ABC News Moderators Blasted For Extreme Bias, Fact Checking Trump But Not Harris

[BPPLEE]

Oh now we’re to believe the polling is accurate? I can never keep up with when the polls are to be believed or when they’re fake news propaganda meant to manipulate and sway public opinion.

There is only one poll that counts.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Just the way Trump wants it to be, right? Leaving it to the states to decide.

In all sincerity, yes.

I would imagine that in the eyes of staunch pro-life voters, they'd prefer that kind of thing only be happening in 9 states instead of all 50 via federal legislation.

(much like I'm sure that some Californians and New Yorkers probably enjoy the fact that their state-level governments have some agency over gun-control laws, correct?)


While he changes his tune and flip flops quite a bit on a number of issues, the issues of abortion and vaccinations are two of the issues that he's (surprisingly) been willing to "die on his sword" on and been willing to make statements about in ways that draw critiques (and sometimes boos at rallies) from his own party.

"I believe in the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother," Trump said during the debate. "I believe strongly in it. Ronald Reagan did also. Eighty-five percent of Republicans knew exceptions are very important," he said.


When you look at the actual rules and restrictions around abortion, the republican positions on abortion are actually closer to the western European countries (who are generally far more progressive than the US on most things) than states in question that allow elective abortions in the third trimester (for any reason).

 

[bèlla]

If a christian contemplated leaving their child a $400 million trust believers would be up in arms and dragging them. Yet no one was bothered by her statement or his response. You cannot require of one what you ignore for another. Right action is unbiased.

~bella

 

[Yttrium]

So it’s the moderator’s job to decide which lies are acceptable? Seems like it would have been better for them to moderate and leave fact checking to after the debate.

Well, yeah. I do think it's inappropriate for the moderators to correct the candidates. I was just pointing out that it's not necessarily unfair for them to do it to one candidate more than the other.

 

[BPPLEE]

Well, yeah. I do think it's inappropriate for the moderators to correct the candidates. I was just pointing out that it's not necessarily unfair for them to do it to one candidate more than the other.

You need to read that again and think about it.

 

[Yttrium]

You need to read that again and think about it.

Of course.

 

[childeye 2]

If you didn’t see any bias the problem is with you. Trump was fact checked half a dozen times and the moderators openly argued with him. They didn’t fact check Kamala once and she lied too.
Kamala gave the better performance and Trump hurt himself but don’t think there wasn’t bias.

Do you believe correcting people when they are wrong qualifies as bias?

 

[Aldebaran]

Do you believe correcting people when they are wrong qualifies as bias?

If "correcting" Trump when he's "wrong" is acceptable, then they would have done the same thing with Harris when she stated mistruths. There are 25 examples that I've already shown where she put out misinformation about Trump. Not even once was she ever corrected about it. That is a show of bias.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There are 9 states that have no restrictions on abortion.

Abortion happens before birth. Lacking a restriction on abortion does not legalize infanticide of newborns.

 

[Aldebaran]

Abortion happens before birth. Lacking a restriction on abortion does not legalize infanticide of newborns.

Perhaps not, but "re-imagining women's reproductive healthcare" could be done to "close the abortion loophole".

 

[BPPLEE]

Do you believe correcting people when they are wrong qualifies as bias?

When you do it to one candidate but not the other yes

 

[BPPLEE]

Abortion happens before birth. Lacking a restriction on abortion does not legalize infanticide of newborns.

I believe it was Ralph Northam that made the infamous statement about keeping the baby comfortable while the mother and the doctor had a conversation

 

[childeye 2]

If "correcting" Trump when he's "wrong" is acceptable, then they would have done the same thing with Harris when she stated mistruths. There are 25 examples that I've already shown where she put out misinformation about Trump. Not even once was she ever corrected about it. That is a show of bias.

If you're talking about the federalist article, I've read that and after evaluating about half of the examples as either spin or inaccurate I stopped looking. I even debunked #1 for another poster. But feel free to point out any of those you feel are accurate and I'll look into it.

 

[childeye 2]

When you do it to one candidate but not the other yes

Logically they first have to be saying something that is inaccurate.

 

[Canuckster]

Just watching and hearing 3 seconds of her is too much.

x.com

x.com

 

[childeye 2]

Just watching and hearing 3 seconds of her is too much.

x.com

x.com

What do you mean?

 

[Pommer]

I never got a speeding ticket when I wasn’t speeding. The cops are biased that way.

 

[Pommer]

When you do it to one candidate but not the other yes

What if one had had a long history of telling whoppers?
I would think it amiss of the journalists didn’t come prepared more for that one and scrutinize them more severely.

This is “normal”; /thread

 

[Aldebaran]

What if one had had a long history of telling whoppers?
I would think it amiss of the journalists didn’t come prepared more for that one and scrutinize them more severely.

This is “normal”; /thread

Or (and this might sound a bit radical) the "journalists" could just ask the questions, allow the candidates to answer, and then allow the viewers to do their own research to find out for themselves if what they said is true, and which candidate supports what the individual voter wants in a president. They don't need to inject themselves into the arguments and take sides which then makes the viewers question the validity of the debate process, and ultimately the election process.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Perhaps not, but "re-imagining women's reproductive healthcare" could be done to "close the abortion loophole".

"Abortion loophole"?

Do I need restate the definition? Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy intentionally without a birth. Unrestricted abortion *cannot* legalize infanticide of newborns.