Debate Moderator Fact Checks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump had every opportunity to win the debate with substance. He failed, which is completely on-brand for him.

Where was VP Harris' substance? She couldn't even answer the very first question (do you believe Americans are better off than they were 4 years ago?) without pivoting quickly into her own alleged upbringing an what she planned to do. The real-time tracking of the debate showed independent voters tracking more with Republicans than Democrats. Likewise, independent voters who watched the debate expecting to learn more about VP Harris' policy positions and future plans came away with little more than they had before the debate.

Former President Trump lost his cool when baited by VP Harris. He shouldn't have, but doing so didn't do her any favors with independent voters. Yet at the same time, he made numerous key points that resonated with independent voters. Can VP Harris really say the same? The press doesn't seem to think so after interviewing independent voters, who mostly seemed to say that they wanted to "see the fine print" of her plans. By the same token, independent voters seem to remember how much better off economically they were under Former President Trump, a feeling that is difficult to dislodge without a clear path from VP Harris that she can do the same. The reason? She has been VP for over 3.5 years and many of the promised benefits of the legislation she voted for haven't come to pass, so promises of future prosperity fell flat. Things have gotten worse, not better, for most Americans.

Actually, KH nanswered the Moderators questions. Unlike Trump

No she didn’t. First question out of the gate was are Americans better off than four years ago. Her answer? She has a “passion for small business.” Wut? She literally has never worked a day in the private sector in her adult life. She’s never met a regulation she didn’t like. Did the moderators press here for a yes or no? Of course not.

And Trump has never had a real job or worked for anyone but himself ever. He ran multiple businesses including casinos into the ground. Casinos..which are almost idiot proof. Also, tons and tons of fraud in which he is still facing the consequences (e.g., his charity, the Trump org, etc.). He inherited the equivalent of $400 million in inflation adjusted dollars and might not even have that to his name. Had he simply invested his inheritance in the S&P 500, he'd be an actual billionaire. Also, citation please on "regulations she didn't like."

Kamala: I have a passion for fishing.

Moderator: Have you ever been fishing?

Kamala: No.

Moderator: Thank you Madame VP. Now one for President Trump, why are you trying to destroy the country?

That for 90 minutes.

Cute straw man. Too bad your guy was talking about illegals eating dogs and cats, concepts of plans, Victor Orban, and crowd sizes for 90 minutes. He's been running for 9 years. Why doesn't he have a plan for healthcare, infrastructure, education, economy, immigration, whether he'd support approve/veto a national abortion ban, and Israel? All I heard were vague soundbites about how he would "solve Israel and Ukraine" but no details. Oh that's right...because Project 2025 is very, very unpopular.

The whole thing is just so absurd. He could have won the debate if he knew...anything, really. But instead he decides to use his time lying about Haitians eating pets, and his idiot sycophants in the media and on this board complain that he lost because he was fact-checked a few times on his most obvious lies. He lost because he can't articulate on a single relevant policy point.

Exactly. He's lazy, senile and stupid. And even then, all he had to do was stick a script on each of these key issues. Nope. Couldn't do it. Took her bait every time. Because that's what I want to see in my President. A thin-skinned, easily manipulated narcissist with access to the nuclear codes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump had every opportunity to win the debate with substance. He failed, which is completely on-brand for him.

Where was VP Harris' substance? She couldn't even answer the very first question (do you believe Americans are better off than they were 4 years ago?) without pivoting quickly into her own alleged upbringing an what she planned to do. The real-time tracking of the debate showed independent voters tracking more with Republicans than Democrats. Likewise, independent voters who watched the debate expecting to learn more about VP Harris' policy positions and future plans came away with little more than they had before the debate.

Former President Trump lost his cool when baited by VP Harris. He shouldn't have, but doing so didn't do her any favors with independent voters. Yet at the same time, he made numerous key points that resonated with independent voters. Can VP Harris really say the same? The press doesn't seem to think so after interviewing independent voters, who mostly seemed to say that they wanted to "see the fine print" of her plans. By the same token, independent voters seem to remember how much better off economically they were under Former President Trump, a feeling that is difficult to dislodge without a clear path from VP Harris that she can do the same. The reason? She has been VP for over 3.5 years and many of the promised benefits of the legislation she voted for haven't come to pass, so promises of future prosperity fell flat. Things have gotten worse, not better, for most Americans.

Actually, KH nanswered the Moderators questions. Unlike Trump

No she didn’t. First question out of the gate was are Americans better off than four years ago. Her answer? She has a “passion for small business.” Wut? She literally has never worked a day in the private sector in her adult life. She’s never met a regulation she didn’t like. Did the moderators press here for a yes or no? Of course not.

She had a summer job when she was in college, so I guess it depends on how you define “adult”. From my perspective, I’m impressed by her career-long dedication to public service— given that she’s running for the ultimate public service job. I prefer that — by far — to someone who was given money and jobs by his daddy yet actually managed to lose money while stiffing his contractors and others that he owed. The reality show gig doesn’t make his resume look any better. It’s wild that so many people who claimed that government should be run like a business voted for someone with a string of failed businesses.

As to “passions” — you don’t have to work for a small business to have a passion for supporting them. I’m sure you can come up with your own analogies, but I don’t have to be an artist to have a passion for supporting the arts; I don’t have to be a chef to have a passion for good food; I don’t have to be a pilot or a tour guide to have a passion for travel; I don’t have to write books to have a passion for reading them. You get the idea.

Your boy’s “passions” are better left undescribed, but cozying up to dictators, cheating on his wives, hanging out with people like Epstein and Roy Cohn, and fomenting hate aren’t admirable interests for a US President.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump had every opportunity to win the debate with substance. He failed, which is completely on-brand for him.

Where was VP Harris' substance? She couldn't even answer the very first question (do you believe Americans are better off than they were 4 years ago?) without pivoting quickly into her own alleged upbringing an what she planned to do. The real-time tracking of the debate showed independent voters tracking more with Republicans than Democrats. Likewise, independent voters who watched the debate expecting to learn more about VP Harris' policy positions and future plans came away with little more than they had before the debate.

Former President Trump lost his cool when baited by VP Harris. He shouldn't have, but doing so didn't do her any favors with independent voters. Yet at the same time, he made numerous key points that resonated with independent voters. Can VP Harris really say the same? The press doesn't seem to think so after interviewing independent voters, who mostly seemed to say that they wanted to "see the fine print" of her plans. By the same token, independent voters seem to remember how much better off economically they were under Former President Trump, a feeling that is difficult to dislodge without a clear path from VP Harris that she can do the same. The reason? She has been VP for over 3.5 years and many of the promised benefits of the legislation she voted for haven't come to pass, so promises of future prosperity fell flat. Things have gotten worse, not better, for most Americans.

Actually, KH nanswered the Moderators questions. Unlike Trump

No she didn’t. First question out of the gate was are Americans better off than four years ago. Her answer? She has a “passion for small business.” Wut? She literally has never worked a day in the private sector in her adult life. She’s never met a regulation she didn’t like. Did the moderators press here for a yes or no? Of course not.

She had a summer job when she was in college, so I guess it depends on how you define “adult”. From my perspective, I’m impressed by her career-long dedication to public service— given that she’s running for the ultimate public service job. I prefer that — by far — to someone who was given money and jobs by his daddy yet actually managed to lose money while stiffing his contractors and others that he owed. The reality show gig doesn’t make his resume look any better. It’s wild that so many people who claimed that government should be run like a business voted for someone with a string of failed businesses.

As to “passions” — you don’t have to work for a small business to have a passion for supporting them. I’m sure you can come up with your own analogies, but I don’t have to be an artist to have a passion for supporting the arts; I don’t have to be a chef to have a passion for good food; I don’t have to be a pilot or a tour guide to have a passion for travel; I don’t have to write books to have a passion for reading them. You get the idea.

Your boy’s “passions” are better left undescribed, but cozying up to dictators, cheating on his wives, hanging out with people like Epstein and Roy Cohn, and fomenting hate aren’t admirable interests for a US President.

She also now has a passion for guns and fracking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh. The Washington Post is not exactly known as an unbiased news source.

That said, Trump could have cited the moderator's bias when it came to fact checking, and how even with that bias, their facts were wrong. There are already a few well-known examples where the moderators so-called facts were incorrect (or half-true). It's almost as if ABC News knew the question, knew the answer that it thought was correct, and was prepared to fact check Trump if he gave anything but that allegedly correct answer. ABC News should apologize for getting its fact checks wrong, but it won't.

What facts did the moderators get wrong? These are definitely not well known.

The VP made several statements that were incorrect and should have been fact checked by the moderators. But the most negligent thing they did was not getting answers from the VP on her policy flips and the economy. This was the one and only time voters will see her questioned and they were unable to get answers from her on WHY the 180 degrees flip on the border wall, immigration, mandatory gun buybacks, fracking, and most importantly whether the American people are better off today than four years ago. Voters know Trump is scum. But they don’t know Kamala at all.

You didn’t answer the question. PP specifically the moderators gave incorrect facts when they were factchecking Trump. Please provide an example of an incorrect fact they provided when factchecking him.

Still waiting for someone to respond to this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh. The Washington Post is not exactly known as an unbiased news source.

That said, Trump could have cited the moderator's bias when it came to fact checking, and how even with that bias, their facts were wrong. There are already a few well-known examples where the moderators so-called facts were incorrect (or half-true). It's almost as if ABC News knew the question, knew the answer that it thought was correct, and was prepared to fact check Trump if he gave anything but that allegedly correct answer. ABC News should apologize for getting its fact checks wrong, but it won't.

What facts did the moderators get wrong? These are definitely not well known.

The VP made several statements that were incorrect and should have been fact checked by the moderators. But the most negligent thing they did was not getting answers from the VP on her policy flips and the economy. This was the one and only time voters will see her questioned and they were unable to get answers from her on WHY the 180 degrees flip on the border wall, immigration, mandatory gun buybacks, fracking, and most importantly whether the American people are better off today than four years ago. Voters know Trump is scum. But they don’t know Kamala at all.

You didn’t answer the question. PP specifically the moderators gave incorrect facts when they were factchecking Trump. Please provide an example of an incorrect fact they provided when factchecking him.

Still waiting for someone to respond to this

No one will, because it was yet another false assertion from a MAGA who heard it in the echo chamber, repeated it here and realized they cannot back it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump had every opportunity to win the debate with substance. He failed, which is completely on-brand for him.

Where was VP Harris' substance? She couldn't even answer the very first question (do you believe Americans are better off than they were 4 years ago?) without pivoting quickly into her own alleged upbringing an what she planned to do. The real-time tracking of the debate showed independent voters tracking more with Republicans than Democrats. Likewise, independent voters who watched the debate expecting to learn more about VP Harris' policy positions and future plans came away with little more than they had before the debate.

Former President Trump lost his cool when baited by VP Harris. He shouldn't have, but doing so didn't do her any favors with independent voters. Yet at the same time, he made numerous key points that resonated with independent voters. Can VP Harris really say the same? The press doesn't seem to think so after interviewing independent voters, who mostly seemed to say that they wanted to "see the fine print" of her plans. By the same token, independent voters seem to remember how much better off economically they were under Former President Trump, a feeling that is difficult to dislodge without a clear path from VP Harris that she can do the same. The reason? She has been VP for over 3.5 years and many of the promised benefits of the legislation she voted for haven't come to pass, so promises of future prosperity fell flat. Things have gotten worse, not better, for most Americans.

Actually, KH nanswered the Moderators questions. Unlike Trump

No she didn’t. First question out of the gate was are Americans better off than four years ago. Her answer? She has a “passion for small business.” Wut? She literally has never worked a day in the private sector in her adult life. She’s never met a regulation she didn’t like. Did the moderators press here for a yes or no? Of course not.

She had a summer job when she was in college, so I guess it depends on how you define “adult”. From my perspective, I’m impressed by her career-long dedication to public service— given that she’s running for the ultimate public service job. I prefer that — by far — to someone who was given money and jobs by his daddy yet actually managed to lose money while stiffing his contractors and others that he owed. The reality show gig doesn’t make his resume look any better. It’s wild that so many people who claimed that government should be run like a business voted for someone with a string of failed businesses.

As to “passions” — you don’t have to work for a small business to have a passion for supporting them. I’m sure you can come up with your own analogies, but I don’t have to be an artist to have a passion for supporting the arts; I don’t have to be a chef to have a passion for good food; I don’t have to be a pilot or a tour guide to have a passion for travel; I don’t have to write books to have a passion for reading them. You get the idea.

Your boy’s “passions” are better left undescribed, but cozying up to dictators, cheating on his wives, hanging out with people like Epstein and Roy Cohn, and fomenting hate aren’t admirable interests for a US President.

She also now has a passion for guns and fracking.

Just as Trump developed a passion for pro-life initiatives later in life and a recent passion for government support for IVF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh. The Washington Post is not exactly known as an unbiased news source.

That said, Trump could have cited the moderator's bias when it came to fact checking, and how even with that bias, their facts were wrong. There are already a few well-known examples where the moderators so-called facts were incorrect (or half-true). It's almost as if ABC News knew the question, knew the answer that it thought was correct, and was prepared to fact check Trump if he gave anything but that allegedly correct answer. ABC News should apologize for getting its fact checks wrong, but it won't.

What facts did the moderators get wrong? These are definitely not well known.

The VP made several statements that were incorrect and should have been fact checked by the moderators. But the most negligent thing they did was not getting answers from the VP on her policy flips and the economy. This was the one and only time voters will see her questioned and they were unable to get answers from her on WHY the 180 degrees flip on the border wall, immigration, mandatory gun buybacks, fracking, and most importantly whether the American people are better off today than four years ago. Voters know Trump is scum. But they don’t know Kamala at all.

You didn’t answer the question. PP specifically the moderators gave incorrect facts when they were factchecking Trump. Please provide an example of an incorrect fact they provided when factchecking him.

Still waiting for someone to respond to this

No one will, because it was yet another false assertion from a MAGA who heard it in the echo chamber, repeated it here and realized they cannot back it up.

I think they are still processing how thoroughly Harris demolished Trump on the debate stage. They expected their god emperor to trounce her with his typical bombast and vitriol. In the weeks leading up to the debate, they latched onto "she's stupid and incoherent" because she wouldn't do a press interview or speak without a teleprompter/notes or publish her policy positions (never once giving her leeway to vet/select a VP, put a campaign together and fundraise from a running start in late July). The fact that a career prosecutor who has also been an AG, Senator and VP wouldn't be prepared is laughable. But they drank the Koolaid anyways and are now struggling to cope. It can't be because she was prepared and talented. It has to be because she cheated or the moderators were unfair. After all, she's a POC woman and Donald Trump is a "man's man who always tells it like it is". To think otherwise, would violate their worldview. I relish watching them struggle to cope with a younger, more talented opponent who has all of the energy and momentum right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh. The Washington Post is not exactly known as an unbiased news source.

That said, Trump could have cited the moderator's bias when it came to fact checking, and how even with that bias, their facts were wrong. There are already a few well-known examples where the moderators so-called facts were incorrect (or half-true). It's almost as if ABC News knew the question, knew the answer that it thought was correct, and was prepared to fact check Trump if he gave anything but that allegedly correct answer. ABC News should apologize for getting its fact checks wrong, but it won't.

What facts did the moderators get wrong? These are definitely not well known.

The VP made several statements that were incorrect and should have been fact checked by the moderators. But the most negligent thing they did was not getting answers from the VP on her policy flips and the economy. This was the one and only time voters will see her questioned and they were unable to get answers from her on WHY the 180 degrees flip on the border wall, immigration, mandatory gun buybacks, fracking, and most importantly whether the American people are better off today than four years ago. Voters know Trump is scum. But they don’t know Kamala at all.

You didn’t answer the question. PP specifically the moderators gave incorrect facts when they were factchecking Trump. Please provide an example of an incorrect fact they provided when factchecking him.

Still waiting for someone to respond to this

It’s an uncomfortable subject to talk about. But from the Minnesota Department of Health indicates that eight babies were born alive following botched abortions during Walz’s time as governor, three in 2019 and five in 2021. Only three of the infants, one in 2019 and two in 2021, were reported to have received “comfort care measures.” None of the infants survived. That, plus comments from former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, who said that he supported measures in which “the infant would be kept comfortable” after birth until the mother decided what to do. Also, the a state legislators across the country that have pushed legislation removing all limits on the procedure.

Trump made a mess of his answer, as usual. But this isn’t as cut and dry an issue that most people think. So for the ABC moderator to jump in with a voice of God answer (ironically) was incorrect and inappropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans who are bothered by the moderators fact checking Trump but not Harris aren't looking at the big picture.

Trump lied about 30 times (possibly more), and was fact-checked about 6 times. So over 20 times he was not fact checked for his lies.

Harris possibly lied a handful of times, maybe as many as 5-6 times. And was not fact checked.

They still let Trump get away with about 3 times as many lies as Harris without fact checking them.

The moderator job is to make sure there is decorum and move questions along not fact check that is what the senators do to each other

Fact checking was specifically agreed upon and allowed at this debate by both campaigns. Don't whine because what they agreed to actually happened. And it's not ABC's fault one of the debate participants can't seem to stop blatantly lying at every turn.

A discussion moderator or debate moderator is a person whose role is to act as a neutral participant in a debate or discussion, holds participants to time limits and tries to keep them from straying off the topic of the questions being raised in the debate. Nothing to do with fact checking that is not what a moderator does. In fact it wasn't in the rules and is a violation

ABC News released the debate rules for "Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – ABC News Presidential Debate" on Tuesday, Sept. 10, at 9:00 p.m. EDT, which will air live on ABC and stream live on the 24/7 streaming network ABC News Live, Disney+ and Hulu, and is available for simulcast. The debate will take place at the National Constitution Center (525 Arch St., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19106). "World News Tonight" anchor and managing editor David Muir and "World News Tonight" Sunday anchor and ABC News Live "Prime" anchor Linsey Davis will serve as moderators. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump have qualified for the debate under the established criteria, and both have accepted the following debate rules, which include the following:

- The debate will be 90 minutes with two commercial breaks.

- The two seated moderators, David Muir and Linsey Davis, will be the only people asking questions.

- A coin flip was held virtually on Tuesday, Sept. 3, to determine podium placement and order of closing statements; former President Donald Trump won the coin toss and chose to select the order of statements. The former president will offer the last closing statement, and Vice President Harris selected the right podium position on screen (stage left).

- Candidates will be introduced by the moderators.

- The candidates enter upon introduction from opposite sides of the stage; the incumbent party will be introduced first.

- No opening statements; closing statements will be two minutes per candidate.

- Candidates will stand behind podiums for the duration of the debate.

- Props or prewritten notes are not allowed onstage.

- No topics or questions will be shared in advance with campaigns or candidates.

- Candidates will be given a pen, a pad of paper and a bottle of water.

- Candidates will have two-minute answers to questions, two-minute rebuttals, and one extra minute for follow-ups, clarifications, or responses.

- Candidates' microphones will be live only for the candidate whose turn it is to speak and muted when the time belongs to another candidate.

- Candidates will not be permitted to ask questions of each other.

- Campaign staff may not interact with candidates during commercial breaks.

- Moderators will seek to enforce timing agreements and ensure a civilized discussion.

- There will be no audience in the room.

I bolded where the fact-checking comes in, and that explains why it was only deployed when Trump was spewing dangerous outright lies.

that's not what fact checking is, the moderator would step in if he called her a poopy head and say stop it not spout fact checks that she doesn't have head poop

A civilized discussion is impossible when one party is falsely accusing the other party of supporting the murder of babies and animals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh. The Washington Post is not exactly known as an unbiased news source.

That said, Trump could have cited the moderator's bias when it came to fact checking, and how even with that bias, their facts were wrong. There are already a few well-known examples where the moderators so-called facts were incorrect (or half-true). It's almost as if ABC News knew the question, knew the answer that it thought was correct, and was prepared to fact check Trump if he gave anything but that allegedly correct answer. ABC News should apologize for getting its fact checks wrong, but it won't.

What facts did the moderators get wrong? These are definitely not well known.

The VP made several statements that were incorrect and should have been fact checked by the moderators. But the most negligent thing they did was not getting answers from the VP on her policy flips and the economy. This was the one and only time voters will see her questioned and they were unable to get answers from her on WHY the 180 degrees flip on the border wall, immigration, mandatory gun buybacks, fracking, and most importantly whether the American people are better off today than four years ago. Voters know Trump is scum. But they don’t know Kamala at all.

You didn’t answer the question. PP specifically the moderators gave incorrect facts when they were factchecking Trump. Please provide an example of an incorrect fact they provided when factchecking him.

Still waiting for someone to respond to this

It’s an uncomfortable subject to talk about. But from the Minnesota Department of Health indicates that eight babies were born alive following botched abortions during Walz’s time as governor, three in 2019 and five in 2021. Only three of the infants, one in 2019 and two in 2021, were reported to have received “comfort care measures.” None of the infants survived. That, plus comments from former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, who said that he supported measures in which “the infant would be kept comfortable” after birth until the mother decided what to do. Also, the a state legislators across the country that have pushed legislation removing all limits on the procedure.

Trump made a mess of his answer, as usual. But this isn’t as cut and dry an issue that most people think. So for the ABC moderator to jump in with a voice of God answer (ironically) was incorrect and inappropriate.

Your characterization of Northam’s statement is false, since it wasn’t about abortions but about how to care for babies who are born with conditions not compatible with life. I’m going to therefore assume what you have to say about Minnesota is also BS, but feel free to link a reliable source if you actually want people to discuss this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh. The Washington Post is not exactly known as an unbiased news source.

That said, Trump could have cited the moderator's bias when it came to fact checking, and how even with that bias, their facts were wrong. There are already a few well-known examples where the moderators so-called facts were incorrect (or half-true). It's almost as if ABC News knew the question, knew the answer that it thought was correct, and was prepared to fact check Trump if he gave anything but that allegedly correct answer. ABC News should apologize for getting its fact checks wrong, but it won't.

What facts did the moderators get wrong? These are definitely not well known.

The VP made several statements that were incorrect and should have been fact checked by the moderators. But the most negligent thing they did was not getting answers from the VP on her policy flips and the economy. This was the one and only time voters will see her questioned and they were unable to get answers from her on WHY the 180 degrees flip on the border wall, immigration, mandatory gun buybacks, fracking, and most importantly whether the American people are better off today than four years ago. Voters know Trump is scum. But they don’t know Kamala at all.

You didn’t answer the question. PP specifically the moderators gave incorrect facts when they were factchecking Trump. Please provide an example of an incorrect fact they provided when factchecking him.

Still waiting for someone to respond to this

It’s an uncomfortable subject to talk about. But from the Minnesota Department of Health indicates that eight babies were born alive following botched abortions during Walz’s time as governor, three in 2019 and five in 2021. Only three of the infants, one in 2019 and two in 2021, were reported to have received “comfort care measures.” None of the infants survived. That, plus comments from former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, who said that he supported measures in which “the infant would be kept comfortable” after birth until the mother decided what to do. Also, the a state legislators across the country that have pushed legislation removing all limits on the procedure.

Trump made a mess of his answer, as usual. But this isn’t as cut and dry an issue that most people think. So for the ABC moderator to jump in with a voice of God answer (ironically) was incorrect and inappropriate.

Your characterization of Northam’s statement is false, since it wasn’t about abortions but about how to care for babies who are born with conditions not compatible with life. I’m going to therefore assume what you have to say about Minnesota is also BS, but feel free to link a reliable source if you actually want people to discuss this.

Even if it's true, it doesn't excuse the wholesale restriction on abortions at 0-20 weeks or proposed national abortion bans by the House GOP (and future MAGA administrations). Some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh. The Washington Post is not exactly known as an unbiased news source.

That said, Trump could have cited the moderator's bias when it came to fact checking, and how even with that bias, their facts were wrong. There are already a few well-known examples where the moderators so-called facts were incorrect (or half-true). It's almost as if ABC News knew the question, knew the answer that it thought was correct, and was prepared to fact check Trump if he gave anything but that allegedly correct answer. ABC News should apologize for getting its fact checks wrong, but it won't.

What facts did the moderators get wrong? These are definitely not well known.

The VP made several statements that were incorrect and should have been fact checked by the moderators. But the most negligent thing they did was not getting answers from the VP on her policy flips and the economy. This was the one and only time voters will see her questioned and they were unable to get answers from her on WHY the 180 degrees flip on the border wall, immigration, mandatory gun buybacks, fracking, and most importantly whether the American people are better off today than four years ago. Voters know Trump is scum. But they don’t know Kamala at all.

You didn’t answer the question. PP specifically the moderators gave incorrect facts when they were factchecking Trump. Please provide an example of an incorrect fact they provided when factchecking him.

Still waiting for someone to respond to this

It’s an uncomfortable subject to talk about. But from the Minnesota Department of Health indicates that eight babies were born alive following botched abortions during Walz’s time as governor, three in 2019 and five in 2021. Only three of the infants, one in 2019 and two in 2021, were reported to have received “comfort care measures.” None of the infants survived. That, plus comments from former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, who said that he supported measures in which “the infant would be kept comfortable” after birth until the mother decided what to do. Also, the a state legislators across the country that have pushed legislation removing all limits on the procedure.

Trump made a mess of his answer, as usual. But this isn’t as cut and dry an issue that most people think. So for the ABC moderator to jump in with a voice of God answer (ironically) was incorrect and inappropriate.

Your characterization of Northam’s statement is false, since it wasn’t about abortions but about how to care for babies who are born with conditions not compatible with life. I’m going to therefore assume what you have to say about Minnesota is also BS, but feel free to link a reliable source if you actually want people to discuss this.

Well, Trump was talking about cars with his bloodbath comments, but the moderator didn’t parachute in there. Wonder why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh. The Washington Post is not exactly known as an unbiased news source.

That said, Trump could have cited the moderator's bias when it came to fact checking, and how even with that bias, their facts were wrong. There are already a few well-known examples where the moderators so-called facts were incorrect (or half-true). It's almost as if ABC News knew the question, knew the answer that it thought was correct, and was prepared to fact check Trump if he gave anything but that allegedly correct answer. ABC News should apologize for getting its fact checks wrong, but it won't.

What facts did the moderators get wrong? These are definitely not well known.

The VP made several statements that were incorrect and should have been fact checked by the moderators. But the most negligent thing they did was not getting answers from the VP on her policy flips and the economy. This was the one and only time voters will see her questioned and they were unable to get answers from her on WHY the 180 degrees flip on the border wall, immigration, mandatory gun buybacks, fracking, and most importantly whether the American people are better off today than four years ago. Voters know Trump is scum. But they don’t know Kamala at all.

You didn’t answer the question. PP specifically the moderators gave incorrect facts when they were factchecking Trump. Please provide an example of an incorrect fact they provided when factchecking him.

Still waiting for someone to respond to this

It’s an uncomfortable subject to talk about. But from the Minnesota Department of Health indicates that eight babies were born alive following botched abortions during Walz’s time as governor, three in 2019 and five in 2021. Only three of the infants, one in 2019 and two in 2021, were reported to have received “comfort care measures.” None of the infants survived. That, plus comments from former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, who said that he supported measures in which “the infant would be kept comfortable” after birth until the mother decided what to do. Also, the a state legislators across the country that have pushed legislation removing all limits on the procedure.

Trump made a mess of his answer, as usual. But this isn’t as cut and dry an issue that most people think. So for the ABC moderator to jump in with a voice of God answer (ironically) was incorrect and inappropriate.

Your characterization of Northam’s statement is false, since it wasn’t about abortions but about how to care for babies who are born with conditions not compatible with life. I’m going to therefore assume what you have to say about Minnesota is also BS, but feel free to link a reliable source if you actually want people to discuss this.

Well, Trump was talking about cars with his bloodbath comments, but the moderator didn’t parachute in there. Wonder why?

My dude, you're quibbling while rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. You have an actual Presidential nominee going on and on about immigrants eating cats. That's where the GOP is right now.

[Anonymous]

Trump was given the last word on multiple topics -- a chance to respond after Harris spoke. She was not accorded the same opportunity. He was given longer to speak than Harris (by about five minutes). Seems like these facts suggest the moderators were biased in favor of Trump, not Harris.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sigh. The Washington Post is not exactly known as an unbiased news source.

That said, Trump could have cited the moderator's bias when it came to fact checking, and how even with that bias, their facts were wrong. There are already a few well-known examples where the moderators so-called facts were incorrect (or half-true). It's almost as if ABC News knew the question, knew the answer that it thought was correct, and was prepared to fact check Trump if he gave anything but that allegedly correct answer. ABC News should apologize for getting its fact checks wrong, but it won't.

What facts did the moderators get wrong? These are definitely not well known.

The VP made several statements that were incorrect and should have been fact checked by the moderators. But the most negligent thing they did was not getting answers from the VP on her policy flips and the economy. This was the one and only time voters will see her questioned and they were unable to get answers from her on WHY the 180 degrees flip on the border wall, immigration, mandatory gun buybacks, fracking, and most importantly whether the American people are better off today than four years ago. Voters know Trump is scum. But they don’t know Kamala at all.

You didn’t answer the question. PP specifically the moderators gave incorrect facts when they were factchecking Trump. Please provide an example of an incorrect fact they provided when factchecking him.

Still waiting for someone to respond to this

It’s an uncomfortable subject to talk about. But from the Minnesota Department of Health indicates that eight babies were born alive following botched abortions during Walz’s time as governor, three in 2019 and five in 2021. Only three of the infants, one in 2019 and two in 2021, were reported to have received “comfort care measures.” None of the infants survived. That, plus comments from former Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam, who said that he supported measures in which “the infant would be kept comfortable” after birth until the mother decided what to do. Also, the a state legislators across the country that have pushed legislation removing all limits on the procedure.

Trump made a mess of his answer, as usual. But this isn’t as cut and dry an issue that most people think. So for the ABC moderator to jump in with a voice of God answer (ironically) was incorrect and inappropriate.

Your characterization of Northam’s statement is false, since it wasn’t about abortions but about how to care for babies who are born with conditions not compatible with life. I’m going to therefore assume what you have to say about Minnesota is also BS, but feel free to link a reliable source if you actually want people to discuss this.

Sorry, but you’ve got it incorrect. Northum was absolutely responding to a question about abortion. I’m pro choice BTW. I’m also pro press not putting their thumbs on the scale during elections.