Big Donny has been watching the purge 
https://x.com/kamalahq/status/1840526130031317329?s=48&t=LlMNFvsPPy2ozwuX8FhQrA
2 Likes
I think this would actually turn me into a criminal
Good lord 
Oh bloody hell.
āYou didnāt give me the heads up that you were going to correct me.ā
āEXCUSE ME, I WAS PROMISED I WOULD BE ALLOWED TO LIEā
8 Likes
lol what
thatās insane
what a joke democracy
Is this supposed to help democrats?
Iād think I would stay far away from these war criminals
But the dems make it sound like some
Kind of great endorsement
2 Likes
Dems? No.
People who were the mythical ādouble hatersā who disliked both Biden and Trump? Maybe.
Another example of a dubious āfact checkā and partisan moderation.
Vance is right, the network said there would be no live fact checking from the moderators. Yet the clip out of context is campaign material for low information voters.
Really bad and biased moderatation from a major network. Shows you how poor standards are.
Dubious? What the moderator said was true.
We all know unctuous little shits like JD Vance from school or work. It makes total sense heād whine like that.
3 Likes
Thatās not true, from what I read.
Plus Vance lied again.
You can complain about one-sided fact-checking if needed, but their fact-checking was not dubious. Vance is lying to the citizens who wouldnāt be able to look up the fact. It is imperative that moderators correct the damage in real time. It is ironic that you think the clip is for low information voter but are okay with a political candidate spout lies to a larger low information audience.
Why are you against fact checking?
1 Like
Maybe youāre right (although @Trionās post suggests maybe not) but the only bit of the debate i seen is that clip and i posted it because it honestly makes him look like a loser.
Ive no idea if the debate was fairly moderated but this one clip doesnāt prove that it wasnāt.
There is as much chance of people watching it and thinking hes been unfairly treated there as there is to do him damage.
Ah my bad. I am wrong, it seems.
1 Like
Hereās what I looked up:
The moderators werenāt going to fact-check, but give time for the candidates to do so.
So Vance is right, not that Iām sympathetic either way, but itās correct.
They were very open about it after the mess of the ABC debate:
He didnāt lie about anything, what prompted the āfact checkā was his comment in relation to the large influx of Haitian migrants in Springfield, OH where he implied they had ease of entry into the country via programs expanded under Biden or were illegal entrants. As someone running for office, heās allowed to characterise the situation and entry process in that manner. He hasnāt said anything false.
The āfact checkā from Brennan was :
Just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal statusā¦ temporary protected status."
Sure ok, this is partially true for some Haitian migrants in the area but not all as the City itself doesnāt know the approx number of migrants, legal, temporarily protected or illegal border crossers have settled in the area.
The āfact checkā is dubious because the added context was unnecessary in relation to the statement of vance and is incomplete without its own additional context.
In response, Vance talked generally about the CBP One app and mischaracterize its usage.
Iām not against fact checking at all but during a live debate its up for you opponent to rebut claims, thatās how a debate works. People want to hear from the candidates and make their own judgement.
Iām against fact checking by moderators in live debates, other than that I encourage verification of facts and adding necessary context before, during (by other sources) and after political debates.
I donāt like the current televised debate format but if its going to be done, it should be moderated in a fair, balanced and the most neutral way. The role of the moderator is to ensure a proper structure is being followed and thereās a free flowing debate not to fact check. Thatās a purist view.
Iāve already explained the parameters and scope of fact checking can be widened or narrowed depending on the editorial goals of the news network. For instance, Walz told an outright lie that was not fact checked and as weāve seen Vanceās complaint has been used to cast him in a negative light.
I guess the same applies to Walz and Harris who told lies that were not fact checked at all then? I really donāt believe its āimperativeā that moderators fact check in real time, the political ecosystem polices information and speech that candidates say already and it did so for years until Trump came along
2 Likes
Except these arenāt real debates like a high school debate club. Itās the pro wrestling version of that.
What was it?
I donāt know enough about the Haitian migration to comment on it so I will take your word for it.
I am against opponents fact checking each other because Republicans voters will never believe fact checks provided by Democrats and vice versa. Plus you open yourself to more lies in the guise of fact checks just the way Vance did with CBPOne. As you said Vance mischaracterized the app even if he didnāt outright lie.
A candidate would need to be a tuned to every minute details of each policy to be able to fact check obscure manipulation of facts or they would requires a team of fact checkers to look up the information & relay it to debate participants. Such a feed will damage other aspects of the debate.
CBS, instead of posting QR code & a good website to post facts, should add a slot where they could announce fact checks during the debate. That way every voters gets the correct information. You have to have a neutral unit that provides this information. If there was no fact checking during Trump-Harris debate, the whole Haitian eating pets narrative wouldnāt have been crushed. No one is talking about that now.