politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Conservatives are mad that "they only fact checked Trump", and yeah, there's some truth to that...
But they let him tell so many little lies unchallenged. They only fact checked him on the egregious stuff like "Haitians eat pets" and "post-birth abortions".
Harris may have said some half-truths or omitted context for a few things, but she never told a single non-truth comparable to the things Trump got fact checked for.
The worst actual post-debate criticism I've heard for Harris was that she continues to say that Trump will enact Project 2025 and a federal abortion ban as president, despite his statements denying support for these things. The thing is, Trump is a huge fucking liar, and a Republican, so yeah, she's right to keep saying what he will absolutely do as president, despite his lies to the contrary.
The problem with Harris is that she's a professional politician who knows how to skirt the line. So you can challenge her on a point and she can clarify it in her favor and then PoliticoFactCheck has to do a 500 word article getting to the nut of the issue (and they'll get called liars for their biased interpretation too).
But "Black people in Ohio are eating all your dogs" is much more straightforward and easier to debunk. Same with "infanticide is legal in California".
He's ForwardsFromGrandma tier racist. Even as lying goes, it comes across as weird and vulgar.
Didn't he also get like an extra 5-7 minutes of talk time? He would "answer" a question, Kamala would giver her rebuttal, then he would be like "wait a minute I need to respond to that" and they would let him.
Yeah, definitely a double standard on mic control. Any time he opened his mouth they turned his mic on, she tried once and they did a hard pass. Hell, even while they refuted his dog eating claims his mic was on talking over the moderator.
And that's because all of the media loves Trump. They have a bias, sure, but they know the crazy shit he says sells views/headlines and that's their business, informing the public is a byproduct.
I did think it was weird that the one time Harris wanted extra time to rebut, they denied her. At the same time, I don't think Trump really helped himself with all of his extra talking. Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake, and all that
That reminds me of the Obama/Romney debate
Her misstep is that she should have just started talking anyway. As silly as it seems there are people that would respect that more than her keeping quiet while a man talks - in some weird republican domination fantasy. Those that would be upset aren't her base anyway.
They did that on purpose. Harris originally suggested open mics but Trump pushed back. I'm guessing she told the moderators not to worry too much about letting him get in an unsanctioned response, knowing that if he's at the point where he's barging in and ignoring decorum, he's likely going to self-immolate on camera.
She wasn't wrong. She was concise enough to get almost every question answered, and baited Trump into humiliating himself. Some of the most damaging things he said were said during time he wasn't supposed to be speaking.
It's the perfect trap. Giving him extra time sabotages him, but he can't complain that getting extra time to speak was a trap, because, as you suggest, at face value, it was unfair to Harris.
It also potentially saved the debate from an early conclusion. Trump has walked out of interviews and debates in the past when they forced him to stop talking or move on.
They really played him well.
we know definitively that trump is tied to project 2025, so yeah she's going to keep saying that.
They straight up asked him the question, and he refused to answer it. So, she didn't tell a "half truth" - he literally refused to say he would veto a national ban when directly given the opportunity to do so.
As for project 2025, it's his playbook. Whether or not he will specifically call it that, doesn't change the fact it's how he wants to dismantle the federal government.
the guy fights dirty. fact checking prevents him from wasting his opponent's time. if an opponent had to counter all of his wacko statements they would never make progress. it would be some one-sided steamroller garbage. I hope they normalize the fact checking thing.
I think evidence points to the fact that while project 2025 may not be authored by Trump, it is probably something that would influence a trump presidency. kamala harris' statements about it were correct.
Yeah trump didn't make that shit up...but he's a useful idiot who absolutely can be manipulated into letting it happen
A bunch of the stuff he said cant entirely be disproven. Even the eating pets thing wasnt proof, it was the word of a local government official who republicans are likely not to trust.
I don't know there was more they can besides appeals to authority.
You're falling for their propaganda.
Republicans started this racist rumor about Haitians in Ohio.
The media talks to city officials and determines that these claims are unfounded.
Republicans claim that the city's response wasn't an outright denial, and suggest that this lends some amount of legitimacy that it might be happening.
But that's bullshit. Government PR (and pretty much every journalist) knows to never make statements of negative fact, because you cannot logically prove a negative. It's the same reason newspapers use "allegedly" to describe accused criminals: because future events could hypothetically change the truthfulness of the statement.
And that's all these claims will ever be: hypothetical. When all you have is a hypothesis, it is irresponsible to run away with it as if it were evidence of anything.
"Can't be disproven" is the default state of most social issues. That alone is equivalent to having zero evidence, and so repeating the completely baseless claims that Haitians might be eating pets, while technically true in a hypothetical sense, could be said about literally any group you want, because there will exist the same amount of evidence of it being true (none).
One can only conclude that anyone peddling this narrative solely wishes to spread racist ideas about Haitians.
I'm pointing out why its hard to disprove the stuff trump says, not defending them. You can't say dogs and cats aren't being eaten because you can't prove that, you can say that a reputable source said its not happening.
The debate is about the candidates, if they want to lie and make fools out of themselves they can. I do like that they were able to fact check the Springfield stuff because it sounds like the rumors are causing racism and violence. Hopefully the fact check helped a bit.
I'm willing to change my opinion though. What were some other things they could have fact checked but didnt?
It's not the job of the person disproving it to prove anything. It's the job of the person making the assertion and "Well, someone said it on TV!" isn't proof.