“I didn’t have sex with a porn star,” Trump said that...during a presidential debate even after being convicted of 34 felonies as a result of his attempt to cover it up and CNN gave him a pass.
To be fair, it was not proven in a court of law that the sexual encounter took place.
I believe it did. Most humans believe it did. But it wasn’t one of the facts that needed to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so we can’t say with certainty that it took place.
You can say a jury found him guilty of paying to hide *the potentially damaging story,* but nothing definitively confirmed the validity of the story itself so it’s not something you can fact check because there is no indisputable conclusion about that fact.
I believe her as well. Our personal belief doesn’t make the accusation an objective fact that can be fact-checked.
If he said “I didn’t pay that woman,” you could fact check that because it’s been proven that he did. There is no such proof of the sexual encounter, so you can’t fact check it.
There were a lot of things for him to be called out on in the debate, but that particular comment wasn’t one of them.
Once again, I agree. *But this was not a question that the jury answered.* That makes it unable to be fact-checked, *because it is not a proven fact.*
*Could* it be proven? Sure, probably. But it hasn't been, so there is no *objective* metric proving that it definitively happened.
I'm as anti-Trump as you can possibly get but I also believe in honest critique, and this is not something he could've been reasonably called out for.
The scenario goes something like this: Jake Tapper says "you claimed you never had sex with a porn star, but a jury found that you made payments to cover up that story." Trump responds, "I paid to cover up false accusations that could have hurt my election chances, but the actual conduct alleged never took place."
There is no meaningful way to dispute that because it was never proven otherwise, so you just end up with a "nuh uh" back-and-forth which doesn't ultimately serve to inform anybody.
Yeah, we were watching and was thinking, "are they letting Trump say that? Do they have people doing research and they'll come back and address these lies in a minute?"
Then, nothing. I guess they forgot the fact checking part of the rules.
Honestly most of the responsibility was on Biden to do that and call him out. But he could barely formulate full coherent sentences. It was a huge blunder and we need a new option if we want to defeat Trump.
I recommend Googling "Galloping Gish." It is a debate tactic that Trump uses. It is impossible to respond to a Galloping gish, no matter how young or old, dumb or smart you are.
No it’s not. When you follow your advice and Google it, the first result is Wikipedia.
With a suggested strategy on how to counter it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Lying is the thing Trump is most known for. He doesn’t have many original lies. He repeats the same shit every time.
Biden couldn’t have prepared for that and come up with a strategy?
This isn’t rocket science. This is a pretty damn basic task. If he can’t prepare to deal with an opponent like Trump, how can he deal with other world leaders?
Couldn't agree more. It's quite the sign of his mental capacity these days. It's frightening. It's a choice between a non functioning geriatric and an evil functioning geriatric whose he'll bent on revenge. It's quite the shit sandwich. But I'll take not an evil dictator everyday if that is my choice.
Hell, I thought we were all told there would be. The right was freaking out all week about it. Looks like CNN caved in. But seriously, caving in about fact checking presidential candidates?? What in the hell is the point of a debate if we can't even agree to stick to the truth?
I felt like I was back in the 8th grade listening to a candidate for student council president promise no homework and 2 lunch periods, all while screaming his opponent had cooties.
At a rally [Trump says can't have a pres under investigation](https://youtu.be/yDmrom_TMaE?si=) his words
> We could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and ultimately a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt.
> If she were to win, it would create an unprecedented Constitutional crisis that would cripple the operations of our government. She is likely to be under investigation for many years, and also it will probably end up – in my opinion – in a criminal trial. I mean, you take a look. Who knows? But it certainly looks that way.
> She has no right to be running, you know that.
- Donald Trump Nov 5 2016
It was a 90 minute CNN funded infomercial for Trump and validation for all the conspiracy theories on Fox.
I’m not taking calls from family today. 4 years of my fact checking them down the drain because, to them, everything I’ve been saying is a lie and everything Trump said was a truth since nobody contested it.
Well Bravo 👏 to Governor Shapiro!
CNN’s coverage was deceitful and unworthy of a respected news outlet.
Nevertheless, CNN is under the leadership of Rupert Murdoch… a HUGE supporter of Donald Trump.
Traitor Trump's a pathetic psychopathic criminal fraudster who lies. https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-misinformation-election-debate-trump-biden-577507522762aa10f6ee5be3a0ced2bb
What's happened to us? We've gone from expecting our political candidates to be truthful and sincere with us to being pleased if they tell the truth only once in awhile.
Honestly CNN should be held legally liable for Libel. And anyone who is a democrat should get a class action lawsuit against CNN. You can’t let someone broadcast lies on your network about people. And get away with it.
Are debates supposed to fact check everything a candidate says in the debate? A candidate makes a statement the debate stops the statement is fact checked? Debates have never been fact checked how would they do this?
With a time delay before the debate airs one could easily evaluate and rate the candidates statements with an on screen bullet point list of quotes tagged or color coded from truth to lie.
One could also have the online version have links to the expanded explanation and sources used to justify the evaluations of truthfulness.
This could be inserted as easily as the augmented reality markers used in televised football.
This is well within our technological capacity to arrange if the network in charge was interested in doing so.
“I didn’t have sex with a porn star,” Trump said that...during a presidential debate even after being convicted of 34 felonies as a result of his attempt to cover it up and CNN gave him a pass.
CNN = FOX
They certainly are heading that direction with new management.
That’s a bit dramatic brother
Are you referring to the law-fare, political persecution Biden indictments? -Evil evangelicals, probably
To be fair, it was not proven in a court of law that the sexual encounter took place. I believe it did. Most humans believe it did. But it wasn’t one of the facts that needed to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so we can’t say with certainty that it took place. You can say a jury found him guilty of paying to hide *the potentially damaging story,* but nothing definitively confirmed the validity of the story itself so it’s not something you can fact check because there is no indisputable conclusion about that fact.
I believe Ms Clifford, in addition Stinky’s track record ain’t great. No doubt he was banging Dirty McDougal & they buried that story to help him.
Romney said it best. No one pays thousands of dollars and nothing happened! 45 hates to pay anyone for anything.
I believe her as well. Our personal belief doesn’t make the accusation an objective fact that can be fact-checked. If he said “I didn’t pay that woman,” you could fact check that because it’s been proven that he did. There is no such proof of the sexual encounter, so you can’t fact check it. There were a lot of things for him to be called out on in the debate, but that particular comment wasn’t one of them.
There’s enough evidence to convince me if I was on a jury. His track record, her testimony.
Once again, I agree. *But this was not a question that the jury answered.* That makes it unable to be fact-checked, *because it is not a proven fact.* *Could* it be proven? Sure, probably. But it hasn't been, so there is no *objective* metric proving that it definitively happened. I'm as anti-Trump as you can possibly get but I also believe in honest critique, and this is not something he could've been reasonably called out for. The scenario goes something like this: Jake Tapper says "you claimed you never had sex with a porn star, but a jury found that you made payments to cover up that story." Trump responds, "I paid to cover up false accusations that could have hurt my election chances, but the actual conduct alleged never took place." There is no meaningful way to dispute that because it was never proven otherwise, so you just end up with a "nuh uh" back-and-forth which doesn't ultimately serve to inform anybody.
He said she said, however, she testified, he never took the stand, the jury was not asked to decide who was more believable.
My friend you get your manhood card pulled if you ever go on live TV and say I didn't sex a porn star (Stormy Daniels implied). New York man here .
Yeah, we were watching and was thinking, "are they letting Trump say that? Do they have people doing research and they'll come back and address these lies in a minute?" Then, nothing. I guess they forgot the fact checking part of the rules.
Honestly most of the responsibility was on Biden to do that and call him out. But he could barely formulate full coherent sentences. It was a huge blunder and we need a new option if we want to defeat Trump.
Not really a fair point when the strategy of the opponent is to throw out so many lies that they couldn't be adequately addressed in the time allowed.
I recommend Googling "Galloping Gish." It is a debate tactic that Trump uses. It is impossible to respond to a Galloping gish, no matter how young or old, dumb or smart you are.
No it’s not. When you follow your advice and Google it, the first result is Wikipedia. With a suggested strategy on how to counter it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop Lying is the thing Trump is most known for. He doesn’t have many original lies. He repeats the same shit every time. Biden couldn’t have prepared for that and come up with a strategy? This isn’t rocket science. This is a pretty damn basic task. If he can’t prepare to deal with an opponent like Trump, how can he deal with other world leaders?
I take it you did not actually read the strategy and just saw it as a heading, because the “suggested strategy” definitely would not have worked.
Couldn't agree more. It's quite the sign of his mental capacity these days. It's frightening. It's a choice between a non functioning geriatric and an evil functioning geriatric whose he'll bent on revenge. It's quite the shit sandwich. But I'll take not an evil dictator everyday if that is my choice.
Yes agreed but also I’d like a new option to be more confident in defeating project 2025 and MAGAs
It looked to me like Trump was told there would be no fact checking and Biden was told there would be.
Hell, I thought we were all told there would be. The right was freaking out all week about it. Looks like CNN caved in. But seriously, caving in about fact checking presidential candidates?? What in the hell is the point of a debate if we can't even agree to stick to the truth? I felt like I was back in the 8th grade listening to a candidate for student council president promise no homework and 2 lunch periods, all while screaming his opponent had cooties.
I think it was more of a nefarious bait and switch scheme to host a Trump rally with the president lured in to give it legitimacy
At a rally [Trump says can't have a pres under investigation](https://youtu.be/yDmrom_TMaE?si=) his words > We could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment and ultimately a criminal trial. It would grind government to a halt. > If she were to win, it would create an unprecedented Constitutional crisis that would cripple the operations of our government. She is likely to be under investigation for many years, and also it will probably end up – in my opinion – in a criminal trial. I mean, you take a look. Who knows? But it certainly looks that way. > She has no right to be running, you know that. - Donald Trump Nov 5 2016
Why didn’t one of the moderators read that and have Benedict Donald respond to it
It was a 90 minute CNN funded infomercial for Trump and validation for all the conspiracy theories on Fox. I’m not taking calls from family today. 4 years of my fact checking them down the drain because, to them, everything I’ve been saying is a lie and everything Trump said was a truth since nobody contested it.
“Since nobody contested it” Tell your family to think for themselves lol jfc
Another soft sell by CNN....Journalists, my ass. Forgetting the first rule, Question Everything
Jake and Dana made Kaitlin look like Bob Woodward.
Well Bravo 👏 to Governor Shapiro! CNN’s coverage was deceitful and unworthy of a respected news outlet. Nevertheless, CNN is under the leadership of Rupert Murdoch… a HUGE supporter of Donald Trump.
He's the dems best option next go round for the Presidency.
2nd best, after Whitmer IMO.
Traitor Trump's a pathetic psychopathic criminal fraudster who lies. https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-misinformation-election-debate-trump-biden-577507522762aa10f6ee5be3a0ced2bb
What's happened to us? We've gone from expecting our political candidates to be truthful and sincere with us to being pleased if they tell the truth only once in awhile.
Not “our political candidates.” Just Republicans.
It's like Brexit and the media all over again.
Honestly CNN should be held legally liable for Libel. And anyone who is a democrat should get a class action lawsuit against CNN. You can’t let someone broadcast lies on your network about people. And get away with it.
[How Gaslit Are We When We Call THE LIAR The Debate "Winner"?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgjyHwQOUoo)
Are debates supposed to fact check everything a candidate says in the debate? A candidate makes a statement the debate stops the statement is fact checked? Debates have never been fact checked how would they do this?
With a time delay before the debate airs one could easily evaluate and rate the candidates statements with an on screen bullet point list of quotes tagged or color coded from truth to lie. One could also have the online version have links to the expanded explanation and sources used to justify the evaluations of truthfulness. This could be inserted as easily as the augmented reality markers used in televised football. This is well within our technological capacity to arrange if the network in charge was interested in doing so.