Abc’s Muir needs to make a public apology

[riclag]

Fact checking gone viral imop:

 

“Violent crime has increased under the Harris-Biden administration, according to data from the Department of Justice published Friday — belying ABC News debate moderator David Muir’s correction of Donald Trump during his showdown with Kamala Harris Tuesday night”.

 

“This new data proves President Trump was right,” Leavitt added. “Violent crime is up and if Kamala is given another four years to implement her weak-on-crime, defund the police, no cash bail policies — America will continue to turn into a crime-ridden hellhole for illegal immigrants, Venezuelan gangsters, and drug dealers.

 

https://www.aol.com/violent-crime-increased-under-harris-225929578.html

Edited Saturday at 06:58 AM by riclag

[Jingthing]

New York Post opinion piece from a pro Trump rag.

[Hanaguma]

If you look at the transcripts of the debate, Muir talked waaaaaaaay too much- something like 3000 words.  Almost like he was a participant rather than the moderator. He and Davis would spit out a 100 word plus editorialized question at Trump, full of conditions and assumptions. Then, to Harris: "Vice President Harris, your thoughts?"

[HappyExpat57]

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

If you look at the transcripts of the debate, Muir talked waaaaaaaay too much- something like 3000 words.  Almost like he was a participant rather than the moderator. He and Davis would spit out a 100 word plus editorialized question at Trump, full of conditions and assumptions. Then, to Harris: "Vice President Harris, your thoughts?"

He wouldn't have had to talk "waaaaaaaay too much" if not confronted with waaaaaaaay too many lies.

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, HappyExpat57 said:

He wouldn't have had to talk "waaaaaaaay too much" if not confronted with waaaaaaaay too many lies.

BS.  If Harris isn't up to the job of calling out Trump's lies, then she shouldn't be at the podium.  It isn't the moderators' job to spar with the participants, especially only one participant, and especially when they get things wrong.  

[frank83628]

this is the link if you want to read the whole thing https://x.com/amuse/status/1833844205036216355

[candide]

17 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

this is the link if you want to read the whole thing https://x.com/amuse/status/1833844205036216355

More ridiculous MAGA lies.

 

The new FBI reporting system has been progressively implemented by Trump's DOJ and generalized by Trump's DOJ on January 1st, 2021. 🤣

 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/file/1563061/dl

 

But don't let facts get in the way of a good MAGA story! 😅

Edited Saturday at 07:45 AM by candide

[riclag]

Come on swing voters the inmates are running the asylum imop

 

Safety first!

[HappyExpat57]

32 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

BS.  If Harris isn't up to the job of calling out Trump's lies, then she shouldn't be at the podium.  It isn't the moderators' job to spar with the participants, especially only one participant, and especially when they get things wrong.  

Again!!! You're defending a prolific liar as well as a serial sex offender/convicted felon/fraudster etc. etc.

 

You seem to be an intelligent member - how does he have such a hold on you?

[Hanaguma]

35 minutes ago, HappyExpat57 said:

Again!!! You're defending a prolific liar as well as a serial sex offender/convicted felon/fraudster etc. etc.

 

You seem to be an intelligent member - how does he have such a hold on you?

I don't particularly like the guy. If you check my posting history he wasn't even in my top 3 picks for the GOP nomination.  But... given the quality of his opponents, and also given the damage they want to do to the US, I am willing to overlook his weaknesses and idiosyncracies.  I cringe at the thought of Kamala Harris trying to negotiate with Xi or Putin or Kim or any other world leader. 

[candide]

3 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I don't particularly like the guy. If you check my posting history he wasn't even in my top 3 picks for the GOP nomination.  But... given the quality of his opponents, and also given the damage they want to do to the US, I am willing to overlook his weaknesses and idiosyncracies.  I cringe at the thought of Kamala Harris trying to negotiate with Xi or Putin or Kim or any other world leader. 

Seeing how easily she manipulated Trump during the debate and led him where she wanted, It's surely not about her that one needs to cringe.. 😁

[HappyExpat57]

11 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I don't particularly like the guy. If you check my posting history he wasn't even in my top 3 picks for the GOP nomination.  But... given the quality of his opponents, and also given the damage they want to do to the US, I am willing to overlook his weaknesses and idiosyncracies.  I cringe at the thought of Kamala Harris trying to negotiate with Xi or Putin or Kim or any other world leader. 

I can respect that, but saying the moderators were unfair by holding his toes to the fire is illogical. The numbers of lies or misleading statements by both were MANY times more coming from the former guy than Harris and you know it.

[Hanaguma]

1 hour ago, HappyExpat57 said:

I can respect that, but saying the moderators were unfair by holding his toes to the fire is illogical. The numbers of lies or misleading statements by both were MANY times more coming from the former guy than Harris and you know it.

I guess we have a fundamental disagreement about the role of a moderator in a political debate. To me, the moderator is the timekeeper and questioner. Not fact checker.  Political debates I have seen in England and Canada are this way. The mods stay out of the way as much as possible and let the candidates have at it.  It also seems to be the way during candidate selection debates for both parties. Only in the general election does the whole "mod as fact checker and truth teller" seem to appear.  

[Inderpland]

2 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

BS.  If Harris isn't up to the job of calling out Trump's lies, then she shouldn't be at the podium.  It isn't the moderators' job to spar with the participants, especially only one participant, and especially when they get things wrong.  

BS. It isn't the other candidate's job to use what little time is allotted to fact-check a serial liar. She wouldn't have time to do anything else when the mother of all liars is in full swing.

[Hanaguma]

1 minute ago, Inderpland said:

BS. It isn't the other candidate's job to use what little time is allotted to fact-check a serial liar. She wouldn't have time to do anything else when the mother of all liars is in full swing.

So then, the MODS should use the little time available to do it?  That makes no sense. A mentally agile candidate could point out their opponent's lies in seconds, then move on to rebut them.  

[Inderpland]

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

I don't particularly like the guy. If you check my posting history he wasn't even in my top 3 picks for the GOP nomination.  But... given the quality of his opponents, and also given the damage they want to do to the US, I am willing to overlook his weaknesses and idiosyncracies.  I cringe at the thought of Kamala Harris trying to negotiate with Xi or Putin or Kim or any other world leader. 

And I cringe at the thought of Trump's pals Putin, Kim and Xi just playing him like a fiddle, as has been pointed out by numerous former high-ranking WH officials who had the misfortune to see this up-front. Absolute clown.

[Inderpland]

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

So then, the MODS should use the little time available to do it?  That makes no sense. A mentally agile candidate could point out their opponent's lies in seconds, then move on to rebut them.  

So I guess you're not able to move away from the "bargaining" stage of your grief reaction. He lost the debate, bigly and badly and it was entirely his own fault. Get over it.

[Hanaguma]

Just now, Inderpland said:

So I guess you're not able to move away from the "bargaining" stage of your grief reaction. He lost the debate, bigly and badly and it was entirely his own fault. Get over it.

Oh, no doubt he lost.  He could have handled the situation much better, but he has a big ego and it cost him.  But I am saying, that from the point of view of actually informing the public about the positions of both candidates, ABC did a crap job.  We learned little about Trump that we didn't already know, and even less about Harris because she didn't actually answer any of the questions she was asked. 

 

I think a better approach is to have two moderators, but each questions just one of the candidates. And, that moderator gets picked by the opponent. So Trump picks the mod that questions Harris and vice versa.  Far more entertaining and far more likely to tease some policy out of the candidates.

[Inderpland]

19 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Oh, no doubt he lost.  He could have handled the situation much better, but he has a big ego and it cost him.  But I am saying, that from the point of view of actually informing the public about the positions of both candidates, ABC did a crap job.  We learned little about Trump that we didn't already know, and even less about Harris because she didn't actually answer any of the questions she was asked. 

 

I think a better approach is to have two moderators, but each questions just one of the candidates. And, that moderator gets picked by the opponent. So Trump picks the mod that questions Harris and vice versa.  Far more entertaining and far more likely to tease some policy out of the candidates.

Entertaining? Perhaps. Useful? No at all. 

[frank83628]

1 hour ago, HappyExpat57 said:

I can respect that, but saying the moderators were unfair by holding his toes to the fire is illogical. The numbers of lies or misleading statements by both were MANY times more coming from the former guy than Harris and you know it.

she wasnt fact checked at all, she lied many time and avoided answering questions

[stevenl]

35 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I guess we have a fundamental disagreement about the role of a moderator in a political debate. To me, the moderator is the timekeeper and questioner. Not fact checker.  Political debates I have seen in England and Canada are this way. The mods stay out of the way as much as possible and let the candidates have at it.  It also seems to be the way during candidate selection debates for both parties. Only in the general election does the whole "mod as fact checker and truth teller" seem to appear.  

That's because only in the general election there's a serial lyer. 

Politicians exaggerate and misrepresent the position of their opponent, which can be challenged during a debate. But what trump does with his falsehoods has to be moderated.

[bamnutsak]

I thought that Trump told us he won the debate.

 

Why are all the right-wingers here complaining?

 

 

 

 

[frank83628]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

That's because only in the general election there's a serial lyer. 

Politicians exaggerate and misrepresent the position of their opponent, which can be challenged during a debate. But what trump does with his falsehoods has to be moderated.

so Politicians can exaggerate and misrepresent the position of their opponent, but just not Trump. so when he does it the 'fact checkers' call it a lie.

[Inderpland]

1 minute ago, bamnutsak said:

I thought that Trump told us he won the debate.

 

Why are all the right-wingers here complaining?

 

 

 

 

Deflecting away from the fact that he got creamed and it was all on him.

[impulse]

2 hours ago, candide said:

Seeing how easily she manipulated Trump during the debate and led him where she wanted, It's surely not about her that one needs to cringe..

 

Seeing how easily the three of them manipulated Trump during the debate and led him where they wanted, It's surely not about her that one needs to cringe..

 

Fixed it for you, kind of like a moderator fact checking you.  How do you like it?  You think it's fair?

 

BTW, under the debate rules, your mic would be muted right now so you can't respond.

 

 

Edited Saturday at 10:46 AM by impulse

[Inderpland]

3 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

so Politicians can exaggerate and misrepresent the position of their opponent, but just not Trump. so when he does it the 'fact checkers' call it a lie.

Suck it up, Frankie. Your boy got massacred and actually the mods did him a big favor by fact-checking him, because if they hadn't he would have had even more time to dig himself an even deeper hole with that filthy mouth of his.

[bamnutsak]

7 minutes ago, Inderpland said:

Deflecting away from the fact that he got creamed and it was all on him.

 

Possibly.

 

The debate is over, complaining about it only makes them look, well, weak and weird. Let it go.

 

That said, Trump is still seething.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKr1FjvgKjc

 

BTW, Trump even had a comment on David Muir's hair...

 

Trump on David Muir: "A guy who has good hair but not as good as it was five years ago."

 

 

 

 

Edited Saturday at 10:47 AM by bamnutsak

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, riclag said:

Come on swing voters the inmates are running the asylum imop

 

Safety first!

Safety first... At some point you should try to lift your head above the water. Your team is drowning in insanity.

[Inderpland]

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

Seeing how easily the three of them manipulated Trump during the debate and led him where she wanted, It's surely not about her that one needs to cringe..

 

Fixed it for you, kind of like a moderator fact checking you.  How do you like it?  You think it's fair?

 

It's not 'kind of like a moderator fact checking you', it's manipulation of what another poster has written and against forum rules.

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, Inderpland said:

It's not 'kind of like a moderator fact checking you', it's manipulation of what another poster has written and against forum rules.

 

So report it.

 

BTW, the debate didn't include an audience to help either side.  You're out of order.