Debate Moderator Fact Checks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious to me that people are like why didn't they fact check Harris? If she had said that Haitians in Springfield Ohio were eating people's pets, she would've been fact checked as well. Trump was fact checked 5 times, and they were for his most egregious lies. He had 30 or so other lies that were not fact checked. He lied over 50 times during the Biden debate that went unchecked, so maybe the few checks he had on him did rein him in a little.

DP. The fact checks weren't equal, plain and simple. She lied numerous times, but wasn't called out on it. That was clearly by design from ABC. The moderators were clearly prepared to fact check Trump. They were not prepared to fact check Harris.

Harris couldn't even answer the moderators' questions. Today's local Philadelphia ABC interview confirms that she can't.

The moderators don't have a "fact check AI" sitting in front of them evaluating every sentence, then deciding what to fact-check a candidate on. The lies that Trump actually got fact-checked on were so over-the-top, the moderators had no choice. Executing babies after birth? Eating household pets? He got away with his numerous run-of-the-mill lies. Trump lost the debate due to his own (extremely evident) cognitive decline and general lack of knowledge.

DP. No, the moderators were wrong on their fact checks. There's plenty of evidence that they were, with mainstream publications printing retractions.

Oh, if there’s plenty of evidence, you should have problem giving a single example. Could you do that please? We’re still waiting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This was glaring. It is good to see someone else picking up on it.

+1

Thanks for sharing this.
Americans understand Trump’s role in J6 perfectly well. No gaslighting will change that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious to me that people are like why didn't they fact check Harris? If she had said that Haitians in Springfield Ohio were eating people's pets, she would've been fact checked as well. Trump was fact checked 5 times, and they were for his most egregious lies. He had 30 or so other lies that were not fact checked. He lied over 50 times during the Biden debate that went unchecked, so maybe the few checks he had on him did rein him in a little.

DP. The fact checks weren't equal, plain and simple. She lied numerous times, but wasn't called out on it. That was clearly by design from ABC. The moderators were clearly prepared to fact check Trump. They were not prepared to fact check Harris.

Harris couldn't even answer the moderators' questions. Today's local Philadelphia ABC interview confirms that she can't.

The moderators don't have a "fact check AI" sitting in front of them evaluating every sentence, then deciding what to fact-check a candidate on. The lies that Trump actually got fact-checked on were so over-the-top, the moderators had no choice. Executing babies after birth? Eating household pets? He got away with his numerous run-of-the-mill lies. Trump lost the debate due to his own (extremely evident) cognitive decline and general lack of knowledge.

DP. No, the moderators were wrong on their fact checks. There's plenty of evidence that they were, with mainstream publications printing retractions. Harris wasn't fact checked, even where she blatantly lied.

You simply can't admit that Trump was fact checked and Harris wasn't. If the moderators are going to fact check, they do both candidates or neither. Moderators are supposed to ask questions (and follow up questions), as well as enforce the rules of the debate. They're not supposed to target one candidate over another. Would you tolerate a referee constantly calling fouls or throwing flags on one team, but not the other team? You probably would if it was the other team - which in this case it is. As a referee, you call a fair game, or you sit in the stands like the fan that you are.

Trump did lose his cool and Harris kept hers. But that wasn't unexpected when the "debate" was 3-on-1.

The "referees weren't constantly calling fouls". Trump said some absolutely batsh!t insane sh!t, and the moderators checked him on it. He got away with most of his usual bullsh!t. If they fact checked him on everything, the moderators would have spent more time talking than the candidates. Aside, this is all a red herring. He lost the debate on substance. He provided none.

This.
He was an embarrassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The ultimate fact check.

What active combat war zone are they in?

Vice President Kamala Harris claimed in the debate Tuesday night that there are no U.S. troops in active war zones, a statement that obscures how thousands of American service members fight in conflicts around the world.
U.S. sailors and Marines have been defending ships and regional partners from constant attacks by Yemen’s Houthis since last fall. There are at least 3,400 U.S. troops tasked to assist and train local forces to defeat Islamic State in Iraq and Syria—where they have come under repeated attacks. The Biden administration also is quietly moving aircraft and commandos into Western Africa to combat terrorists.

And yet Harris boasted during the debate that “there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world, the first time this century.”

Congress is the only branch with the authority to declare war, a power it hasn’t exercised since 1942, which means the U.S. hasn’t officially been at war since the end of World War II. But the U.S. has been in combat plenty of times over the decades—from Korea to Vietnam and most recently Iraq and Afghanistan—and there is no question U.S. forces today are in harm’s way. Just last month, the U.S. and Iraq launched a joint raid against Islamic State that saw seven American troops get injured.

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/harris-trump-presidential-debate-election-2024/card/u-s-troops-are-involved-in-combat-despite-harris-s-debate-claims-j5b3ST4WCoIish5ScTPg

Of course there are troops in harm’s way. That’s not the same thing as active combat duty in a war zone. Which war zone are they in with their disposable takeout containers?

Tell these Americans they’re not in a war zone.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68122706#

I guess you think Fort Hood is a war zone too. You know that big base down in Texas where several uniformed servicemen and women were murdered not so long ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This was glaring. It is good to see someone else picking up on it.

I don’t understand how LEO continue to support this douche bag.

[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.

It it truly disturbing that I had to look for a TV station outside of US to find anyone gutsy enough to take a critical look at Harris statements. It is an eye opening realization for me.

[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.

It it truly disturbing that I had to look for a TV station outside of US to find anyone gutsy enough to take a critical look at Harris statements. It is an eye opening realization for me.

Sky News is just the foreign version of Fox News, moron. It's not fair and balanced. But keep up the copium with your disaster of a 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.

It it truly disturbing that I had to look for a TV station outside of US to find anyone gutsy enough to take a critical look at Harris statements. It is an eye opening realization for me.

Umm… that’s Sky News Australia, known failed fact-checker and conspiracy-spreader, not Sky News UK which is an actual news organization. Nice try though.

[Anonymous]

Was waiting for the Wharton professors to come out to debunk Trump's claim that aLL ThE wHArtON professors support his economic plan:

[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.

It it truly disturbing that I had to look for a TV station outside of US to find anyone gutsy enough to take a critical look at Harris statements. It is an eye opening realization for me.

You’re a joke PP. this is another Rupert Murdoch entertainment production, not news. Remember Rupert argued before a court of law that his companies are entertainment, not news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious to me that people are like why didn't they fact check Harris? If she had said that Haitians in Springfield Ohio were eating people's pets, she would've been fact checked as well. Trump was fact checked 5 times, and they were for his most egregious lies. He had 30 or so other lies that were not fact checked. He lied over 50 times during the Biden debate that went unchecked, so maybe the few checks he had on him did rein him in a little.

DP. The fact checks weren't equal, plain and simple. She lied numerous times, but wasn't called out on it. That was clearly by design from ABC. The moderators were clearly prepared to fact check Trump. They were not prepared to fact check Harris.

Harris couldn't even answer the moderators' questions. Today's local Philadelphia ABC interview confirms that she can't.

The moderators don't have a "fact check AI" sitting in front of them evaluating every sentence, then deciding what to fact-check a candidate on. The lies that Trump actually got fact-checked on were so over-the-top, the moderators had no choice. Executing babies after birth? Eating household pets? He got away with his numerous run-of-the-mill lies. Trump lost the debate due to his own (extremely evident) cognitive decline and general lack of knowledge.

DP. No, the moderators were wrong on their fact checks. There's plenty of evidence that they were, with mainstream publications printing retractions.

How come you still won’t give a single example of this? We’re waiting.

[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.

It it truly disturbing that I had to look for a TV station outside of US to find anyone gutsy enough to take a critical look at Harris statements. It is an eye opening realization for me.

You’re a joke PP. this is another Rupert Murdoch entertainment production, not news. Remember Rupert argued before a court of law that his companies are entertainment, not news.

Just like the WWE (but for tax purposes https://tax.kenaninstitute.unc.edu/news-media/how-taxes-destroyed-the-myth-of-pro-wrestling/ ). It's sad really that the MAGAs on here take either of these institutions seriously.

[Anonymous]

Why are you DCUM folks asking to have this deleted? Is it too inconvenient?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Tell these Americans they’re not in a war zone.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68122706#

The point is, there isn't an active war the US is engaged in. The "police action" those troops are in is not a "war" so technically Harris told the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Tell these Americans they’re not in a war zone.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68122706#

The point is, there isn't an active war the US is engaged in. The "police action" those troops are in is not a "war" so technically Harris told the truth.

Apparently, those soldiers in the room in harms way would disagree.