1 point
*

That vile bitch! “You were talking about the economy!” Let him say what the fuck he was talking about. Take off the baby gloves.

Nope. Won’t do it. He wins and your ratings go up.

No matter how tempting, if this asshole wins I will not click a single post or video passed around by Fox News.

permalink
report
reply
24 points

Eat a dick, cunt.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

well, cunts tend to do just that

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Vagina dentata that dick, cunt?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-13 points
Daily Beast - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Daily Beast:

MBFC: Left - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-demands-abc-be-shut-down-for-daring-to-fact-check-debate

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

permalink
report
reply
21 points

Shut HIM down. Lying sack of shit fully believes his own shit. That is strongly indicative of mental deviance enough to disqualify any politician

permalink
report
reply

Ah the ol’ George Costanza method.

“It’s not a lie… If you believe it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
68 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
-4 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

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 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”.

Trump is a huge fucking liar, and a Republican

He’s ForwardsFromGrandma tier racist. Even as lying goes, it comes across as weird and vulgar.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah trump didn’t make that shit up…but he’s a useful idiot who absolutely can be manipulated into letting it happen

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

a federal abortion ban as president, despite his statements denying support for these things

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

we know definitively that trump is tied to project 2025, so yeah she’s going to keep saying that.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 9.8K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 218K

    Comments