No ABC Did Not Engage In Election Interference In [Checks Notes] Fact Checking Donald Trump
from the fact-check:-this-is-all-stupid dept
In the bizarro world of MAGA politics, up is down, black is white, and apparently, fact-checking is now a form of election interference.
It is no secret that people across the political spectrum have a very warped view of what free speech or the First Amendment means. But I am particularly perplexed by the view of many lately (and this seems to run across the political spectrum, tragically) that fact checking is an attack on free speech and should be punished. It feels ridiculous to even bring this up, but fact checking is not just protected speech, it is the proverbial “more speech” that pretend defenders of the First Amendment always claim is the only possible answer to speech you disagree with.
Anyway, last week you might have heard there was a Presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump held on ABC. The CNN debate earlier this year between Trump and Biden included a vow from the moderators that they would do no fact-checking, which resulted in those moderators being roundly criticized.
On the other hand, ABC chose a few narrow points, when the lies were incredibly egregious, to provide simple fact-checks to blatantly false claims. I believe they responded just three times to make factual claims, even though the former President told an astounding number of blatant outright lies (not just exaggerations, but fully invented, made up bullshit).
This has set Republicans off on a ridiculous crusade, claiming that ABC was actively working with the Harris campaign to support it, which is not how any of this actually works. Then, Trump himself claimed that the debate was “rigged” (of course) and told Fox & Friends that (1) you “have to be licensed to” be a news organization and that (2) “they ought to take away their license for the way they did that” (i.e., fact-checked the debate).
Others in Trump’s circles claimed that the fact-checking was a form of “in-kind contribution” to the Harris campaign worth millions of dollars.
All of this is nonsense. First off, one of the complaints was that the moderators fact-checked Trump but didn’t fact-check Harris. There are a few responses to that, including that if you removed the three times they fact-checked Trump and compared things then, they still chose not to fact-check him on many, many more false claims and egregious lies. The second is that the fact-checking complaints around Harris are ones of leaving out context or having slight exaggerations. With Trump it was literal made-up nonsense, such as the false, bigoted claims about eating cats and dogs, or the idea that Democrats support killing babies after birth. Just out and out fearmongering bullshit.
But, again, fact-checking is free speech. The party that claims to be such a big believer in free speech should also support that.
However, even dumber is Trump’s false claim that ABC has to be licensed. That’s not how this works. It’s yet another false statement coming from the mind of a man who seems to only work in false statements. Individual affiliates can require licenses to obtain spectrum, but ABC itself is not something that needs licensing. You don’t need to be licensed to be a news organization.
Just ask Fox News.
Of course, we’ve been through this before with Trump, who has sued many news organizations he’s disliked (without much success) and has made this same bogus threat before. In 2017, he said that NBC should lose its (non-existent) license for reporting on former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson calling Trump a “moron.” A year later, he threatened to pull NBC’s (still non-existent) license over its reporting on Harvey Weinstein.
Earlier this year, he said both NBC and CNN should have their “licenses or whatever” taken away for not giving him free airtime by showing his victory speech following the Iowa caucuses.
All of this is ridiculous. It’s an attempt at intimidation. It’s an attempt to threaten and cajole news organizations to not speak, to not use their First Amendment rights, and to not fact check when the former President spews absolute fucking nonsense.
But, because MAGA world is making a big deal of this, even the FCC Chair, Jessica Rosenworcel, had to put out a statement on the very basics of the First Amendment:
“The FCC does not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.”
It is true that there are some very, very, very limited and narrow circumstances under which the FCC can pull a local affiliate’s spectrum license (not the larger network). However, not liking how fact-checking happens is not even in the same zip code as those.
Indeed, if MAGA world is getting into the business of pulling affiliate licenses, they might not like where things end up. There has been an ongoing effort to pull the license from a Fox affiliate in Philadelphia, based specifically on Fox News admitting that it broadcast false information about the 2020 election.
I don’t support such efforts, which likely violate the First Amendment. Even if it’s a closer call when you’re dealing with a network that has effectively admitted to deliberately spreading false information the company knew was false. But here, the call from Trump to remove the license is simply because of a fact check. It was because they told the truth, not because they lied.
When that effort to remove the Fox affiliate’s license came about, MAGA world was furious. Senator Ted Cruz went on a rant about how “the job of policing so-called ‘misinformation’ belongs to the American people—not the federal government” and complained about how “the left” “want the FCC to be a truth commission & censor political discourse—a prospect that is unconstitutional.”
Hey Ted, care to comment on the claims from last week?
I see no similar statement from him about Trump and the MAGA world now demanding the same thing (for much more ridiculous reasons). I combed through his ExTwitter feed and surprisingly (well, not really) he seems to have no issue with his side calling to pull licenses. How typically hypocritical.
Tragically, this has become the modern Republican Party. They are total hypocrites on free speech. When they want to protect their own speech, they wrap themselves up in the cape of the First Amendment, but when someone who disagrees with them speaks up to contradict them with facts, they’re happy to push for censorship and punishment over speech.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, debate, donald trump, fact checking, fcc, free speech, kamala harris, ted cruz
Companies: abc
Comments on “No ABC Did Not Engage In Election Interference In [Checks Notes] Fact Checking Donald Trump”
consequences
If you dont like being fact checked dont lie so much.
What's this?
Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
This site is a DNC propaganda outlet that supports political violence against opposition candidates.
Re:
Yes or no.
Has trump and Republicans called for using their 2nd amendment rights?
Has Trump called for using the military against his political opponents?
Has Trump and Republicans referred to democrats as enemies?
Have both trump shooters been white male republican gun lovers?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
There’s only one party and its supporters that are literally trying to kill the opposition: The Democrats.
Re: Re: Re:
no anyone in both partys can do this
Re: Re: Re:
answer the questions
Re: Re: Re:
Last I checked both assassination attempts were by registered maga voters
Re: Re: Re:2
Evidently, you didn’t check very well.
The first shooter was a registered Republican, but also leaned left.
The second shooter is a registered independent voter.
Re: Re: Re:3
Who voted for Trump in 2016. Your point?
Re: Re: Re:
One of the side effects of huffing too much copium is massive projection.
Re: Re: Re:
Not since the early ’60s.
Re: Re: Re:
Literally doesn’t mean what you think it does since you’re literally lying.
Re:
Hey buddy hey. Pace yourself. You’ve got a long four to eight years of coping and seething ahead of you.
Re:
Your every accusation, a confession
Re: Re:
Takes one to know one, I guess. After all, the presenter on that YouTube vid also loves to throw around ableist language, just like you.
A republican is a bully that wants to be able to call a kid the n word and say they deserve to be raped and purged that then cry foul when they are called a nazi pedo.
Republicans are all just pathetic bullies.
Re:
That’s a mighty broad brush you’re using, kiddo.
Might ask the Republicans for Harris what they think.
Re: Re: Let's make the brush broader
During the Reagan era Republicans were pretty consistent about building more prisons, prosecuting drug users, attacking immigrants, killing unions and gutting social safety nets.
You know, normal Republican stuff.
The Republican intelligentsia at the time knew that these polices would lead back to where things were in the 1930s, with industrialists thinking the Austrian fellow had some good ideas, blaming the great depression on the failure of Americans to work hard enough. The working class was living in cardboard houses, surviving on flour paste and wandering what that Lenin fellow was up to.
So no. To Hell with the lot of you, since as soon as we pull back from the precipice of one-party authoritarianism you’ll be back at it with the same anti-union, anti-welfare, anti-plurality, anti-secular policy set, and that rail-line leads right back here to the precipice of one-party autocracy, or as Representative Jamie Raskin called it, Neo-monarchism
We’ve been on these tracks a long time with no brakes. We’re now coming up on the final destination of a one party autocracy propped up by a fascist enemy within narrative featuring mass arrests and purges, eventually into mass graves or just ash in the wind.
You guys are absolutely the same Republicans as the MAGAs. You just don’t like what you see now that we’re only a few miles from the end result, rather than a few hundred.
It’s time to recognize that Republicanism doesn’t work and ditch the identity the way a Schutzstaffel officer ditches his uniform while on the lam in Argentina. It’s time to recognize that the working class needs to be treated like human beings, and not disposable / replaceable parts in your billionare-vanity-project industrial machine.
It’s long been time to stop being GOP the way it’s long been time to stop being NSDAP.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Democrats have twice tried unsuccessfully to kill former President Trump.
Re: Re: Re:2
We look forward to you posting evidence of any connection to “Democrats”.
Re: Re: Re:2
…hallucinated nobody mentally competent, ever.
Re: Re: Re:2
No, one guy shot his ear, and the other was discovered hiding in bushes on the golf course where Trump was playing a round, did not fire a shot, and was later found to be in possession of a fully automatic rifle in his vehicle. One has to wonder if either of these were genuine assassination attempts, or attempts to turn Trump into a living martyr, because so far, the latter is proving way more successful than the former.
Re: Re: Re:3
And for the record, Trump was informed in the past that his golf course had those kinds of security holes. Photographers and reporters used them all the time to get footage of him playing golf. His response to this news was to effectively say “fuck it, we ball”. I’m not saying Trump deserved to get shot by someone exploiting that security hole. But I am saying he could’ve done something about those holes and he chose to do nothing—possibly because of his own vanity.
Re: Re: Re:4
Thereby enabling the scenario envisioned by AC (said enablement does not necessarily imply conspiracy, just before anyone jumps on this comment).
Re: Re: Re:5
I get why you added the disclaimer you put in parentheses. The amount of times I’ve seen Toom, James Burkhardt, et al. engaging in hasty generalizations, linking A directly to T to argue against something that was never actually said, like so.
Re: Re: Re:2
Neither were democrats, so I’m unclear on where you think your lie is going to go.
Re: Re: Re:2 Jumping to conclusions
Crooks (the first would-be assassin) was from a Republican household and in the after-incident investigation, records of Crooks’ internet activity showed he had been researching opportunities to shoot at either Biden or Trump. (Biden would announce his withdrawal from the election seven days later. Harris was not yet a candidate.)
But it’s typical of rampage killers to simply look for any venue where they can cause sufficient havoc, and while investigations of Crooks sought to paint a more sophisticated picture, he appears to fall into exactly that category: a young man like many in the United States, on the edge of despair and hopelessness, looking for a way to express his outrage and unlife.
And despite extensive searches for a terror operative to point him in a specific direction (say your imaginary Democrat subversive looking to throw assassins Trump’s way) not a single contact has been found. Crooks might have been thrilled for some guidance, nefarious or otherwise, but none was had.
Regarding Ryan Wesley Routh (The prime suspect of the incident at the Trump International Golf Club), as of this comment, Routh is charged with possessing an illegal firearm (he’s a felon ex-con, otherwise the firearm would be legal) and possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number. He has a public defender. His phone (because of course he took his phone) shows that he’d been camping at that site for twelve hours.
Rough brought his own cell phone. No Agent 47, this man.
The Secret Service made a statement that at no point was Trump ever in line-of-sight with Routh, and considering the rifle in question, Trump would have to cross at least half way across the golf course to be in effective range (that is assuming Routh wanted to shoot at Trump and not miss). Once again, it appears to be a rifle of convenience. Billy Summers knew to get a specific rifle for the job and to check it thoroughly. (And thanks to Stephen King, now, so do we.)
We do not yet have any information as to Routh’s motivations.
If a super-delegate from the DNC wanted to kill Trump they wouldn’t send someone like Routh or Crooks, they’d send someone who actually knew how to shoot, or better yet, find a way to poison his toothpaste or blow up his car. A Billy Summers or Agent 47.
But then, principals in the party would totally know better than to shoot at Trump, who has been cultivated by several ministries involved with the white Christian nationalist movement to make Trump a prophet. If Trump dies by accident (say a coronary embolism after a hearty fried chicken dinner) then there is a risk he’d become a martyr figure. And if he were killed by an assassin — even if committed by a known Republican or a manic rampage killer — then Trump might rule the United States from beyond the grave like Kim Il Sung.
It’s why I’m terrified one of these crackpots might actually succeed.
No, the safest way to dispose of Trump for sake of the Democratic party and the US Public is to beat him resoundingly in the election, stave off any coup d’etat effort he might launch (because he almost assuredly will try, both procedural and violent) and then convict him of the crimes for which we have substantial evidence, and imprison him or confine him to house arrest until dementia sets in. That’ll give his MAGA fanatics time to come to terms that time conquers even god-emperors, that Trump, like King Cnut cannot command the elements, or the relentless march of time.
That said, there’s a good case that Trump’s own shadowy masters (whether US Oligarchs or Russian) might find more use in a dead prophet than a live tyrant. We know of thirty-nine attempts on Hitler, and most were from within his own party.
Re: Re:
Hate to break it to you but that’s not the counter you might think it is.
Sure it’s nice that they’re willing to go against the party’s Dear Leader and advocate for his political opponent but the fact that they’re still self-identifying as republicans tells me that they still agree with a majority of the party’s stances, words and actions, and while convicted felon Trump is a terrible person and a worse political candidate he would ultimately be a paper tiger if the republican party didn’t agree with what he says and does almost every bloody time.
Re: Re: Re:
FYI, Routh (the second would-be assassin) self-identifies as Independent, not Republican. DYFR, FFS.
It’s like the MAGAs think the 1st amendment gives them the right to lie, and that “talking back” is illegal.
And Ted Cruz .. the job of policing misinformation belongs to the American people not the federal government.
.. wtf
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Of course they did
Not in any legal way, but it was flagrantly dishonest just the same. And democrats have shown perfectly willing to use the executive apparatus to come people who disagree with them. Cruz is just mirroring democrat’s tactics.
The moderators “fact checked” Trump several times when what he was said was TRUE (including the abortion thing, he was giving a direct Northam quote) and declined to correct Harris even when she told several whoppers that are absolutely proven untrue (“bloodbath”, “the fine people both sides” hoax, and worst of all the idea that we have no troops in war zones, some have died due to enemy fire quite recently in fact)
I’d argue Harris lied much more often and certainly far more egregiously than Trump did…but you’re just too much of a partisan hack to realize that. In any case, Cruz is just copying the same statist bullying Garland regularly supports.
Re:
get this troll out of here
Re:
That was not a “direct quote”. It wasn’t a direct quote when Trump made the claim in February, and it was not a direct quote at the debate. You have to not just chop up what was said, but introduce words to get the “quote”. It is, in the light most favorable to your argument, a paraphrase of the Governor said. I argue that its much worse, as its a paraphrase of the argument the GOP claims was implied by what was actually said. Unless of course you want to claim a DNR is ‘executing babies’.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
It was a direct quote then, now, the whole time.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/31/politics/ralph-northam-third-trimester-abortion/index.html
Re: Re: Re:
Matty Bratty as usual take things out of context while adding his context not based in factual reality, just like every populist asshole he’s trying to emulate.
Why did you cut the quote short, huh? Didn’t it fit your drug-induced fantasies?
Let see the whole quote and see if it says what it really says:
Third trimester abortions are done in cases where there may be severe deformities. There may be a fetus that’s nonviable. So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired. And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.
See that, “So in this particular example”, the part you left out because it shows what a big liar you are when you make your dishonest arguments. It’s so fucking obvious what a liar you are.
TL;DR: You are fucking big fat stupid liar who think he’s some kind of “genius” while transparently gaslighting people. Loser..
Re:
When I think of “fine people”, I don’t think of people who marched alongside Nazis and white nationalists in support of honoring the Confederacy. By the way, have you ever heard the saying about ten people and a Nazi sitting at a table?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Except that he did not say that. Even Snopes (a very far left “fact checker”) had to admit that.
You are lying, Harris was lying, and it’s despicable.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
Re: Re: Re:
So if we take your claim as true, that Harris is “despicable” for lying, then are you conceding that Tump is also despicable of the multitude of lies he told? Or do you have no problem with the lies told by ya boy?
Re: Re: Re:
From snopes (please do read things you link to, it actually gives additional context):
Trump did say “very fine people on both sides” but he also said he wasn’t talking about nazis or white supremacists. The problem is that one of the sides (the one who organized the rally) were nazis and white supremacists, ie as snopes remarked in the above quote; Trump’s characterization was wrong.
So I have to ask, given Trump’s ramblings, what are people to believe? We can for example use your type of reasoning which means Trump must be Hitler reincarnated (you know, take a little thing out of context and build whole floating castle out of it), or we can see Trump making shit up on the spot because he hasn’t bothered informing himself which makes him look like someone who supports nazis and white supremacists.
Given your track record here, every time you say someone is lying the chances of that being true is infinitesimal. Especially considering that you think someone’s opinion is them lying which marks you as a particularly stupid individual.
Re: Re: Re:
Actually, when Trump said that there were “very fine people on both sides,” he said that everyone there were very fine people, including neo-Nazis and white supremacists.
Re: Re: Re:2
No, he wasn’t, and I’m actually going to give that asshole a little credit this time. As Snopes correctly reported, Trump condemned the Nazis and white supremacists during that bit. When he said “very fine people on both sides”, he was likely referring to people who (A) didn’t align themselves with the Nazis and (B) didn’t partake in any actual violence.
The problem with his statement, then, lies in how the sides weren’t the same. As Snopes again correctly reported, Trump mentioned that one side was marching in support of a statue honoring the Confederacy. In case anyone skipped history class, the Confederacy seceded from and fought a losing war with the U.S. in an attempt to keep alive the institution of slavery. (Every one of its founders and its founding documents said as much.) In saying “there were very fine people on both sides”, Trump was equating people protesting against racial hatred with people protesting in favor of commemorating a nation state founded to keep race-based slavery alive.
That Trump didn’t forcefully condemn the Nazis and white supremacists on that day was a problem. But the few people who supported keeping the statue up and weren’t Nazis or white supremacists willingly marched with those groups in common cause. Trump implying that their cause was righteous by painting them as “very fine people” was a much bigger problem for him.
Re:
“ I’d argue Harris lied much more often and certainly far more egregiously than Trump did…”
No one’s ever accused you of winning an argument though.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
what a worthless comment.
Re: Re: Re:
Dam son that one cut real deep.
Notably bro you didn’t deny the obvious truth of the comment…
Re: Re: Re:
That’s true of every comment you make, but it doesn’t stop you from chiming in and embarrassing yourself day after day.
Re:
Reality is, as always, on the opposite side as Batty Matty’s delusional hallucinations:
https://www.techdirt.com/2019/01/18/splinters-our-discontent-review-network-propaganda/
Re:
Northam was talking about palliative care for babies born with severe deformities that would make it impossible for them to survive. He was talking about women who carried a pregnancy almost to term who wanted the baby but intervention became necessary because the baby wasn’t going to survive and it would be cruel to force a baby to live in agony with a half-developed brain extra days just because some jackhole decided it was “pro-life” to let babies suffer needlessly.
Anyone pretending Northam was saying anyone can just get an abortion for any reason randomly at 9 months is either (or both) ignorant or disingenuous.
Re: Re:
Anyone pretending Northam was saying anyone can just get an abortion for any reason randomly at 9 months is either (or both) ignorant or disingenuous.
They’re easily duped, and at this point, they have to keep being suckers to try and ‘save face’ (among the other suckers – we already knew how far gone they were when we stopped inviting them over for the holidays).
Just ask the dipshits who ‘built the wall’ that are still complaining about needing to have it built.
The same ones convinced that such a successful businessman needs their money, or makes the best tacky sneakers.
The same ones who view Trump as a ‘strong and powerful’ leader who just coincidentally is always being outwitted by a bunch of ‘libtards’ or the ‘best people’ that he hired.
They’ve convinced themselves that a woman would get pregnant, go through 9 months of all the pleasantries pregnancy includes (morning sickness, weight gain, the physical toll on their body, and the pain involved in pushing a watermelon thing out of a lemon-sized hole), only to decide ‘nope, I changed my mind’ at either the time of birth or ‘after birth’ (coincidentally one of the things that Trump got bitch-slapped by ABC for). The whole premise is an insult to peoples’ intelligence.
And I bet that if they actually respond to a challenge to produce a woman who actually went through this thought process, it’d be as easy to find as Trump’s tax returns (which are presumably still under eternal ‘audit’)
Re:
You can technically argue anything you like, but you’ll still be lying.
Which is pretty much all you do, so no big surprise there.
Re:
False.
The first two things are actually both true statements, just lacking in context. As for the third, if there are any, I’m unaware of them. We don’t have any in Gaza, Israel, Ukraine, or Russia.
They also did fact-check one of Harris’s statements.
She did not. She lied less and far less egregiously.
Says the partisan hack.
[citation needed]
If you don't like being fact checked then don't lie, it's not hard for some people
The sheer hypocritical self-entitlement would truly put a tantrum-throwing toddler to shame.
‘I have a right to lie to your face, even when it gets bomb threats to schools called in by my rabid and deranged cultists but how dare you think you can use your speech to tell me and/or other people that I’m lying?!’
Another stellar reminder that when the GOP say they support free speech what they actually mean is consequence-free speech, and only for them.
Well, remove the right for all people to check what the First Amendment is about, and then nobody would complain that anything would violate this Amendment.
It’s so simple I don’t understand why any Republican hasn’t thought of it. Or maybe they want that nobody could check they did.
Anyone who willfully and repeatedly uses “the truth” is guilty of interfering with Donald Trump’s reelection chances.
And we should all be cheering it on.
The Overton Window in action
Trump lies in nearly every sentence he speaks — and that’s being generous, since much of what comes out his mount is incoherent deranged gibberish that bears little relation to cogent speech. But because the media has let him do this for most of a decade, NOW when they finally, belatedly, barely calling him on it, Republicans are calling for their fainting couches.
Free clue: Trump is a psychotic moron. His brain is tapioca and the only thought that courses through it with any consistency is “ME ME ME”. He is incapable of uttering a cohesive paragraph even when it’s written out in front of him (unsurprising; we all know he’s illiterate) and he fabricates random bullshit based on what he thinks will rally the deplorables at any given moment. He lies like he breathes; it’s easy for him because he has absolutely on conscience whatsoever.
I suspect that a lot of his submissive, crawling followers know this, but are too embarrassed to admit it publicly. They just can’t bring themselves to confess how stupid and wrong they’ve been, so they’re doubling down…just like the “leadership” of the Republican party, which has pretty much lined up to kneel before Trump and service him on command. It’s a parade of weakness and cowardice as they subjugate themselves to (as Mencken put it) a first-class moron.
Re:
A fun – and telling – thing to do would have been to hand Trump and Harris the front page of that day’s New York Times and ask them to read one of the stories aloud. Harris, of course is superbly educated and highly literate; Trump can’t even read his own cue cards, which is why the President’s daily briefing had to be reduced to cartoons.
Re:
What an infant–you want/need/care about a Presidential candidate reading aloud to you!!
consequences
If you dont like being fact checked dont lie so much.
I mean, are we sure it wasn’t alternative facts he was using? During the 45th presidency, that is what they used to prove their reasoning for everything. Alternat facts are very real, Its Unreal that you can’t grasp that!
But but but they have an affidavit from an insider who claims all the things were rigged and fixed.
But some people are noticing the notary stamp isn’t right for NY.
But her sorority freind works there!!
But they demanded better camera angles!!!
But they gave her the questions!!!
Well maybe not, but they agreed to not ask about these things!!
Or they didn’t because those things aren’t actually relevant to the office!!
The whistleblower mysteriously died!!!
Evidence?
The whistlerblower did not die, but I will leave my tweet up anyways.
Uhh huh…
We’re gonna drag ABC into hearings and get to the bottom of this terrible injustice to trump all based on some claims made by someone we can’t even decide if they worked at ABC during that time.
Re: Hmmm?
Sorry , ive no idea what you’re refering to and theres nothing specifc and thus googleable in your post. It sounds fun though. Link?
Re: Re:
Either that, or give us a hit of whatever he’s smokin’…
Re: Re:
The cult is running with the story that there is a whistleblower proving all of the claims against ABC and so much more.
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, the account “black insurrectionist” on exTwitter (?) that posted the “notarized affidavit” from an ABC employee. The same account that essentially told people to fuck off when they asked why there was not notarization stamp on the affidavit and generally acted as an asshole towards anyone who questioned the veracity of the supposed affidavit.
Of course the cult believes whatever some anonymous account on the internet drops, as long as it fits their echo chamber.
Long ago, far away, I had to remind a few people.
Once God gave every person, ‘CHOICE’. He Abdicated most of his power over mankind.
How can you pick a side when Both are true or false? Or that You gave them the Choice to be Right or Wrong, Even on Purpose.
The real problem we have is Mankind’s Obsession, And the 1st amendment Does NOT say the person has to be Right/Wrong or Blatantly Lying to be Censored.
IT WOULD BE NICE, if persons were REQUIRED to show abit of logic or truth to THEIR COMMENTS.
I still cant see the logic of 2 groups, with 30% of the Voting Public, has the Power to Select WHO THEY want to run for Offices in our Country. Mostly cause they have ALL the money. They created an instance that the Costs to advert yourself is HUGE, Artificially, so Few can compete with all the adverts they can create.
It never ceases to amaze me how adverse to being challenged the right is these days. If they are not free to say whatever they want completely unchallenged they immediately go into victim mode. They claim any challange to them is an assault on them. They are such snowflakes they meltdown immediately upon any push back. It’s childish and they should be treated as children.
Dillution
As usual they give away their next move by what they accuse others of. In this case trying to dilute the term ‘election interference’ before they are rightfully accused of it.
I keep wondering when someone is going to ask Trump if he’s had his daily Hydrogen Peroxide and Ammonia Bleach cocktail yet?
Trump comes off as so crazy here because of how crazy his party / campaign are. Now, the snowflake is trying to blame ABC for pointing out a few crazy claims (when he was making up insane bullshit) were false in the mildest of ways.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BrCvZmSnKA
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I think it’s interference for sure. Any Presidential debate should be done fairly and called down the middle and that’s just not what we saw. The fact checking didn’t exist for Harris, such as when she made the claim about the US troops in war zones. They also let Kamala use a notepad with notes even though they said it was against the rules. I just don’t see how that’s not election interference, but at least we know now why Kamala only really talks to ABC
Re:
Harris didn’t lie her ass off like Trump did (and has always done). When someone doesn’t lie as easily as they breathe, they don’t need constant fact-checking.
Re: Re:
I’m only going to reply to that last sentence specifically because I think that’s a dangerous mindset to have. You should always be skeptical of what anyone says, regardless of how often they are lying or truthful; at least with a known liar you’re ready for it, but even an honest man isn’t always right.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not decrying fact-checking in general. Politicians lie and exaggerate because that’s what they do. The press should obviously fact-check any and all politicians that lie. But Harris didn’t need to be fact-checked equally as much as Trump because Trump told far more lies than she did. I didn’t hear about Harris repeating debunked racist rumors about Haitian immigrants, after all.
Re: Re: Re:2 LEAGL Immigrants
“I didn’t hear about Harris repeating debunked racist rumors about Haitian immigrants, after all.”
Worse, they’re legal immigrants. Here after going the the legal immigration process, with legal documents and visas. You know, there immigrants that supposedly conservatives have no problems with…
And yet they’re being attacked and people are being told that the reason that their lot in life is suffering is because of them.
Straight out of the autocratic strongman playbook.
Re: Re: Re:3
Hmm, I’m sure there’s some sort of explanation as to why they’re demonizing those particular legal immigrants like that, but I can’t qwhite put my finger on what it might be…
Re:
A Defense Department spokesperson told PolitiFact that the U.S. is neither engaged in a war, nor has service members fighting in active war zones anywhere in the world.
“An aspect of military service includes serving in locations where hostile actions may occur,” the Defense Department official said in a statement to PolitiFact. “Those locations are designated by executive order and/or the Secretary of Defense. However, it’s important to note that just because a service member is in one of these locations does not mean they are engaged in war.”
Source: WUSF
Judgement: Harris statement was technically true, but it left out a lot of context.
Candidates aren’t allowed to take prewritten notes or props on stage, and they won’t receive topics or questions in advance.
Source: CBS News
Judgement: She was allowed to take notes during the debate, just like Trump. Side-note here: Have anyone seen Trump personally take notes, like ever???
Because your entire argument is based on not actually looking the facts up, it makes it convenient for you to make an argument that seems reasonable but it isn’t based on the actual facts.
Judgement: Your “I think it’s interference for sure” statement is based on emotional belief instead of actual facts.
Care to make some more remarks about what Harris said or did that you think was wrong??
Re:
You do know that they had agreed that fact-checking would be done at the debate, right?
That just means she lied less egregiously, to the extent she had lied at all. Many of Trump’s lies weren’t fact-checked either.
It’s a true statement, so it’s not a lie. It may be missing some context, but “missing context” is not as egregious as “patently false by any sane metric”.
No, they said that pre-written notes couldn’t be brought in. The notepad was blank before, and Kamala was allowed to take notes during the debate.
It happens across the political spectrum that people get mad about fact checking, huh? Can I have an example of a lot of leftist or liberal people saying a fact check is a conspiracy theory? Doubt it exists. Even Techdirt cant help but “both sides” this. It’s a stupid statement. I am left, and you know what I see? Commentators saying the JD couch thing is fake, but funny. Sounds really salty about being fact checked, right? Or maybe one-sided situations exist and this is one of them.
Re:
I think it’s naïve to believe that one part of the political spectrum doesn’t have any snowflakes who can’t stand criticism and fact checking.
There exists people all over the political spectrum who can’t take being fact checked or being criticized since it’s not really a “both sides are bad” argument, it’s a “thin-skinned people exists everywhere” argument although it seems that at present almost everyone of those exist on the right but don’t make the mistake to believe there doesn’t exists such people on the left.
The Irony of Free Speech
It’s ironic how certain political factions push for free speech when it suits their agenda, yet call for censorship when faced with inconvenient truths. This ongoing debate about fact-checking as “election interference” is just another example of that.