Harris - Trump Debate (2 Viewers)

[Optimus Prime]

I'm sure polls won't change no matter what happens but I am hoping that Kamala absolutely destroys Trump with a healthy helping of petty bait designed to make him lose his mind and goad him into saying something unfortunate

I've said this before but I hope there is some fact checking thins time and Trump isn't allowed to rant about after birth abortions, immigrants eating cats, and lunchtime sex change operations for 3rd graders

 

[Lapaz]

A good way to counter the “it was the moderators” BS.

Smerconich and his guest, Mark Halperin, complained that the moderators didn't correct Harris, but none of her statements were blatant lies. Saying babies are killed after birth and immigrants are eating people's pets are so outrageous that they had to be corrected. Halperin claimed that she lied about his good people on both sides about Charlottesville and Project 2025 support, but those are debatable and largely true. On the other hand, Trump's lies were outrageous, and most of his lies weren't corrected.

Trump:
According to the NYP, he was corrected on 5 things: killing babies, crime soaring, eating pets, conceding election, and Harris meeting with Putin before Ukraine war.

Killing babies and eating pets are so extreme, that nothing more needs to be said.

Regarding crime soaring, the objective evidence is that violent crime has been declining. There has been some increase in property crimes, but that's not what most people are worked up about. Trump has been talking about immigrants killing people, so he was implying that violent crime has been increasing, and that's a blatant lie. His contention that some cities weren't included is also a blatant lie.

Regarding conceding elections, Trump claimed it was sarcasm, but they didn't actually correct him. They just asked him if he has changed his mind, and then said they didn't detect the sarcasm.

Regarding Harris meeting Putin, they didn't correct him. They asked Harris whether it was true, and she claimed it was a lie, so she corrected him, not the moderators, so I think they really only corrected him 3 times out of his 30 or so lies.

Harris:
They claim that Harris should've been corrected on the following 4 things: no active duty in combat zones, Project 2025, very fine people, and national abortion ban.

They quibble with the active duty in combat because we have troops in Iraq and Syria helping fight terrorists. I don't think fighting terrorists is considered an active combat zone, because terrorists operate all over the world, so that would imply all of us are in a combat zone. I don't think that is a lie.

Regarding Project 2025, Trump is disavowing Project 2025, but he previously said it would lay out a blueprint for his administration. Trump hasn't disavowed specific plans in Project 2025, except perhaps the national abortion ban.


Regarding the very fine people comment, it was obviously a way to avoid upsetting his racist supporters. It's definitely not a blatant lie. He said it in a context that lent itself to that interpretation. If he didn't mean that, he should've said he said the proud boys and other racist are not very fine people.

Regarding the national abortion ban, it is not an obvious lie as long as his supporters have the Comstock Act at their disposal, which could effectively ban abortions nationwide. Nevertheless, Harris didn't bring up the Comstock Act, so I agree that that should've been corrected. It might've helped her to expand on the issue.

Trump was fact-checked by ABC moderators 5 times during debate — while Harris was left alone

Former President Donald Trump was fact-checked at least five times by moderators during his presidential debate showdown against Vice President Kamala Harris Tuesday night — all while his Dem…

nypost.com

 

[Optimus Prime]

Perhaps the most telling moment of last night’s debate was when former President Donald Trump, desperate for a compelling attack line against Vice President Kamala Harris, repeated the right-wing canard that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are stealing and eating people’s pets.

“They’re eating the dogs. The people that came in, they’re eating the cats,” Trump shouted into the microphone. “They’re eating the pets of the people that live there, and this is what’s happening in our country, and it’s a shame.”

A moderator, ABC News’s David Muir, quickly noted that the city manager has said that the story is baseless.

A diminished Trump replied, “Well, I’ve seen people on television. People on television say, ‘My dog was taken and used for food.’” This was a tremendously revealing response about how Trump’s brain works—and by extension the minds of his Fox News–captured supporters, who will simply believe anything they are told, no matter how outrageous or false, as long as it aligns with their preexisting prejudices.

Trump felt so wounded by the exchange that he went on Fox News this morning to demand that ABC News be “shut down” for fact-checking him, a reminder that Trump does not believe that Americans should have the legal right to criticize him.

This falsehood, directed at a community that has done nothing wrong besides being from a different place than the surrounding residents, shows how much the Trump campaign’s strategy hinges on polluting the information environment with lies about vulnerable groups that Republicans want to blame for the country’s problems.

But for all their dishonest catastrophizing about immigrants, Republicans offer no solutions, only boundless cruelty toward scapegoats. Fact-checked in real time, Trump could provide no evidence for his smear other than that, like a small child, he believes everything he sees on TV..............

MSN

Gullible Mr. Trump

The former president will believe anything—even wild rumors about immigrants killing and eating pets—as long as it’s cruel, politically expedient, and on TV.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Heathen]

I couldn't disagree more, I think there is still value in at least conducting oneself in a "presidential" manner and the contrast between the 2 with anyone that is not brainwashed (in the Trump cult) or a racist idiot couldn't be clearer.....

Sure there’s value. That’s not my argument. I’m saying that a lot of misinformed people take loud and aggressive to mean strong leader. It’s just a cultural thing.

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

The hypocrite mention sure fits though, like a glove.....

So says you.

 

[LA - L.A.]

It's not just SFIDC3 saying it.

 

[bird]

We need a lot more "working together" and a lot less "being in charge" from everyone in society at every level of society.

No argument from this corner.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

And look at that big arse smile at the end. She knew she had him already.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I wonder if Rupert Murdoch had any input on that.

Wrong company. You mean Jeff Bezos?

 

[Nebaghead]

Wrong company. You mean Jeff Bezos?

Bezos owns the Wash Po.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Bezos owns the Wash Po.

I SAW POST DAMMIT!!!
(maybe I didn't... I'll see my way out...)

 

[First Time Poster]

Regarding the very fine people comment, it was obviously a way to avoid upsetting his racist supporters. It's definitely not a blatant lie. He said it in a context that lent itself to that interpretation. If he didn't mean that, he should've said he said the proud boys and other racist are not very fine people.

Regarding Charlottesville, this really needs to be put to bed. It isn't even semantics at this point, it's gaslighting. He doesn't need to qualify whom in the crowd of supporters of Unite the Right weren't the fine people because every last soul who was there to support that rally was a racist piece of shirt. Full stop.

If you get a flyer to attend a rally called Save the Clock Tower and when you show up you see among the rallygoers persons in Klan garb, flying Swastikas, disparaging Jews with anti-semitism and you STAY and PARTICIPATE your support for white supremacy and racism isn't even tacit, it's overt.

As soon as he inferred there were good people "on both sides," he sealed his full throated support for racists. One side had people opposing racists, the other side had racists. No amount of qualifying will ever change that. I don't even feel the need to go down the rabbit hole of arguing that if you want to oppose the removal of Confederate iconography that you are racists because even the persons who only attended for that and not the white nationalism should have left as soon as they saw grand dragons of the Klan and cosplaying Nazis and skinheads front and center.

All these years later and I'm just annoyed with the purposeful obtuseness about that situation. It's not complicated.

 

[DaveXA]

Regarding Charlottesville, this really needs to be put to bed. It isn't even semantics at this point, it's gaslighting. He doesn't need to qualify whom in the crowd of supporters of Unite the Right weren't the fine people because every last soul who was there to support that rally was a racist piece of shirt. Full stop.

If you get a flyer to attend a rally called Save the Clock Tower and when you show up you see among the rallygoers persons in Klan garb, flying Swastikas, disparaging Jews with anti-semitism and you STAY and PARTICIPATE your support for white supremacy and racism isn't even tacit, it's overt.

As soon as he inferred there were good people "on both sides," he sealed his full throated support for racists. One side had people opposing racists, the other side had racists. No amount of qualifying will ever change that. I don't even feel the need to go down the rabbit hole of arguing that if you want to oppose the removal of Confederate iconography that you are racists because even the persons who only attended for that and not the white nationalism should have left as soon as they saw grand dragons of the Klan and cosplaying Nazis and skinheads front and center.

All these years later and I'm just annoyed with the purposeful obtuseness about that situation. It's not complicated.

No question. Not exactly the same, but similar sentiments about the Jan 6 attack on the Capitol. Anyone there, seeing the violence happening and staying and participating, you're absolutely condoning what was happening and a piece of sheet. There's no excusing, no "well I didn't really agree with that" excuse. I don't buy it there, and I don't buy that "well there were some nice people" at Charlottesville.

Great post. Agree 100%.

 

[MT15]

These are the fact checks that MAGA is complaining were so unfair:

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So says you.

No, Steve. So says you. You were going to abstain from voting for president because you believe Trump is unfit for the office. When Biden had a bad debate, suddenly you had to vote for Trump to keep an unfit Biden from the White House. Now that Biden is out and a very capable Kamala Harris is in, you are back to abstaining. You're a hypocrite.

 

[DaveXA]

No, Steve. So says you. You were going to abstain from voting for president because you believe Trump is unfit for the office. When Biden had a bad debate, suddenly you had to vote for Trump to keep an unfit Biden from the White House. Now that Biden is out and a very capable Kamala Harris is in, you are back to abstaining. You're a hypocrite.

I have to disagree. I don't agree a lot with Steve, but he's been consistent here. He said he wouldn't vote for Trump for the reasons he stated. Then said because of Biden's debate, which by nearly all accounts was terrible, he had to vote against Biden, then when Biden stepped down, he's back to not voting for Trump. Sometimes you gotta take what you can. Him not voting for Trump is better than him voting for Trump. I'm not happy he's not voting against Trump, but at least he's not voting for him.

Now, if he changes his mind and votes for Trump, I'll definitely consider that hypocrisy.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

No, Steve. So says you. You were going to abstain from voting for president because you believe Trump is unfit for the office. When Biden had a bad debate, suddenly you had to vote for Trump to keep an unfit Biden from the White House. Now that Biden is out and a very capable Kamala Harris is in, you are back to abstaining. You're a hypocrite.

 

[samiam5211]

The fact that we’re seeing folks like Laura Loomer in DJTs inner circle now tells me he’s done. Unless those people get purged immediately, Trump will have no chance.

It’s the same problem Biden had. His worst problems are only going to get worse between now and Election Day.

 

[wardorican]

The true believers are nuts. Now I'm seeing a thing floating around that Kamala's pearl earrings were really a bluetooth ear phone, so she had an 'earpiece'. The one they show looks a bit different and was from a failed kickstarter that never delivered products.