Debate Moderator Fact Checks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She won for sure. He didn’t do well. Both are true. Also true that the moderators didn’t ask her any real hard questions. They did ask her about fracking and they did ask her about whether she believed in abortion up to 9 month. But she didn’t answer either. She said she signed the tie breaking vote for fracking. That didn’t explain her view. She had a positive day but she skated in a lot of fluff and vibes and smiling teeth and hand motions. Light in substance as always and moderators let her.

Like she said, it’s insulting to women to even ask that question. Of course no one thinks murder infanticide should be legal.

But at what month of pregnancy is it not ok to abort?...

When the fetus is viable.

As medical technology expands, the date of viability goes back further and further though. Right now, a baby that’s 22 weeks old can survive with deep medical intervention.

Some babies have survived birth in the first trimester. So much for a clump of cells

Yes, and per Roe, a woman's right to abortion was protected through the point in time of fetus viability which is a moving target that could evolve as science and medicine evolves. The law made perfect sense to a large majority of Americans. Should have been left as it was. No one wants abortions involving viable fetuses to be legal unless it's an exception case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:migrants eat pets then it would be journalistic malpractice NOT to fact check.

That is not debunked, it is unproven. The media once again are eager to just declare something without research, because it is inconvenient for Democrats. Some residents saying it happened, vs some executives saying it didn't. There is a police transcript about geese. Liberals want to just declare it as false and shut down discussion. Not interested in following up on cases.
If JD Vance were the one saying it is false, every network and newspaper would have dozens of reporters in Springfield talking to residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:migrants eat pets then it would be journalistic malpractice NOT to fact check.

That is not debunked, it is unproven. The media once again are eager to just declare something without research, because it is inconvenient for Democrats. Some residents saying it happened, vs some executives saying it didn't. There is a police transcript about geese. Liberals want to just declare it as false and shut down discussion. Not interested in following up on cases.
If JD Vance were the one saying it is false, every network and newspaper would have dozens of reporters in Springfield talking to residents.

It could very well be true but at this point in time the claims are unsubstantiated. A public figure claiming to have the integrity to hold an office as high as POTUS or Vice POTUS shouldn't be repeating this type of unproven hearsay until it's proven to be true. The again, Trump and integrity are like oil and water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:migrants eat pets then it would be journalistic malpractice NOT to fact check.

That is not debunked, it is unproven. The media once again are eager to just declare something without research, because it is inconvenient for Democrats. Some residents saying it happened, vs some executives saying it didn't. There is a police transcript about geese. Liberals want to just declare it as false and shut down discussion. Not interested in following up on cases.
If JD Vance were the one saying it is false, every network and newspaper would have dozens of reporters in Springfield talking to residents.

Fair point. And if migrants are used to eating those animals in their home countries, it does make sense that they might try to do it here. Maybe they didn’t know that the animals were someone’s pets.

Like if my neighbor had a chicken as a pet and I was hungry enough, I might take it. I’d have to be pretty desperate though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought they did a great job fact-checking Trump. And, to be fair, a non-existent job of fact checking Harris. And obviously had no interest in pressing her to give a straight answer when she dodged the “do you think voters are better off than they were four years ago?” Question (she doesn’t, but they don’t want to make her SAY that) and when she avoided answering whether she supports limits on abortion in 7th, 8th, 9th month (she doesn’t, but again they don’t want to make her SAY that).

But did anyone think it was weird that they said nothing when she claimed to have been at the Capitol on Jan 6 when she was actually at DNC headquarters???
Why would she say she was there?? And why wouldn’t the moderators correct her in that assertion?

The minder store did not give a hoot if she answered the tough questions. They’re part of her PR team. Their corporate bosses, who have already thrown plenty of cash her way, told them to go easy on their candidate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought they did a great job fact-checking Trump. And, to be fair, a non-existent job of fact checking Harris. And obviously had no interest in pressing her to give a straight answer when she dodged the “do you think voters are better off than they were four years ago?” Question (she doesn’t, but they don’t want to make her SAY that) and when she avoided answering whether she supports limits on abortion in 7th, 8th, 9th month (she doesn’t, but again they don’t want to make her SAY that).

But did anyone think it was weird that they said nothing when she claimed to have been at the Capitol on Jan 6 when she was actually at DNC headquarters???
Why would she say she was there?? And why wouldn’t the moderators correct her in that assertion?

The moderators did not give a hoot if she answered the tough questions. They’re part of her PR team. Their corporate bosses, who have already thrown plenty of cash her way, told them to go easy on their candidate and play nice.

[Anonymous]

Whats worse - Harris lying 25 times and not fact checked by the moderators or the moderators fact checking Trump 6 times?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought they did a great job fact-checking Trump. And, to be fair, a non-existent job of fact checking Harris. And obviously had no interest in pressing her to give a straight answer when she dodged the “do you think voters are better off than they were four years ago?” Question (she doesn’t, but they don’t want to make her SAY that) and when she avoided answering whether she supports limits on abortion in 7th, 8th, 9th month (she doesn’t, but again they don’t want to make her SAY that).

But did anyone think it was weird that they said nothing when she claimed to have been at the Capitol on Jan 6 when she was actually at DNC headquarters???
Why would she say she was there?? And why wouldn’t the moderators correct her in that assertion?

Actually, she WAS at the Capitol on January 6. She was ALSO other places on that day.

According to Politico.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/04/doj-kamala-harris-jan-6-519505

I mean if you were “at the twin towers” at 6am on 9/11, but across town at another location when the planes actually hit, would you pipe in three years later with “…I was there at the towers on 9/11 and it was very scary…people DIED!!”

Or would you agree that this would be quite misleading and that this statement would give people the false impression that you were actually there when the events that “9/11” is known for were going down?

She obviously said it that way to give the impression that she was present at the time that the crowd was entering the Capitol, but she wasn’t. She clearly wants to elevate her position to that of a “witness” to the events when that’s completely false.

Not an issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:migrants eat pets then it would be journalistic malpractice NOT to fact check.

That is not debunked, it is unproven. The media once again are eager to just declare something without research, because it is inconvenient for Democrats. Some residents saying it happened, vs some executives saying it didn't. There is a police transcript about geese. Liberals want to just declare it as false and shut down discussion. Not interested in following up on cases.
If JD Vance were the one saying it is false, every network and newspaper would have dozens of reporters in Springfield talking to residents.

Fair point. And if migrants are used to eating those animals in their home countries, it does make sense that they might try to do it here. Maybe they didn’t know that the animals were someone’s pets.

Like if my neighbor had a chicken as a pet and I was hungry enough, I might take it. I’d have to be pretty desperate though.

Why is that so much worse than hunting for deer in the woods?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:migrants eat pets then it would be journalistic malpractice NOT to fact check.

That is not debunked, it is unproven. The media once again are eager to just declare something without research, because it is inconvenient for Democrats. Some residents saying it happened, vs some executives saying it didn't. There is a police transcript about geese. Liberals want to just declare it as false and shut down discussion. Not interested in following up on cases.
If JD Vance were the one saying it is false, every network and newspaper would have dozens of reporters in Springfield talking to residents.

Fair point. And if migrants are used to eating those animals in their home countries, it does make sense that they might try to do it here. Maybe they didn’t know that the animals were someone’s pets.

Like if my neighbor had a chicken as a pet and I was hungry enough, I might take it. I’d have to be pretty desperate though.

Why is that so much worse than hunting for deer in the woods?

It would be equivalent to hunting/eating deer in your suburban neighborhood.
Because you don't kill the deer roaming

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She won for sure. He didn’t do well. Both are true. Also true that the moderators didn’t ask her any real hard questions. They did ask her about fracking and they did ask her about whether she believed in abortion up to 9 month. But she didn’t answer either. She said she signed the tie breaking vote for fracking. That didn’t explain her view. She had a positive day but she skated in a lot of fluff and vibes and smiling teeth and hand motions. Light in substance as always and moderators let her.

Like she said, it’s insulting to women to even ask that question. Of course no one thinks murder infanticide should be legal.

But at what month of pregnancy is it not ok to abort?...

When the fetus is viable.

What if the fetus can survive but the infant cannot?
Do you bear a child without essential organs only to watch them die a traumatic death?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She won for sure. He didn’t do well. Both are true. Also true that the moderators didn’t ask her any real hard questions. They did ask her about fracking and they did ask her about whether she believed in abortion up to 9 month. But she didn’t answer either. She said she signed the tie breaking vote for fracking. That didn’t explain her view. She had a positive day but she skated in a lot of fluff and vibes and smiling teeth and hand motions. Light in substance as always and
moderators let her.

Like she said, it’s insulting to women to even ask that question. Of course no one thinks murder infanticide should be legal.

But at what month of pregnancy is it not ok to abort?...

When the fetus is viable.

As medical technology expands, the date of viability goes back further and further though. Right now, a baby that’s 22 weeks old can survive with deep medical intervention.

Some babies have survived birth in the first trimester. So much for a clump of cells

Nope. The first semester ends at around 13-14 weeks. No fetus survives if “born” then. And just because you may survive if born at 22 weeks, doesn’t mean healthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She won for sure. He didn’t do well. Both are true. Also true that the moderators didn’t ask her any real hard questions. They did ask her about fracking and they did ask her about whether she believed in abortion up to 9 month. But she didn’t answer either. She said she signed the tie breaking vote for fracking. That didn’t explain her view. She had a positive day but she skated in a lot of fluff and vibes and smiling teeth and hand motions. Light in substance as always and moderators let her.

Like she said, it’s insulting to women to even ask that question. Of course no one thinks murder infanticide should be legal.

But at what month of pregnancy is it not ok to abort?...

When the fetus is viable.

What if the fetus can survive but the infant cannot?
Do you bear a child without essential organs only to watch them die a traumatic death?

This would be an extremely rare occurrence. What’s way too common now is women who brag about their abortions which they had because it was an inconvenient time for them to be pregnant and also giRlpOwEr.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:migrants eat pets then it would be journalistic malpractice NOT to fact check.

That is not debunked, it is unproven. The media once again are eager to just declare something without research, because it is inconvenient for Democrats. Some residents saying it happened, vs some executives saying it didn't. There is a police transcript about geese. Liberals want to just declare it as false and shut down discussion. Not interested in following up on cases.
If JD Vance were the one saying it is false, every network and newspaper would have dozens of reporters in Springfield talking to residents.

It could very well be true but at this point in time the claims are unsubstantiated. A public figure claiming to have the integrity to hold an office as high as POTUS or Vice POTUS shouldn't be repeating this type of unproven hearsay until it's proven to be true. The again, Trump and integrity are like oil and water.

They repeated and continue to report all sorts of lies about Trump. The moderators saw fit to claim the pets story is false when they don't know that. Then they didn't call out Harris for her fine people on both sides lie. Muir also had Kamala say something last time he was hosting a debate and now she says the opposite and lets her lie about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:migrants eat pets then it would be journalistic malpractice NOT to fact check.

That is not debunked, it is unproven. The media once again are eager to just declare something without research, because it is inconvenient for Democrats. Some residents saying it happened, vs some executives saying it didn't. There is a police transcript about geese. Liberals want to just declare it as false and shut down discussion. Not interested in following up on cases.
If JD Vance were the one saying it is false, every network and newspaper would have dozens of reporters in Springfield talking to residents.

Fair point. And if migrants are used to eating those animals in their home countries, it does make sense that they might try to do it here. Maybe they didn’t know that the animals were someone’s pets.

Like if my neighbor had a chicken as a pet and I was hungry enough, I might take it. I’d have to be pretty desperate though.

Why is that so much worse than hunting for deer in the woods?

It would be equivalent to hunting/eating deer in your suburban neighborhood.
Because you don't kill the deer roaming

I've known people that do. Nobody made an uproar about it. Canadian geese flocks are culled so they don't poop on golf courses. That doesn't bother anybody.