908

Trump Demands ABC Be Shut Down for Daring to Fact Check Debate (www.thedailybeast.com)

submitted 1 week ago by inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

87 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 69 points 6 days ago

Conservatives are mad that "they only fact checked Trump", and yeah, there's some truth to that...

But they let him tell so many little lies unchallenged. They only fact checked him on the egregious stuff like "Haitians eat pets" and "post-birth abortions".

Harris may have said some half-truths or omitted context for a few things, but she never told a single non-truth comparable to the things Trump got fact checked for.

The worst actual post-debate criticism I've heard for Harris was that she continues to say that Trump will enact Project 2025 and a federal abortion ban as president, despite his statements denying support for these things. The thing is, Trump is a huge fucking liar, and a Republican, so yeah, she's right to keep saying what he will absolutely do as president, despite his lies to the contrary.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 26 points 6 days ago

Harris may have said some half-truths or omitted context for a few things, but she never told a single non-truth comparable to the things Trump got fact checked for.

The problem with Harris is that she's a professional politician who knows how to skirt the line. So you can challenge her on a point and she can clarify it in her favor and then PoliticoFactCheck has to do a 500 word article getting to the nut of the issue (and they'll get called liars for their biased interpretation too).

But "Black people in Ohio are eating all your dogs" is much more straightforward and easier to debunk. Same with "infanticide is legal in California".

Trump is a huge fucking liar, and a Republican

He's ForwardsFromGrandma tier racist. Even as lying goes, it comes across as weird and vulgar.

[-] cheers_queers@lemm.ee 18 points 6 days ago

we know definitively that trump is tied to project 2025, so yeah she's going to keep saying that.

[-] cultsuperstar@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago

Didn't he also get like an extra 5-7 minutes of talk time? He would "answer" a question, Kamala would giver her rebuttal, then he would be like "wait a minute I need to respond to that" and they would let him.

[-] Plavatos@sh.itjust.works 17 points 6 days ago

Yeah, definitely a double standard on mic control. Any time he opened his mouth they turned his mic on, she tried once and they did a hard pass. Hell, even while they refuted his dog eating claims his mic was on talking over the moderator.

And that's because all of the media loves Trump. They have a bias, sure, but they know the crazy shit he says sells views/headlines and that's their business, informing the public is a byproduct.

[-] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 days ago

I did think it was weird that the one time Harris wanted extra time to rebut, they denied her. At the same time, I don't think Trump really helped himself with all of his extra talking. Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake, and all that

[-] Plavatos@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 days ago

That reminds me of the Obama/Romney debate

[-] 800XL@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Her misstep is that she should have just started talking anyway. As silly as it seems there are people that would respect that more than her keeping quiet while a man talks - in some weird republican domination fantasy. Those that would be upset aren't her base anyway.

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 4 points 5 days ago

They did that on purpose. Harris originally suggested open mics but Trump pushed back. I'm guessing she told the moderators not to worry too much about letting him get in an unsanctioned response, knowing that if he's at the point where he's barging in and ignoring decorum, he's likely going to self-immolate on camera.

She wasn't wrong. She was concise enough to get almost every question answered, and baited Trump into humiliating himself. Some of the most damaging things he said were said during time he wasn't supposed to be speaking.

It's the perfect trap. Giving him extra time sabotages him, but he can't complain that getting extra time to speak was a trap, because, as you suggest, at face value, it was unfair to Harris.

It also potentially saved the debate from an early conclusion. Trump has walked out of interviews and debates in the past when they forced him to stop talking or move on.

They really played him well.

[-] a9cx34udP4ZZ0@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago

a federal abortion ban as president, despite his statements denying support for these things

They straight up asked him the question, and he refused to answer it. So, she didn't tell a "half truth" - he literally refused to say he would veto a national ban when directly given the opportunity to do so.

As for project 2025, it's his playbook. Whether or not he will specifically call it that, doesn't change the fact it's how he wants to dismantle the federal government.

[-] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

A bunch of the stuff he said cant entirely be disproven. Even the eating pets thing wasnt proof, it was the word of a local government official who republicans are likely not to trust.

I don't know there was more they can besides appeals to authority.

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 5 points 5 days ago

You're falling for their propaganda.

Republicans started this racist rumor about Haitians in Ohio.

The media talks to city officials and determines that these claims are unfounded.

Republicans claim that the city's response wasn't an outright denial, and suggest that this lends some amount of legitimacy that it might be happening.

But that's bullshit. Government PR (and pretty much every journalist) knows to never make statements of negative fact, because you cannot logically prove a negative. It's the same reason newspapers use "allegedly" to describe accused criminals: because future events could hypothetically change the truthfulness of the statement.

And that's all these claims will ever be: hypothetical. When all you have is a hypothesis, it is irresponsible to run away with it as if it were evidence of anything.

"Can't be disproven" is the default state of most social issues. That alone is equivalent to having zero evidence, and so repeating the completely baseless claims that Haitians might be eating pets, while technically true in a hypothetical sense, could be said about literally any group you want, because there will exist the same amount of evidence of it being true (none).

One can only conclude that anyone peddling this narrative solely wishes to spread racist ideas about Haitians.

[-] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

I'm pointing out why its hard to disprove the stuff trump says, not defending them. You can't say dogs and cats aren't being eaten because you can't prove that, you can say that a reputable source said its not happening.

The debate is about the candidates, if they want to lie and make fools out of themselves they can. I do like that they were able to fact check the Springfield stuff because it sounds like the rumors are causing racism and violence. Hopefully the fact check helped a bit.

I'm willing to change my opinion though. What were some other things they could have fact checked but didnt?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

It's not the job of the person disproving it to prove anything. It's the job of the person making the assertion and "Well, someone said it on TV!" isn't proof.

[-] nutsack@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

the guy fights dirty. fact checking prevents him from wasting his opponent's time. if an opponent had to counter all of his wacko statements they would never make progress. it would be some one-sided steamroller garbage. I hope they normalize the fact checking thing.

I think evidence points to the fact that while project 2025 may not be authored by Trump, it is probably something that would influence a trump presidency. kamala harris' statements about it were correct.

[-] Taleya@aussie.zone 2 points 5 days ago

Yeah trump didn't make that shit up...but he's a useful idiot who absolutely can be manipulated into letting it happen

[-] lemmy_get_my_coat@lemmy.world 28 points 6 days ago

Eat a dick, cunt.

[-] exanime@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago

well, cunts tend to do just that

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 6 days ago

Vagina dentata that dick, cunt?

[-] chemicalprophet@lemm.ee 15 points 6 days ago

I demand the shitgibbon be shutdown. Did you hear me? I demanded it!

[-] Minarble@aussie.zone 2 points 5 days ago

I declare it!

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 11 points 5 days ago

Didn't he say he won the debate? What's he mad about?

[-] Fedizen@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I'm not sure there were opportunities to fact check harris and the one point where trump said it was disproven the "fact check" basically takes trump at his word that trump wasnt talking about the nazis.

Which is a black mark on snopes for allowing an unprovable statement as a fact by a guy known to lie and walk back his missteps.

[-] Mobiledecay@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

That's something a dictator would do. 🤔

[-] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

i would really like to see someone successfully debate MAGA republicans that trump is unfit for office by reason of either, delusion, or insanity. That or concede that they are either, fascist, or equally deluded and insane.

The line of reasoning is very simple. It piggybacks off of the J6 report, which lines up the argument that there is no world in which trump knew that what he was doing on J6 was legal. The only presented alternative is that the entirety of the federal government is corrupt, and somehow only trump knows this, which is obviously indefensible. So it must follow that trump is either delusional, and unfit for office, or genuinely insane, and also unfit for office.

Therefore, if you don't think that trump is insane, and unfit for office, you are either, fascist, or insane and equally delusional. There is no alternative reality, because any alternative reality hinges completely on the concept of the entire federal government being entirely corrupt. Which is unfalsifiable and arguably, not possible.

If you support trump in 2024, you are one of three things, stupid, delusional, or fascist. There is no other option. This is categorically provable.

if conservatives will concede this point, i will agree with them on the take of biden being unfit for office, however they will literally never cede this, as they are fucking delusional.

[-] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

Crying 45 keeps on crying. The orange shitstain should shove off to Moscow and take all the MAGATs with him.

[-] tetrachromacy@lemmy.world 245 points 1 week ago

The first time the moderators countered his obvious dog-whistle lies I was absolutely blown away. You could have knocked me over with a feather. Then I started laughing and didn't stop.

The correction was really well done and completely natural by both moderators, I almost didn't register what happened. Love to see it.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 94 points 1 week ago

Too bad they let him continue to lie about the thing they just fact checked, let him talk beyond his allotted time, reapond when it wasn't his turn, and shut down Harris the one time she tried to respond out of turn.

The moderators crossed an extremely low bar on fact checking last night, but did everything else the same way they always have.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

In this case his extra time actually hurt him.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 224 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

They barely even fact checked him in the first place. They called him on a total of, what, three things? As opposed to the probably dozens of other complete untruths he uttered, not even just about policy and so forth but actual empirically verifiable elements of reality?

Here's just what I spotted:

Lied about not being involved with Project 2025 and not knowing what it is. We know he is acutely aware of what it is, and in fact some members of his staff were involved in its framing.
Lied about the number of immigrants coming into the country.
Further lied stating that other countries were "sending all their criminals and mental patients."
Claimed people were "aborting" babies after birth (called out by moderators).
Claimed Harris said she would ban fracking in Pennsylvania (called out by Harris).
Lied about crime rates going "through the roof" (called out by moderators).
Responded to this by claiming FBI crime stats were falsified by "leaving out problem cities."
Lied about migrants eating people's pets (called out by moderators).
Lied about inflation numbers post-pandemic.
Lied claiming that "Biden" built the Nordstream pipeline.
Distorted the truth by claiming he won more votes than any sitting president in the last election, failing to mention that Biden still got more.

There were probably others.

He also essentially admitted that his plan for the war in Ukraine was to just let Russia win. That should be pretty damn worrisome for anyone.

[-] Quexotic@infosec.pub 7 points 6 days ago

I learned that what he does actually has a special name. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop

The Gish gallop (/ˈɡɪʃ ˈɡæləp/) is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality.

[-] RampantParanoia2365@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

Lied about Kamala being a Border Czar. She led a diplomatic initiative aimed at curbing immigration, she was never directly involved in border matters.

[-] Wizard_Pope@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Wait what? Why would Biden build the nordstream?

[-] roy_mustang76@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 days ago

Go ask whatever parasite is running the show in Trump's brain - it doesn't make any sense and I remember being very confused by that claim in real time

[-] pearsaltchocolatebar@discuss.online 83 points 1 week ago

I wish they had pushed him harder on the simple yes or no questions.

Also, Harris missed a perfect opportunity to point out that Trump has been the only president that has advocated a gun ban. "take the guns and figure out due process later"

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (14 replies)

[-] simplejack@lemmy.world 81 points 1 week ago

If you don’t want to be fact checked, maybe don’t repeatedly insist that Florida’s abortion ballot measure will legalize killing newborns.

[-] Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 6 days ago

They should legalize abortion of 78-years old babies imo

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 74 points 1 week ago

No mic should ever be placed near this man again.

[-] Nougat@fedia.io 59 points 1 week ago

Pence: Please do not place me near this man again.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024

908 points (100.0% liked)

politics

18870 readers

3378 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News