1142
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ResoluteCatnap@lemmy.ml 161 points 2 weeks ago

Let me get this straight, CBS is refusing to fact check the VP nominee who, on TV, admitted that if he has to make up lies to get America's attention then he'd do just that?

Eat shit CBS

[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 41 points 2 weeks ago

They should just add "Admitted liar" to his marquee whenever he's on screen.

[-] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 154 points 2 weeks ago

If there is no fact checking, Kamala needs to be ready to ask why Trump nominated someone who isn't allowed in any Ashley Furniture store in the lower 48 states and Alberta.

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

You... do know Harris (it's weird you used her first name) and Trump won't be at the Vice-Presidential debate, right?

[-] Jarix@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago

Not weird at all, it's her first name. That's what it's for

[-] Jtotheb@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Start looking at how many people say “Kamala” versus how many people say “Joe”, “Tim”, “Donald”, or “JD”.

[-] Jarix@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah no thanks. Its hard enough to get away from american politcs at a time like this as it is. Ive no interest or capacity to go out of my way to subject myself to more of it than i have to.

[-] Jtotheb@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Okay! Next time someone implies US political discourse is getting a lil sexist, think to yourself, “Ive no interest or capacity to go out of my way to subject myself to more of it than i have to” instead of weighing in.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] 4lan@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

It's a subconscious reduction of the person based on the idea that men are better leaders. I promise you'll start to catch on to it now that you know about it, it's weird as fuck.

[-] Jarix@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Only if you let it be. Its not weird to call someone by their first name. Especially since the term weird has become weponized.

Calling Kamala Harris, Kamala instead of Harris might be unusually in the situation....but its not "i like to fuck couches" or "ill invent overt lies if thats what i think i need to do" or "grab em by the pussy" etc kind of weird.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 3 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, we all know it's her first name, no one calls her that unless they have a personal relationship with her. I'm not even saying it has to be "Madame Vice-President" or anything so formal, but no one refers to the former president as "Donald" either...

[-] Jarix@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

R/theDonald

/s

Its unusual maybe, but with the current weaponization of the word weird its a point worth making. Its not weird to call someone by their first name.

Awkward in as elections go, but I think its worth pointing out how completely normal it is to use her first name when refering to her.

Its much like calling your parent by their first name. Its different, but not wierd in the new sense of the word weird

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com 93 points 2 weeks ago

Surely CBS knows that a random person cannot unilaterally revoke their broadcasting license and shut down their legal corporation.

[-] Revan343@lemmy.ca 50 points 2 weeks ago

When it happens, do you think the Supreme Court is going to side with CBS?

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

In a liberal federal republic that isn't a failed state, no.

In what Republicans want and are actively working towards?

[-] dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 11 points 2 weeks ago

A random person - no.

A person who controls millions of narrow minded gun wielding nationalists - maybe.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

The president absolutely can. Would it be legal? Probably not. Would that matter after federal agents kick everyone out of your studio and lock it? Probably not.

[-] match@pawb.social 3 points 2 weeks ago

(or after he incites a magat to firebomb them)

[-] Empricorn@feddit.nl 76 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Don't act like Walz wiping the floor with Vance is a forgone conclusion, it's not. That's what people thought about Biden's debate. Whether we admit it or not, there's intelligent Republican debaters who can't be baited out there, Trump just isn't one of them.

I genuinely wonder if the best option wouldn't be to refuse the VP debate until live fact-checking is in place for both candidates. That, or correcting simple untruths didn't count toward their time. I love Tom Walz, but if he has to literally spend his entire time refuting very obvious lies continuously spewed by Vance, his time would be better spent campaigning in swing states. How much does a Vice-Presidential debate really matter, anyway?

[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago

correcting simple untruths didn’t count toward their time

This would be THE BEST rule ever for all debates of any kind.

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 weeks ago

I disagree, that'll be abused by candidates to get more screen time.

We should keep the fact checking ABC did and perhaps deduct time for candidates that are consistently caught out on lies. The fact checkers should be approved by all candidates as well, so they can't just point to the hosts as favoring one or another.

[-] PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

There’s intelligent Republican debaters who can’t be baited out there

This is true, but I've seen Vance speak, he has zero charisma. I feel like you need some amount of charisma to be a bullshit artist and have people not see straight through you. I mean people with any semblance of intelligence will see through you no matter what, but votes aren't weighted on intelligence.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 49 points 2 weeks ago

Part of the problem is that nearly every sentence trump spoke was a lie, so fact checking was not 100%. They just fact checked random things, like, nobody is eating our pets. ProfessorWeKnowDis.gif

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 points 2 weeks ago

They fact checked the most obvious stuff on purpose. It's irrefutable. You cannot seriously claim they were biased when their two fact checks were the most basic shit. And yet that highlights just how bad Trump is.

[-] dohpaz42@lemmy.world 47 points 2 weeks ago

It’s not that Trump is killing anything; no more than millenials killed anything. It’s the media that’s the problem. If we’re going to blame anybody for failed media, then let’s blame the appropriate people. Instead of giving them a scape goat, we hold their feet to the fire.

[-] Telorand@reddthat.com 14 points 2 weeks ago

This. They made the choice not because Trump is a whiny little baby, but because they see dollar signs by allowing him to make a spectacle.

[-] Chekhovs_Gun@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago

Some people are under the mistaken impression that corporate news is not run specifically by republiQans to promote conservatism.

🌎🧑‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀

[-] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

Do you mean that these entities are run by people who believe qanon? Or you weren't being literal? Just the former I'd be really curious to see what lead you to opinion

Hilarious and sad if true

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] OpenStars@discuss.online 2 points 2 weeks ago

Is this one though, or are they merely... "useful"?

My own point is that if those two are functionally indistinguishable, then that should tell us something about how dangerous the situation has become.

Very nice emojis btw!

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 8 points 2 weeks ago

Every corporation is run by rich assholes who only care about stock prices and quartly earnings

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Pavidus@lemmy.world 24 points 2 weeks ago

I kinda wanna see the entire debate evolve into ludicrous, outlandish claims back and forth. Just sheer comedy. I know this isn't the right way to fix anything, but it's what we deserve at this point for letting the situation get this far unchecked.

[-] hOrni@lemmy.world 39 points 2 weeks ago

Imagine a candidate spilling bullshit like "Haitian immigrants are eating the dogs". That would be hilarious.

[-] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 13 points 2 weeks ago

Oh don't be ridiculous, who would be stupid enough to believe something like that?

[-] Pavidus@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

I can't fathom it.

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 2 weeks ago

Walz needs to make outlandish, unbelievable, rumors. Couch fucking should sound normal.

Vance is technology he's own great-,grandfather/ brother. You know, he's Grafa bro! His pet ladybug is very proud of their accomplish.

[-] Diurnambule@jlai.lu 5 points 2 weeks ago

That would be so fun if he would use the maga debate technic and go full lie after lie making Vance lose his time refuting everything

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] shutz@lemmy.ca 19 points 2 weeks ago

Is the debate being simulcast on all the major networks? I seem to remember seeing the Trump/Harris debate on ABC, CBS and NBC (just with different talking heads before and after).

If so, ABC should broadcast the debate with fact-checking overlays (Pop-up video style?) and advertise the shit out of the fact that they'll be doing this.

[-] OpenStars@discuss.online 5 points 2 weeks ago

Wow, it's Kennedy vs. Nixon all over again, with techno-enhanced augmentation of "facts"!

[-] SattaRIP 7 points 2 weeks ago

Americans still haven't figured out that when the US talks about democracy and freedom, it's a fucking lie. The rest of the world knows this. Catch up already. Democracy was never alive in the US.

[-] ogeist@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

How was Trump's threat successful?

[-] HexadecimalSky@lemmy.world 15 points 2 weeks ago

CBS says they will not fact check the debate, some people see this is because ABC was threatened and so CBS is caving to Trumps threats

[-] ogeist@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

I get it now, thanks!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
1142 points (100.0% liked)

People Twitter

5083 readers
1842 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying.
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS