Moderators fact checking only Trump

So sad you don't know her debate performance was a farce... it was all smoke and mirrors cheating... You should have known... Kind of weird how they hid her from the media all these weeks... She's a phony and if you were being truthful you'd admit it... or have you missed all her press spots the last 4 years?

Yeah, I remember running damage control for Biden when he lost and Trump challenged him to another debate immediately after winning. The reason why you're attacking debate itself and claiming bias is because you lost, and you're too proud to admit it.

That's fine, you don't have to.

Everyone else knows who won that night.

Kamala Harris did.

She humiliated him.

Just by laughing at him.

How deliciously ironic.

No wonder Trump was trying to attack her laugh, because he knew she was gonna laugh at him. And it didn't make what Trump said any less funny than when Kamala laughed. She could've had a straight face, and we still would've laughed at how bad his debate performance was.

Nice lies... the debates between Biden and Trump were already agreed upon before Biden lost the first one... thanks.

Agreed upon? Sure. But Biden didn’t need to win that one to have Trump trip over his own words like it was an obstacle course. Thanks for confirming it was already over before it started.💀

If you liberals are really about unity, doing the right thing, listening to everyone with an open mind. & are all-encompassing, why are you all able to comment and post memes here, but we can’t do the same in PoliticsToo?

Kamala won’t allow access to her campaign to comment on or take questions from the media. Biden wont either. He’s gone completely AWOL. PoliticsToo won’t allow us anything either. What are you guys so afraid of? These are mere words.

If you're not in politicsToo, it means you can't be mature in your posts. Stick to facts. It's not hard. This isn't about politicsTOO; politicsTOO is a red-herring that distracts from the current discussion of the most current debate on which no one in the right wing can speak on without weaving conspiracy theories, or other such outrageous comments that aren't based in fact. Trust me, having been silenced on this stream multiple times, we're held to our own standards, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Sometimes, the moderation comes heavy handed, but such is the nature of moderation, it's judgement calls made by people. And people aren't perfect.

If you have an issue or appeal you'd like to make on your ban reversal (if you have one) I am a person you can talk to about that. We can talk about why you were banned, what warnings were given, and we can talk about how to improve your stay in our stream. If you see something, report it, cite the rule. If you feel that other moderators are turning the eye because you're right wing, grab me, I'll look at it. I will explain my moderation after looking at what you're dealing with, I will explain my moderation to you. I'd listen to your contextual information. I'll decide if there's merit to the context. I'll explain that decision. And I will act on those decisions.

Back to the topic at hand....

The problem was that the world saw Trump couldn't stick to facts. When he got shown for the fool he was, he got mad, took his crayons and went home. He promised to never play with the other kids at school because they laughed at him. Instead, he said "No, I'm the winner, see?" Mind you, this was in spite of the immediate challenge he threw at Biden. People were paying attention to that, too. do you think moderates wouldn't? Do you really think they'd turn a blind eye to that move? Trump lost his cool. Simple. Kamala didn't have to do much to make that happen. And the world saw it.

You are hilarious. And your rant on the first amendment is even more hilarious. You guys are truly lack the ability to understand what hypocrisy means.

Let’s debate on PoliticsToo.

Ah, so pointing out facts is now a 'rant'? Interesting deflection. As for hypocrisy, it's always fun to see it brought up when the conversation's moving away from substance. If you'd like to actually discuss the First Amendment instead of dodging with buzzwords, I'm here.

Bide absolutely needed to win that first debate... and because he didn't they got rid of him... Where have you been?

In the present. Why are you stuck in the past?

She can’t control her emotions. She’s not suitable for the job.

What do you mean?

You obviously didn’t watch the debate, then. She made more faces than a porn star at a gang bang. She interrupted constantly even though she was the o w who demanded mics be cut off.

Typical. When all else fails, resort to crude comparisons. Faces and interruptions aside, debates are supposed to be about substance. If you’re focusing more on expressions than the arguments, maybe you missed the point of the whole event; as if that surprises any thinking person.

Like I said, she can’t control her emotions. Fat people are the same way. Anyone who has ever had their stomach stapled is unable to control their own emotions as well.

Well, it looks like we've gone from emotions to stomach stapling - quite the logical leap! But let’s get back to the real issue here: Trump’s own inability to control his emotions was on full display during the debate, constantly interrupting, ranting off-topic, and even getting caught in emotional outbursts instead of focusing on policy. Honestly, it's impressive that people with such fascinating leaps in logic are still allowed to vote. From emotions to stomach stapling in one sentence - with regard to policy debate - I'm almost in awe.

Please, regale us on how exactly she cheated in the debate. Make sure to show your evidence!

How? Ok. She didn’t answer the questions when she was asked repeatedly specific questions. She interrupted over and over again. When Trump did that in 2020, you guys roasted him and said the only way he could beat Biden was by cheating and interrupting him over and over and not letting him debate. Kamala is unable to control her emotions emotions. She can’t stop with the facial ticks, she is a hand talker and she interjects and interupts. That’s cheating.

Hiding from America and giving no interviews, policies, etc., and then coming to a debate and not getting pressed one time about what her polices are, is cheating. ABC news doing her bidding is cheating. This is larger than a single persons d you know it. These are the same media pundits who said NOTHING when Nancy Pelosi ripped up Trump’s SOTU address. They (and you) will do and say anything to stay in power. Even if it means (and it does) allowing illegals to flood into country to vote. Everything you guys do involves cheating and lies. Why didn’t ABC fact check her “Fine people on both sides” comment? Trump corrected her and said it was already Debunked over and over. Yet, the two moderators who were all over Trump, didn’t make a peep. Cheaters. All of you.

Either that or The Gateway Pundit with Viking. smh

I wish I could downvote your comment twice.

But the fact checkers were wrong. Clearly wrong. This is not a "GOP victim card" thing, this was about a moderators who needed to just keep their mouths shut. If they wanted to start fact checking then they should have fact checked Harris. Harris lies every time her mouth opens.

And if you Democrats and liberals would ever open your eyes and pay attention to what your candidates are saying AND THEN actually think thing through to their logical conclusion about what impact that would have on this nation then we wouldn't be in this mess. But it is like you don't care what they say as long as they are Democrats. They could propose eating babies and you guys would just blindly follow along and probably even start eating babies.

What I am talking about is a political show that was tightly controlled by your side. Just like everything else in the media. Are you're okay with it because you have no integrity.

You're presenting a false equivalency here. Just because the moderators fact-checked Trump doesn’t mean Harris wasn’t scrutinized - she was, but fact-checkers addressed her inconsistencies post-debate. You’re also exaggerating with claims about Democrats blindly following extreme policies like "eating babies." That’s a hyperbolic straw man argument, which distracts from legitimate policy discussions.

In the Trump v. Harris debate, moderators fact-checked Donald Trump more frequently because his statements often required clarification due to their factual inaccuracies or inflammatory nature. According to the Trump v Harris debate transcript, Trump made several claims, such as falsehoods regarding the 2020 election, that required immediate correction to prevent misleading the audience​. Harris, while not immune to scrutiny, did not make as many factually inaccurate statements in real-time that required intervention from moderators. This isn’t about political bias, but about maintaining the integrity of the debate and ensuring the audience isn’t left with false information.

Fact-checking Trump more often wasn’t about silencing him or being part of a media conspiracy; it was about addressing verifiable inaccuracies. Harris was also fact-checked, but this typically happened through independent fact-checking bodies post-debate. The role of moderators is not to insert themselves into every claim but to step in when a statement has the potential to mislead the public on a significant issue.

If you want to debate Harris' policies, let's stick to the facts. Her economic plan, for instance, focuses on supporting the middle class through tax credits and helping small businesses, not pushing radical or destructive ideas. Let’s engage with real issues rather than absurd exaggerations that you characteristically make.

"You're presenting a false equivalency here. Just because the moderators fact-checked Trump doesn’t mean Harris wasn’t scrutinized - she was, but fact-checkers addressed her inconsistencies post-debate."

Ahh I see. Political theater. Everyone gets to see Trump get fact checked for the true statements he made but no one gets to see Harris getting fact checked for all of her lies.

Here's the thing. The moderators should just shut up. It is not their job to fact check. There has never been a debate where a candidate didn't make a mistake, some have just outright lied (Democrats because they can get away with it). There does not need to be anyone telling me what to think about what a candidate said. It is mine and your responsibility to made those decisions.

I'm just sick to death of all of this fact checking BS. Who fact checks the fact checkers. Snopes and FactCheck.org are notorious for getting things wrong. Specifically when they are covering for a Democrat who screwed up.

Way back before my time our schools were much tougher than they are now. They used to teach you how to think. Now schools teach you what to think and they always skew left.

In addition to all of that since the 2016 election the left has decided to impose fact checking everywhere. And yes, it is the left is actually behind all of this. It comes from the World Economic Forum and is pushed into every government. Our government has agencies dedicated to mal- mis- and disinformation. And what is scary is they are the ones spreading the mal- mis- and disinformation. And they have the media on their side.

Trump’s claims about post-birth abortions, for example, were fact-checked because they were outright false. How naive can you be to be conned by the classic victim card move...?
Trump knows that if he says bullshit, he'll get checked on it. He's counting on it. Once he's checked, he can trick the gullible into thinking that he's being ganged up on. When he simply isn't. He's either doing it intentionally, or worse, he actually believes it.

Meanwhile, Harris was fact-checked, too, but most of her claims were matters of policy interpretation, which doesn’t always require immediate intervention. The interpretation of her claims are done post-debate. Now, if only they had some sort of segment that talks about just that issue.

As for "alleged biased moderators?" Moderators step in when claims have the potential to mislead the public. It’s not about telling us what to think, but ensuring that blatant inaccuracies don’t go unchecked in real time.

Who fact-checks the fact-checkers? You. You go to these sites, they present you with their sources, you read it yourself. The whole premise of those sites is to not be a "trust me bro" kind of site. They provide their sources.

As for fact-checkers like Snopes or FactCheck.org, they have accountability standards and methodologies, which is why they correct their errors when found. (By outside sources or their own people.) Your concerns about malinformation are valid, but dismissing fact-checking entirely out-of-hand risks allowing misinformation to spread unchecked, which doesn’t help either side.

At the end of the day, fact-checking is meant to help voters make informed decisions, not to skew in favor of one party or the other.

It's a dog-eat-dog world out there when it comes to debates. And Trump lost. He's lied so many times that people have gotten better at getting to the source of the truth. Not the "truth" which morphed from the Alt-Right's version of "Alternate Facts."

So, let's stick to the platform of each party and talk on that. We don't have to worry about this political tit for tat on whose candidate should run the country. Let's talk policy.

"Trump’s claims about post-birth abortions"

Why would the left lie about this. I've been hearing about post-birth abortions long before Trump ever thought about running for president. It is just a fact. There have been many times a baby has survived an abortion attempt and they will put him or her in a closed room and let him or her starve to death. It's just a common practice for the few times the botch an abortion.

In addition I have heard some extremists advocating for abortion being allowed up until 5 years old. I know it does not represent the majority of Dems but those people are out there.

Partial birth abortion is allowed in the more leftists states. The governor of West Virginia signed a partial birth bill into law. So if any part of a baby is still in the womb you can legally murder him or her.

I'm sorry but your fact checkers are flat out liars.

"As for "alleged biased moderators?" Moderators step in when claims have the potential to mislead the public."

That is an excuse. Politicians have been misleading the public forever. It is what they do. ABC/Disney is biased. The woke freaks are going to eventually kill Disney.

"At the end of the day, fact-checking is meant to help voters make informed decisions,"

Bull Crap!!!!!! 100% Grade A bull crap!!!! They are telling voters what to think, nothing more, nothing less. Fact checkers are a complete and utter waste of money. The are representatives of the Democrat party and lie their butts off.

As a guy who has been fact checked up one side and down the other on Facebook, I can tell you that I have caught them in flat out lies over things that I have seen with my own two eyes.

If you are putting your trust in them because they use the word "fact" in their name you are wasting your time. You MUST, MUST, MUST try as best as you can to find the original source yourself. Many times it can be done online but that is getting increasingly hard. None of the search engines will make it easy for you to find the source.

But every time I've been able to find the actual source of whatever, the fact checkers were lying.

Which is another issue. I DO NOT NEED A FACT CHECKER. I can find stuff out for myself.

You need to understand that I am not a Trump fan. I will vote for him but only because he is light years better than any Democrat. Democrats hate this country and everyone in it.

I can see you're mad. I understand your frustration, but the claim about post-birth abortions is just not factually accurate. There are no legal or medical practices in the U.S. that allow for the killing of a baby after birth, whether through abortion or otherwise. What you’re referring to may be cases where babies born after a failed abortion receive palliative care, (Palliative care is an interdisciplinary medical caregiving approach aimed at optimizing quality of life and mitigating suffering among people with serious, complex, and often terminal illnesses.) but these cases are incredibly rare, and it’s illegal to withhold life-saving care if the baby is viable.

As for "partial-birth" abortions, these are already illegal under the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007. The law prohibits a specific late-term abortion procedure, and no state allows for the killing of babies during or after birth under any legal framework​. The statements made by Trump about "post-birth abortions" were false, and that’s why they were fact-checked in real time.

I agree that it's important to check original sources, and I’m with you that we shouldn't blindly trust anyone. But fact-checking, when done responsibly, helps cut through misinformation that spreads easily. It doesn't mean we shouldn't think for ourselves, but it ensures we’re starting with accurate information.

"There are no legal or medical practices in the U.S. that allow for the killing of a baby after birth"

Legal practices, typically don't involve themselves in medical practices. And typically a medical practice doesn't do that either. Abortion is not a medical practice because the medical profession is involved in saving lives. Abortion clinics are all about the destruction of life and selling off the body parts of babies to labs for research. The worst thing about abortion clinics, specifically Planned Parenthood, is they get tax money to run their murder factory. That means I am being forced to support something I despise. This is a gross violation of what this nation was founded on.

The problem is I typically do not keep links to articles I read in some sort of a database so aside from having to do a search for it, I cannot point you to all that I have read over the years about how completely evil abortion is. If I can do a search so can you.

BUT!!! There is a real huge problem. All of the search engines, especially Google, are hiding any article that goes against the liberal narrative. They used to put them a few pages in on a search. Now they are excluding them. This is everything that goes against the narrative and not just abortion. I am having it extremely difficult anymore to find the facts. And what they always do is overload the search with links to Snopes and Fact Check.

So if you really want to find the truth it will take a while, maybe days or weeks. But Trump was not exaggerating, lying or mistaken. They are killing babies outside of the womb.

Abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood, provide a wide range of health services beyond abortion, such as cancer screenings, birth control, and STI testing. The claim that they are funded primarily by taxpayers for abortion services is misleading—federal funding for abortion is restricted by the Hyde Amendment, except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother​.

As for the claim about "killing babies outside of the womb," this is not legally or medically sanctioned in the U.S. Any instance of a baby born alive is subject to legal protection. The laws surrounding this are already clear and enforced. Claims about the sale of fetal body parts were investigated, and no criminal wrongdoing was found by several independent inquiries​.

There are diverse sources of information out there, and being critical of all sides - fact-checkers included - is something you seem to lack the ability to demonstrate. The challenge is in sifting through misinformation on both sides of the aisle, and that's why fact-checking exists: to help identify and correct the more extreme claims, whether they come from Democrats or Republicans.

Just because the facts don't agree with your narrative, doesn't make them biased.

"Abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood, provide a wide range of health services"

They get to say that because they will recommend women to other clinics that will handle those services. They count all of that is an service they offer and then those who devalue human life will defend them. By and large their main raison d'etre is murdering babies.

I never said they were "primarily" funded by taxpayers, I said that they are funded by taxpayers. There is a difference. I don't care if the government gives them a penny a year. It is the morality of the thing. Is it right for the government to take our money (by force) and give it to causes that the majority of Americans detest?

Here is the bigger picture. What you are telling me about everything is that the government is saying that then don't fund abortion, they don't condone babies who survived an abortion, and I am sure you will defend the government for a lot of other things that are horrific.

BUT (and this is a huge massively big BUTT) that does not mean it isn't happening. The government has been giving money to Planned Parenthood because when that money supply was threatened PP sued the government claiming that had some sort of constitutional right to that money.

Babies who have survive abortions have been let die. They put them in another room and just let them starve to death. That is and has happened. You can deny forever but that does not change the facts.

It don't care how much politicians try to hide this stuff so they don't look like monsters, it happens anyway.

DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT.

"They get to say that because they will recommend women to other clinics that will handle those services.... DONT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT."

Planned Parenthood suing for a "constitutional right" to taxpayer money is incorrect. (Of course, if you have something you want to show me to enlighten me, by all means, show me.) The funding they receive is for services like cancer screenings and contraception, not for abortions, due to the Hyde Amendment.

Again with the claim about letting babies starve to death after surviving abortions? Really you're still going with this? I'll grant that this is a highly disputed and extreme assertion - and that's where my agreement stops. There's no substantial evidence supporting it.

Distrust in the government doesn’t justify spreading misinformation or disregarding the actual legal framework surrounding reproductive health services. That's the stuff Koolaid is made from - so to speak.

"Distrust in the government doesn’t justify spreading misinformation or disregarding the actual legal framework surrounding reproductive health services. "

Are you an employee of the FBI? Are you getting paid to push your agenda? Who says things like this?

I have not lied. I do not "spread disinformation" and you know it. It is you who has come here with your vagaries like "disregarding the actual legal framework". What kind of nonsense is that? Just because there is a legal framework does not mean what I am telling does not happen. And it happens in spite of the "legal framework". In fact the "legal framework" is put up as a shield to hide the fact that bad stuff happens and it is condoned by those hiding behind the "legal framework".

Your employer, the Federal Government, is the most corrupt it has ever been and it just keeps getting worse. Who the government has become is an abomination. Everyone in it is obsessed with nothing but amassing more power and control.

So go back to the government and leave me alone.

"FBI employee?" Really reaching for the conspiracy angle now, aren't we? Let me guess, next you'll say I'm a lizard person working for the deep state too. *hiss* The fact is, invoking the FBI or accusing me of being a government shill doesn’t magically make your claims more credible. *tongue flick* It just makes your argument seem like it's built on paranoia rather than facts.

Look, the existence of a legal framework doesn't imply that bad things can't happen, but it does mean that the majority of what you're claiming, like "letting babies starve after abortions," is unsupported by any actual evidence. Your argument isn't with me; it's with reality. You're stretching a fringe, unsupported narrative because it suits your worldview. Instead of leaning on vague conspiracy theories, try pointing to actual, verifiable data.

Also, the “legal framework as a shield” bit? Yeah, that’s the foundation of law and order—governments use laws to protect people. If you’re saying laws are inherently corrupt, why bother suggesting any laws to be changed in the first place?

If you are intellectually honest then you should actually do the leg work yourself to find out that it has and is still happening. It doesn't happen a lot because botched abortions don't happen a lot. But the fact of the matter is babies who survive botched abortions have been left to starve to death. I would not say that if it didn't happen.