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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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).

She was at the DNC headquarter that morning but was in the chamber for the certification vote. This isn’t hard!

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?

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.

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.

Evading answers is not lying. Trump told abject lies about his administration, about the economy and about dogs being eaten by Haitian immigrants. I get that you are frustrated that your guy laid an egg, but that isn't ABC's nor Harris fault. this is the third time Trump has been nominated by the GOP. The Rest of the country is tired of him and his BS.

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

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.

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.

Please share where the fact checkers were wrong or half wrong.

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.

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.

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.