change the legislation to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices and were blocked by Reps. Finally, ...  
.
"The Inflation Reduction Act, which Congress passed and Biden signed into law in August 2022, included an insulin provision that went further than Trump’s voluntary initiative. ..." NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR THAT LEGISLATION. It affected more than 3.3 million seniors and some of the drug companies agreed to extend the price cap to non-Medicare patients, too.  
.
Every fact checking organization as well as KFF said, "We rate Trump’s claim False."
.
2. Trump steals credit for the Veterans Access to Care Choice Act  
http://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-president-trump-pass-va-choice-act-he-says-1563201
Fact Check: Did President Trump Pass the VA Choice Act, as He Says?
"During a taped farewell address Tuesday, Trump boasted his accomplishments in health care and claimed credit for the passage of the VA Choice Act. "We passed VA Choice, VA Accountability, Right to Try, and landmark criminal justice reform," Trump said. ... "We took care of our vets and our beautiful vets, they were very badly treated before we came along." ..."  
.
"*****The VA Choice Act, or the Veterans Access to Care through Choice, Accountability and Transparency Act, was passed in 2014 under President Barack Obama.*****"
.
"Trump repeatedly has claimed credit for passing the VA Choice Act. ... Trump has mentioned some version of his VA Choice Act mistruth more than 156 times. ..."
.
"Trump falsely took credit for passing the VA Choice Act several times during his term in office. The Choice Act was passed under Obama. Trump passed an update and expansion of that bill known as the Mission Act in 2018."
.
"Trump's claim: FALSE." according to every fact checking organization.
.
3. Trump steals credit for NAFTA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Mexico–Canada_Agreement
The North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA was passed in 1994. It was in need of updates due to changes in technology, international patent agreements, global economic changes, etc.. Trump's admin negotiated updates to NAFTA with Canada and Mexico to "NAFTA 2.0 or "New NAFTA", since it largely maintains or updates the provisions of its predecessor. ... USMCA ***is primarily a modernization of NAFTA***, namely concerning intellectual property and digital trade."  
.
"During his 2016 election campaign and presidency, Trump was highly critical of NAFTA (oftentimes describing it as "perhaps the worst trade deal ever made") while extolling USMCA as "a terrific deal for all of us". The USMCA is very similar to NAFTA, carrying over many of the same provisions and making only modest, mostly cosmetic changes, and is expected to have only a minor economic effect. ..."
.
But then there is "Donald Trump’s obsession with renaming things. Trump was asked repeatedly a very specific question about whether he’d pull out of NAFTA if talks broke down. He very specifically did not answer that question, instead pledging to call the trade deal something new.
Reporter: "So will you pull out?"
Trump: "I’m not going to use the name NAFTA. I refuse to use it." ..."  
Trump CAN'T tolerate NAFTA 2.0. Trump MUST have ownership.
(Cf., "Obama: I told Trump to just rename Obamacare and take credit for it. ... “I said to the incoming president, ‘Just change the name and claim that you made these wonderful changes and I would be like, “You go,”’” he said to laughs. “Because I didn’t have pride of authorship, I just wanted people to have health care.” ...)
.
.
Trump is LIAR. Trump is a CHEAT (convicted). Trump is a FRAUD (convicted). Trump is a THIEF.
The MAGAs will VOTE for Trump but I would bet that NOT ONE MAGA would enter into a business deal with Trump.

Copy and paste some gibberish from God knows where and then go into a TDS rage. Meanwhile…

Seriously, you are arguing over who had the idea first? This has been a political topic for decades and has been raised by numerous candidates. The idea of raising it again is not really a fresh idea. Good for both of them for wanting to do it. Do you really expect that all of the ideas from both parties should be fresh and none of them should be repeats? The "I thought of it first" argument is just silly.

 
On the other hand, if someone submits a proposal, someone else shouldn't say they proposed it. If something gets passed under one's leadership, someone else shouldn't claim it was passed under their leadership. These are bold faced lies. But arguing over who had the idea first? Come on.

 
While I realize the first point in the OP's post was about credit, the next 3 were not. It's funny some of the things people argue about. If it's a good idea, who cares who came up with it and if the other person is doing. It's childish to cry over "me first" for credit. Typical Trump though. He's a big baby.

This is very reminiscent of the "flip flopping" issue some, on both sides, have such a problem with. Adapting someone else's position, if it is a sound one, is a GOOD thing. It shouldn't matter where an idea comes from if it is a better policy that is beneficial.  
.
Similarly, with "flip flopping," only in politics is this a negative thing. I change my position at times as new evidence may come to light or when I have had the facts wrong at the start. "Flip flopping" can be a sign of growth and maturity. Reexamining one's positions should be done on a constant basis, as we should always try and test what we think we know.  
.
At the end of the day, changing or adapting new policies or ideas are not bad in and of themselves and yes, politicians will do the politically expedient things at times bc...well, they are politicians.  
.
But sometimes doing the best thing for the country also aligns with the best thing for that specific candidate, and we should applaud, not denigrate, people who have the courage to change their views on positions, regardless of the reasons, again, if it a better policy than the one they previously had.

Both candidates proposed basically the same thing, but only the Republican candidate’s proposal was criticized. Look at the dates on the headlines.

I can't exactly miss a point you never made. Posting the screenshots alone doesn't make that clear. The OP's post was about credit being stolen. If you want to make another point, you should make it more clear. But sure, I see it now. If you read both of those articles, no one is being critisized. The article regarding Vance explains why it may be difficult.  

 
The current child tax credit is $2k per child. This is set to drop to 1k per child after 2025. The article points out how the expansion to 5k for every child would be large amount of money and, therefore, difficult to do because of the federal budget deficit. But it also talks about how it might work. Nothing in the text of the article critisizes the idea.

 
Now, you might think, but 6k is more than 5k. Yes, it is. But it isn't the same. Harris' proposal is up 6k just for children in their first year. For other children, it would be up to 3.6k. While it's not clear, the words "up to" suggest this may be income based and not apply to all families. The implication is that this will cost less to fund than Vance's 5k for all proposal.

 
That said, I still see your point. CNBC chose a more positive headline for Harris than they did for Vance. That's an indicator there may be bias. I'm not going to debate this point.

They are intentionally ignoring it  

so they can lie and say what an innovator kamaliar is and lie again by saying
 she sure does come up with such great ideas.

Do you really have that hard of a time detecting bias in reporting?

Did you even bother to read Zeel's post? He agreed that per the way the headline was written it could be seen as being biased. It would have helped had you provided the links rather than screen grabs however so we could look a little deeper into it ourselves.