Real Time Debate Night Commentary Thread!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

No, Kellyanne was wrong: there are not facts and alternative facts. By definition, facts are objective. So, “There is no state in this country where it is legal to kill a baby after it’s born.” and ". . . there have been no credible reports of specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community." are objective facts. Stating those facts is no evidence of bias, unless you see truthfulness as a bias.

I didn't phrase that very well. What a moderator is going to fact check is subjective. Imagine what Laura Ingraham would point out, versus Joy Reid.

Kamala told some whoppers too. I gave a few examples earlier in the thread in a reply to Blackman. Trump’s were easier to spot.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Again, you’re wrong as is Speedy. If a debater says something that’s outright incorrect, the moderators should point out it’s wrong as a matter of fact. They shouldn’t get into what’s opinion or a policy position, that’s for the debaters. However, the moderators asking the questions should always point out that a response is nonfactual. If a debater knows they can’t just spew lies, they might and should stick to their policy and how the facts impact or are impacted. Just lying makes for terrible and uninformative debates, which is actually what Trumpers and Fox would love to have.

Trump said on Fox & Friends this morning that rather than Martha and Bret who he didn’t think did a good job last time he debated on Fox, Sean Hannity, Jesse Waters and Laura Ingraham are moderators he'd prefer.

That should tell you all you need to know about what kinda debate he feels he needs.

Not much I can say that I haven't already said. However, I'm ROTFLMAO at the bold text. Of course that's what he'd prefer.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Why do you believe the moderators shouldn’t fact check. I’d disagree wholeheartedly with that thinking. They ask the question and the person says something insanely stupid and claim it as a fact, they should step in and say - that’s not true let’s stick to facts. A person can state their opinion all night long but a news person, which the moderators are, should try to ensure that the statements are as factual as correct. Depending on the debaters to fact check one another would devolve into there being no time to ask questions and get answers.

I disagree. The moderators control the debate, they do not comment on what is right or wrong with a respondent's comments. I have watched several presidential debates over many years and I can't remember the moderators challenging a respondent's answer in such a way, simply telling them, in this case Trump, that his comments were wrong. That is up to the opponent to point out. As you said, it would prolong the debate but I stand by my opinion, much as I love seeing Donald Trump being proven wrong.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I disagree. The moderators control the debate, they do not comment on what is right or wrong with a respondent's comments. I have watched several presidential debates over many years and I can't remember the moderators challenging a respondent's answer in such a way, simply telling them, in this case Trump, that his comments were wrong. That is up to the opponent to point out. As you said, it would prolong the debate but I stand by my opinion, much as I love seeing Donald Trump being proven wrong.

Well said.

[yeahsurewhatev]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I disagree. The moderators control the debate, they do not comment on what is right or wrong with a respondent's comments. I have watched several presidential debates over many years and I can't remember the moderators challenging a respondent's answer in such a way, simply telling them, in this case Trump, that his comments were wrong. That is up to the opponent to point out. As you said, it would prolong the debate but I stand by my opinion, much as I love seeing Donald Trump being proven wrong.

In all the many debates you watched, do you recall anyone saying anything so outrageous and demonstrably untrue as Trump's claim that Democrats want to kill babies after they're born? The rules have changed. Nice to cite precedent, but there's no precedent for him.
And, if you put the onus on the opponent to call the other out, you cut into their time. If you don't, then you have the moderators determining what's a warranted response that should add time.

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I disagree. The moderators control the debate, they do not comment on what is right or wrong with a respondent's comments. I have watched several presidential debates over many years and I can't remember the moderators challenging a respondent's answer in such a way, simply telling them, in this case Trump, that his comments were wrong. That is up to the opponent to point out. As you said, it would prolong the debate but I stand by my opinion, much as I love seeing Donald Trump being proven wrong.

In past years there weren’t candidates who simply repeatedly told lies like Trump.

As I stated before. The problem with the "opponent can point out the lies" would devolve into Trump lying and his opponent spending all their time having to correct him and them never getting to actually respond to anything.

How about we get to a mainly truthful discussion. Otherwise the presidential debates would be nothing more than ECCIE political forum. The known liars stating plainly factually wrong things over and over and no real discourse on issues.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

In all the many debates you watched, do you recall anyone saying anything so outrageous and demonstrably untrue as Trump's claim that Democrats want to kill babies after they're born? The rules have changed. Nice to cite precedent, but there's no precedent for him.
And, if you put the onus on the opponent to call the other out, you cut into their time. If you don't, then you have the moderators determining what's a warranted response that should add time.

Well, how about Harris' claim that Trump said there's going to be a bloodbath if he loses? That's just as outrageous. Maybe it's not as "demonstrably untrue," but he clearly was referring to trade and jobs, not a civil war. The thing about Trump's lies is that they're usually so obvious. Nobody thinks Democrats want to kill babies.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

In past years there weren’t candidates who simply repeatedly told lies like Trump.

As I stated before. The problem with the "opponent can point out the lies" would devolve into Trump lying and his opponent spending all their time having to correct him and them never getting to actually respond to anything.

How about we get to a mainly truthful discussion. Otherwise the presidential debates would be nothing more than ECCIE political forum. The known liars stating plainly factually wrong things over and over and no real discourse on issues.

Most politicians are liars, and they lie during debates. The moderators in my high school debates never interrupted us to fact check.

You shouldn't complain about Trump and lying. You should glory in it. Unlike Kamala, he's a bad liar, very unbelievable, and it will hurt him come November, just as it did in 2020. And 2016 when he lost the popular vote and just won because of an electoral college fluke, a black swan event.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Most politicians are liars, and they lie during debates. The moderators in my high school debates never interrupted us to fact check.

You shouldn't complain about Trump and lying. You should glory in it. Unlike Kamala, he's a bad liar, very unbelievable, and it will hurt him come November, just as it did in 2020. And 2016 when he lost the popular vote and just won because of an electoral college fluke, a black swan event.

I have a feeling that your high school debates would never invite an inveterate liar like Trump to even speak or debate, or at least not after the first time he burned them. In fact my teachers and my parents impressed upon me the value of the truth. I’m not sure what happened to Trump but he seems irreparably broken.

The fact is that Trump and his campaign have broken the system. Before him real time fact checking was not as important as it is now. Large numbers of the electorate don’t want to watch a debate where one of the candidates gets to say or do anything they want without repercussions.

[yeahsurewhatev]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Well, how about Harris' claim that Trump said there's going to be a bloodbath if he loses? That's just as outrageous. Maybe it's not as "demonstrably untrue," but he clearly was referring to trade and jobs, not a civil war. The thing about Trump's lies is that they're usually so obvious. Nobody thinks Democrats want to kill babies.

I would agree that Harris probably took what Trump said out of context (I say 'probably' because you always have to do some work to make any sense out of what he's saying).

And my phrasing, "demonstrably untrue" is actually off base and ignores Trump's strategy: He comes up with all sorts of nonsense that can't be proven untrue because you can't prove a negative (the moderator did a wonderful job of countering with an affirmative--it's illegal everywhere). Same with immigrants eating pets. I would call both of those incredible. At the same time, I have no doubt there are people who believe them, some just because they come out of orange's mouth. You don't have to look too far for believers: in this thread you'll find a cartoon that makes the immigrants eating cats argument again. Yeah, the poster made sure to call it humor. I doubt it, but even if you buy that, it is making the argument again, so you get that out there.

This is the same tired playbook from voter fraud in 2020. Say it enough and you get some mileage out of it. Hope you noticed how the mods let pass the lie that all those cases were thrown out based on standing. No, they were found to be without merit.

[DEAR_JOHN]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Well, how about Harris' claim that Trump said there's going to be a bloodbath if he loses? That's just as outrageous. Maybe it's not as "demonstrably untrue," but he clearly was referring to trade and jobs, not a civil war. The thing about Trump's lies is that they're usually so obvious. Nobody thinks Democrats want to kill babies.

Somewhere out there on the internet is some goofball giving himself an IV thinking he's doing what he can to get rid of his ridiculous TDS and he reads Trump.............then he reads about 'bloodbath' and is too stupid to put it in context. Then in November he and the lying E9 Tampon Tim hold each other in the little boys room as they weap in each others arms.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

Somewhere out there on the internet is some goofball giving himself an IV thinking he's doing what he can to get rid of his ridiculous TDS and he reads Trump.............then he reads about 'bloodbath' and is too stupid to put it in context. Then in November he and the lying E9 Tampon Tim hold each other in the little boys room as they weap in each others arms.

Ingles por favor. Forrest Gump said it best... or was it Ron White?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...will-be-blood/

https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/16/polit...ion/index.html

[royamcr]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I disagree. The moderators control the debate, they do not comment on what is right or wrong with a respondent's comments. I have watched several presidential debates over many years and I can't remember the moderators challenging a respondent's answer in such a way, simply telling them, in this case Trump, that his comments were wrong. That is up to the opponent to point out. As you said, it would prolong the debate but I stand by my opinion, much as I love seeing Donald Trump being proven wrong.

Problem is trump's claims are so outlandish and off the wall someone debating wont have an answer for it. Like the pet eating bs, you think Harris would spend time preparing for an answer like that? This is how trump rolls come up with something so out in left field and make it sound true and the opponent can't respond to it.

[Rufus X. Sarsparilla]

Question: why wouldn't you want a candidate fact checked?

People eating cats and dogs. They can kill a baby up to 6 minutes after it is born. There was no inflation when I was president.

Sad part is many people believe EVERYTHING said by Donald Jesus Trump.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by royamcr

Problem is trump's claims are so outlandish and off the wall someone debating wont have an answer for it. Like the pet eating bs, you think Harris would spend time preparing for an answer like that? This is how trump rolls come up with something so out in left field and make it sound true and the opponent can't respond to it.

She wants to be the leader of the Free World and you don't expect her to have an answer for pet eating? WTF? What's going to happen when some tin pot third world dictator launches nukes at the USA? Is she going to freeze?

The 2018 law that bans dog eating in the USA specifically exempts Native Americans. And what party do most Native Americans belong to? And which political party carved out the exemption? You know the answers.

This is a real problem in America, especially with the huge influx of pet eating illegal immigrants, all of whom will become Democrats upon naturalization. Thank goodness Donald Trump's bringing this to the attention of the nation!

Seriously, Harris' best response would have been to burst out laughing. If there's another debate hopefully Trump will concentrate on issues like inflation, taxes and regulation, instead of dog eating. That's too much to ask though.