Stench of ABC debate

Bull pucky , the fact checker moderators lied, and they didn’t challenge Harris on her lies. So basically 3 bullies attacking 1 person Originally Posted by farmstud60

There is no need for me to be redundant, so please just read post #10 in this thread and substitute FS for DJ at the very beginning.

This entire thread is a joke. Lots of people in here carrying Trump’s water for him. You claim that the moderators are biased but they didn’t have anything to do with Diaper Mouth Don spewing his hatred and lies.

His unhinged behavior and his outright lying are what doomed him. Not fact checking. And if he actually told the truth even just a few times maybe the moderators would have had the time to press Harris on some of her non answers.

But I do think it’s massively hypocritical to call anyone on that stage a “bully” except the one person who deserves it Donald Trump. It’s also very wrong to say the moderators “lied”. I didn’t hear a single lie from either of them. If you think that they lied then please enlighten us! Originally Posted by txdot-guy

It is really pretty simple, if the moderators would have challenged both on lies or misinformation it would have made the optics look totally different.


Trump was 100% right on abortion, Harris and the ABC moderator were WRONG.


Harris team knows that the voters they wanted to reach didn't move to Harris side that is why they want a debate again. Independents wanted detailed Harris plans on the economy. Harris delivered nothing. Everyone knows they were better off when Trump was in the White house than the last 4 years. The record credit card debt and late payments shows the Democrats are totally clueless to the majority of low and middle income people.

LOLLING! Grievance after grievance after grievance.

Trump is 100% UNFIT to serve. And his followers are 100% unwilling to see him for what he is.

Can’t fix stupid. Can only make sure that sack of shit never returns to power. This is up to the MAGAs not Trump.

Come on boyz, show a little backbone. Quit peddling that same old MAGA bullshit. It makes you look dull.

LOLLING! Grievance after grievance after grievance.

Trump is 100% UNFIT to serve. And his followers are 100% unwilling to see him for what he is.

Can’t fix stupid. Can only make sure that sack of shit never returns to power. This is up to the MAGAs not Trump.

Come on boyz, show a little backbone. Quit peddling that same old MAGA bullshit. It makes you look dull. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

We have a choice between the Failed Communist/Marxist totalitarian policies of the Harris and the Democrats, or a slim chance to save Democracy with Trump.

We have a choice between the Failed Communist/Marxist totalitarian policies of the Harris and the Democrats, or a slim chance to save Democracy with Trump. Originally Posted by farmstud60

You got all of that from the debate? LOLLING! Please give us something more than jingoism, stud.

Yore only parroting Trump’s tired old playbook of grievances and whining.

What MARXIST POLICIES are you referring to?

What TOTALITARIAN policies of Harris’s have failed? Which of those TOTALITARIAN policies were enacted or even proposed by VP Harris?

Does that SLIM CHANCE of saving democracy with Trump include another insurrection when he gets outvoted for the third straight time?

You just keep tossing your word salad like Trump. If we’re going to have a meaningful discussion, you’re going to have to do better than whine. I respect your right to your beliefs, but you’re just babbling like Trump.

It must be really bad, look at this headline
Ally of Clintons: ABC Must Probe Whether Debate Rigged



Read it here https://www.newsmax.com/politics/mar...12/id/1180149/ Originally Posted by farmstud60

Here are some more excerpts from Penn's editorial. He's probably a Democrat. He was a pollster and adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton from 1995 to 2008, and he's chairman of Harris Poll.

ABC’s Bias Deprived Voters of a Fair Debate
They called Trump out on every falsehood but let Harris get away with one lie after another.

Like most Americans who watched Tuesday’s debate, we both thought Kamala Harris had defeated Donald Trump. She knew her lines and threw him on the defensive, and he couldn’t keep up.

But as we reviewed the video and compared notes, we became concerned about the role of ABC News and what it did to our democracy. The moderators, who were supposed to be neutral referees, had decided in advance they were going to “fact check” Mr. Trump but not Ms. Harris.

She enlisted every charge ever leveled against Mr. Trump, regardless of the truth. That included, to name a few, the false claims that he favors a national abortion ban and opposes in vitro fertilization, that he called neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Va., “very fine people,” and that he threatened a “bloodbath” if he loses the election.

Each is untrue: Mr. Trump has made clear he opposes a national abortion ban. He favors IVF and has even said the government should pay for it. He condemned the Charlottesville neo-Nazis. And he predicted a financial “bloodbath” for the auto industry if he loses and the Biden-Harris electric-vehicle mandates progress.

Had the moderators turned to Ms. Harris after these lies and said, “That has been debunked,” we might be having a totally different conversation about the debate, given how she tends to react when challenged. We would be saying she was having a good night until she couldn’t help herself and went too far. Mr. Trump would have been freed from having to spend so much time defending himself against false charges, and the country would have gotten to hear more of his plans for America.

Think back to the Trump-Biden debate in June, in which the CNN moderators exemplified fairness. Had they had spent time correcting Mr. Trump while letting his opponent off the hook, as ABC did, the result might not have been as lopsided, and Joe Biden might still be the nominee. But CNN did its job fairly, and the public got a meaningful read on the two candidates.

When referees put their thumbs on the scale, the game changes. The results have to be thrown out, we are robbed of our time, and democracy is drained of its meaning. A presidential debate shouldn’t be a staged wrestling match. It should feature two candidates on a level playing field so voters can make up their minds free of interference. Anything less makes a mockery of our institutions. ABC should have fact-checked both candidates or neither. Fact-checking only one was the worst possible decision. Even a Democrat can tell a whopper.

Time and again we find that supposedly neutral democratic institutions have been corrupted by bias. Debate moderators must check their biases and seek to be scrupulously fair, or they shouldn’t do the job. They should observe strict rules and come from a variety of networks. Most important, they shouldn’t interfere but rather trust voters to make their own decisions. ABC undermined the system for everyone.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/abcs-bia...ts_pos9&page=1

I'd add that the moderators repeatedly asked Trump to answer the questions and not just talk about what he wanted, but didn't for Kamala.

Television journalists want to be the next Bob Woodward but they don't want to put in the work. So they throw out uninformed one liners in one minute interviews to try to show they're being tough. Since they're predominantly left leaning, they're more inclined to do this to Republicans. But I'm not sure that was the case in this instance. They must have had instructions or permission from the ABC brass to do this.

Trump was willing to risk debates moderated by CNN (which turned out to be very fair) and ABC because he thought Biden would be the opponent. This experience is going to make Republican general election presidential candidates in the future more leery of debating on ABC, CBS, and NBC/MSNBC.

The landscape has changed. There was a time that there was news and a bunch of pundits. The pundits were typically relegated to Sunday talk shows and an hour here or there. We now live in the times of tailored news and “alternative facts”. We have devolved to only hearing news from sources that support one’s world view and an acceptance of falsehood as fact as long as it supports one’s beliefs.

I’d rather see no debates than to see a fact free one. With the likes of Trump it’s an extreme. He has no issue with spewing as fact crazy shit from the internet that is simply untrue. Sadly, his followers and the Republican Party are trapped in the Stupid Loop. If it’s not supportive of their position it’s untrue and if it’s supportive it’s true. Sure there are fringe elements on both sides but the GOP has been subsumed by the Stupid.

There’s an idiot or two that posts on here that Haitian immigrants are stealing and eating folks pets. Because YouTube and right wing crazy internet sites say it’s true. They won’t even believe their own parties Governor and the local government from the community where this supposedly is occurring. Same with the stupidiotic folks on this site and in the Republican Party that continue to believe Trump won the 2020 election. And that buy wholeheartedly into the election fraud ignorance. That’s how far disrespect and inability to accept the facts has gone. Sadly Tiny you too fallen into the “well maybe there can be some truth to the crazies because they are republicans after all” crowd, which is just complicit in the overall degradation of at least seeking some truth.

The reason any moderator would feel the need to step in is easy and clear, they want to prevent further spreading of misinformation. Unfortunately the spread of misinformation is part and parcel to Trump and the current Republican Party. Even folks that know better Cruz Rubio etc refuse to at least say “well we know that’s not true”. As Hannity informed the Fox actual news reporters on election night “we have respect our audience and not tell them things they won’t like”. That’s should tell you all you need to know about what they think of “news” and truthful reporting. It also shows what Trump supporters and republicans think of learning and being informed of the truth. They want to be lied to rather than disappointed.

We likely will never have another debate where moderators will tolerate having candidates just outright lie about easily disapproval facts. Again, many of you are unaware of fact and how it differs from opinion. Candidate A saying Candidate B believes in X position isn’t something a moderator should get involved in - and they didn’t by the way. Why - easy - Candidate B can articulate their position. However, Candidate A claiming that some looney toon shit from the internet is fact is something moderators should clarify. It keeps the debate moving and keeps the debaters from over stupid distractions. Being fact checked is not unfair nor is it bias. No one caused Candidate A to say some crazy nonfactual bullshit. Moreover just because you disagree with a fact - the US produces more natural gas and oil that at any other time in history - doesn’t make it nonfactual (it is in fact true). However claiming that windmills cause cancer or that people are faced with being electrocuted or fighting sharks is batshit crazy and nonfactual on top of that. I look forward to debaters being cognizant that lies will be exposed and that they should be as factual as possible. After Trump that is because no one will be as factual free as he is. Not because they don’t lie, but because Trump is knows his follows are the dumbest folks on earth and actually don’t care about facts.

Tiny you know better but sadly you’ve not been drawn into the crowd of “respecting the audience” rather that at least stating the truth. You’re better than this whether you wanna admit it or not.

Debaters' lies will be exposed, but that's not the moderator's place. You can pretty much tell when Trump is exaggerating or lying. It usually happens whenever his mouth is open. While people don't need pundits or journalists to tell them that windmills do not cause cancer or Democrats do not kill babies, they will anyway. And that should happen after the debate.

And as to the cats and dogs, please see my post in Reddog's second debate thread. I wouldn't be surprised if immigrants are eating cats and dogs in Springfield, Ohio. If true, it would be a plus for Kamala in my book, given the way she and Trump would deal with the problem.

Btw, Harris is a much more talented liar than Trump. That's makes it easier for her to get away with it.

We will agree to disagree.

We will agree to disagree. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I will agree with one thing in that 20 years ago journalism was more honest and interested in facts. I used to watch Meet the Press on NBC I believe with Tim Russert. He grilled both Republicans and Democrats about the issues they were promoting. I didn't realize for quite a while that he used to be Tip O'Neils staff.


The current problem is that we can't debate issues as facts are called lies by the other side and the press when in reality they are not.

Which of Trump's "couple" of lies are really not lies?

I think you're conveniently convinced that you can't trust anybody.

So when faced with that "reality," get behind the con man. Makes perfect sense.

Unless of course, he's not what he claims to be.

And everybody in the world is lying about his lies.

This isn't about debating issues. Arguing the fine or even fundamental points of an economic proposal doesn't have a place in today's dog eat dog, ahem, world, eh?

A "concept of a proposal" on repeal and replace Obamacare can't be argued because there's no opposing viewpoint put forward by the GOP candidate.

On the border, how can you have a discussion when one side won't even acknoledge the strongly bipartisan bill that the GOP candidate killed because it was good for his ratings.

How can we discuss women's reproductive rights when one side continues to insist that the other wants to execute babies.

Where do we have an honest and critical debate and on what issues? What lies are lies and what lies are just demented bullshit?

Side by side the platforms, stud. What part of "they're eating dogs" leads to an honest debate?

I will agree with one thing in that 20 years ago journalism was more honest and interested in facts. I used to watch Meet the Press on NBC I believe with Tim Russert. He grilled both Republicans and Democrats about the issues they were promoting. I didn't realize for quite a while that he used to be Tip O'Neils staff.


The current problem is that we can't debate issues as facts are called lies by the other side and the press when in reality they are not. Originally Posted by farmstud60

I agree with ya on this.

One parties truth is another parties lies.

What has been brought to the forefront by DJT, is that lying, just for the sake of it, has bred a lot of contempt for the GOP party by Democrats.

I agree with ya on this.

One parties truth is another parties lies.

What has been brought to the forefront by DJT, is that lying, just for the sake of it, has bred a lot of contempt for the GOP party by Democrats. Originally Posted by eyecu2

WRONG, perfect example is what happened with the Abortion issue in the debate. Harris lied as well as the moderator lied that no states allowed abortion up to birth and that they would allow babies that were born alive during an abortion to not be treated and left to die. Trump was correct in pointing out that extreme behavior which Harris supports


Trump has never ever wanted a nation wide abortion law of any kind, Harris lied about that too.


A college friend, she was a OBGYN doctor retired now posted a story from liveaction.org that listed 4 lies told by Harris and one by the moderator during the debate.

How about we not take your word for it and you post something from a credible source that says what the law is in these "states" that allow children that are born to be killed. or where there are abortions at the time of birth. Should be easy enough to find something that is not an opinion piece that describes these laws and what state this is allowed. Dont keep saying it exists, show us.

How about we not take your word for it and you post something from a credible source that says what the law is in these "states" that allow children that are born to be killed. or where there are abortions at the time of birth. Should be easy enough to find something that is not an opinion piece that describes these laws and what state this is allowed. Dont keep saying it exists, show us. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

how about you prove it wrong. should be easy enough.