ABC Fact Checking on the Harris-Trump Debate on September 10, 2024

[Stephen3141]

Fact-checking Kamala Harris and Donald Trump's 1st presidential debate

ABC News live fact-checked Harris and Trump's statements for answers that were exaggerated, needed more context or were false.

abcnews.go.com

It would be useful for Christians to carefully read through all the
items that were fact checked. And, to read other news sources' fact
checking for the debate (such as CNN).

The political debate between Democrats and Republicans, in Washington, D.C.,
has been so angry and stylized, that it is difficult to get at whether or not the
slogans used by both parties, are true.

Many of the fact checking results have "Need Context" noted. That is, the
statement by the candidate needs to be narrowed by other details, in order
to be true. Politicians in Washington have become loose, making broad
generalizations that are true sometimes, but not true in other situations.
Christians need to listen less to the general slogans, and as about the
details surrounding the generalizations.

Some of the assertions by the candidates, are simply false.
Some of the false statements, are still widely accepted as true, by some
social media platforms.
Some of the assertions are false, and backed up (as false) by professional
economists, however some groups still are promoting them as true.

*****
One of the things that HAS GOT TO CHANGE IN WASHINGTON, is the
presentation of slogans that are so general, as to be almost meaningless.
The real situation in America includes complex dynamics, and the political
candidates need to feel free to talk about topics such as "inflation" using
many more types of information, and more complicated statements, than
"it's great" or "it's worse than it has ever been before". You would not let
your financial retirement planner to use this type of silly statement to describe
how they are handling your financial investments -- and we should not expect
these sorts of childish statements to be used by politicians.

The problem with politicians, is that American citizens let them get away with
stating goals, without substantially stating HOW THEY WILL REACH THOSE GOALS.
Anyone can assert that they will attain goals, that American citizens find attractive.
But in complex technical situations, we have seen that the average American
citizen does not have the technical skills, to bring about those goals. In a very
technology centered society (sorry to say this), but amateur citizens don't have
the technical tools to reach technical goals.
---------- ----------

I find that many of the same useless generalizations in politics, are
aimed at people who do not carefully look for information about
the underlying topics (that the slogans claim to be addressing).

The same problem of shallow slogans, exists in the area of Christian apologetics.
Christian apologetics that is filled with religious slogans, but is not very careful
about using biblical definitions of words and phrases, may sound wonderful (to
some denominational groups), but will be producing LOGICALLY UNSOUND
arguments.

Christians should reject slogan apologetics, and slogan politics, and carefully look
to test all things, and hold onto what is good. And THAT does not mean going to
your favorite daytime talk show host for answers. Try reading articles from 20
different news sources (such as the Google news page). Try reading the articles in
Christianity Today, about political candidates.

 

[Stephen3141]

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/11/g-s1-22023/debate-harris-trump-takeaways

Note the NPR's analysis of the debate, was that the moderators interrupted
the candidates 4 times, to correct the candidate on a false statement. And
it was Trump they corrected, each time.

The analysis is that Harris made many more valid points than Trump.
Yet, the race is still a toss-up.

Even though the American economy is now, the best in the world,
the NPR analysts underline that many Americans perceive the economy as
having real problems.

Note that the NPR analysis is more how the supporters of the 2 candidates feel,
rather than a fact checking article.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

ABC/CNN and "fact checking" are mutually exclusive

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/11/g-s1-22023/debate-harris-trump-takeaways

Note the NPR's analysis of the debate, was that the moderators interrupted
the candidates 4 times, to correct the candidate on a false statement. And
it was Trump they corrected, each time.

The analysis is that Harris made many more valid points than Trump.
Yet, the race is still a toss-up.

Even though the American economy is now, the best in the world,
the NPR analysts underline that many Americans perceive the economy as
having real problems.

Note that the NPR analysis is more how the supporters of the 2 candidates feel,
rather than a fact checking article.

ie...she lied better and more often.

 

[Stephen3141]

Fox News tries to spin the grim showing of Trump, in the debate.

Tight after the debate ended, Fox News tries to spin the rather poor
showing of Trump, in the debate.
If You Want to Know Who Won the Debate, Watch Fox News the Moment It Ended

Some of the Fox comments were along the line that Trump should have
accepted the debate offer by CNN, rather than ABC.

(Of course, the CNN fact checking on Trump, on his Republican National
Conventions speech, was brutal. It found about 162 errors that Trump
asserted in that speech. (CNN found a small fraction of that number, in
Kamala's speech at the Democratic National Convention).)

So far, the ABC fact checking found more problems with Trump's
assertions, than Kamala's.

The NPR assessment of the debate, is that Trump was bloodied in the fight,
and lost by a technical knockout (but Trump's followers won't care about
THAT, much).

And the Fox News assessment of the debate, is trying to find ways to do
damage control for Trump.

These are early assessments of the Harris-Trump debate, from very different
points of view.

 

[Stephen3141]

ABC/CNN and "fact checking" are mutually exclusive

Thanks for writing your opinion.

I have still not found any article that assesses the debate,
that agrees with you.

 

[Stephen3141]

Harris Surges Past Trump In Election Betting Markets After First Presidential Debate

After trailing Trump more than a week, Harris has retaken the lead in the election betting markets after a strong debate showing on Tuesday night.

www.forbes.com

I'm not a big fan of betting.
The popular bet, in any race, does not determine what is true.

But the betting odds are that 98% of the analysts will say that
Kamala won yesterday's debate against Trump.

Note that a number of the big economic shakers and movers,
have already declared their favoring of Kamala.

 

[Stephen3141]

Fact-checking the presidential debate between Trump and Harris

From conspiracy theories to flubbed facts, here's where the candidates erred Tuesday night.

www.nbcnews.com

NBC has added their fact checking article on the Harris-Trump debate.

In the fact checking, Trump is taking a beating for a lot of false statements.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Thanks for writing your opinion.

I have still not found any article that assesses the debate,
that agrees with you.

I am basing what I said on historical data

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Fact-checking the presidential debate between Trump and Harris

From conspiracy theories to flubbed facts, here's where the candidates erred Tuesday night.

www.nbcnews.com

NBC has added their fact checking article on the Harris-Trump debate.

In the fact checking, Trump is taking a beating for a lot of false statements.

Right...lol. It's NBC...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

But the betting odds are that 98% of the analysts will say that
Kamala won yesterday's debate against Trump.

they may say and think that but she didn't win...just lied.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Where did Donald Trump's pet-eating claims come from?​

Where did Donald Trump's pet-eating claims come from?

The former president repeated unsubstantiated claims that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, have been eating residents' pets. But where did the outlandish claims come from?

news.sky.com

"The man, who said he was a social media influencer, urged the government to "do something", making unsubstantiated claims about supposed crimes they were committing.

He said they were capturing ducks in a local park, slaughtering them and eating them.
Facebook posts on local crime-watch groups started making similar claims, with one supposed resident whose post went viral saying their "daughter's friend" had seen Haitians eating her cat and that local authorities had said they were doing the same with ducks and geese.

Additionally, an alleged case of someone attacking a cat in Canton, Ohio in August has been falsely attributed by people online to a Haitian immigrant in Springfield.

This is despite the fact Canton and Springfield are some 160 miles apart and authorities have said the defendant in the case has no known connection to Haiti, Sky News' US partner NBC News reported."


Despite nothing to support the claim, Trump ran with it at the debate.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Fact-checking Kamala Harris and Donald Trump's 1st presidential debate

ABC News live fact-checked Harris and Trump's statements for answers that were exaggerated, needed more context or were false.

abcnews.go.com

It would be useful for Christians to carefully read through all the
items that were fact checked. And, to read other news sources' fact
checking for the debate (such as CNN).

The political debate between Democrats and Republicans, in Washington, D.C.,
has been so angry and stylized, that it is difficult to get at whether or not the
slogans used by both parties, are true.

Many of the fact checking results have "Need Context" noted. That is, the
statement by the candidate needs to be narrowed by other details, in order
to be true. Politicians in Washington have become loose, making broad
generalizations that are true sometimes, but not true in other situations.
Christians need to listen less to the general slogans, and as about the
details surrounding the generalizations.

Some of the assertions by the candidates, are simply false.
Some of the false statements, are still widely accepted as true, by some
social media platforms.
Some of the assertions are false, and backed up (as false) by professional
economists, however some groups still are promoting them as true.

*****
One of the things that HAS GOT TO CHANGE IN WASHINGTON, is the
presentation of slogans that are so general, as to be almost meaningless.
The real situation in America includes complex dynamics, and the political
candidates need to feel free to talk about topics such as "inflation" using
many more types of information, and more complicated statements, than
"it's great" or "it's worse than it has ever been before". You would not let
your financial retirement planner to use this type of silly statement to describe
how they are handling your financial investments -- and we should not expect
these sorts of childish statements to be used by politicians.

The problem with politicians, is that American citizens let them get away with
stating goals, without substantially stating HOW THEY WILL REACH THOSE GOALS.
Anyone can assert that they will attain goals, that American citizens find attractive.
But in complex technical situations, we have seen that the average American
citizen does not have the technical skills, to bring about those goals. In a very
technology centered society (sorry to say this), but amateur citizens don't have
the technical tools to reach technical goals.
---------- ----------

I find that many of the same useless generalizations in politics, are
aimed at people who do not carefully look for information about
the underlying topics (that the slogans claim to be addressing).

The same problem of shallow slogans, exists in the area of Christian apologetics.
Christian apologetics that is filled with religious slogans, but is not very careful
about using biblical definitions of words and phrases, may sound wonderful (to
some denominational groups), but will be producing LOGICALLY UNSOUND
arguments.

Christians should reject slogan apologetics, and slogan politics, and carefully look
to test all things, and hold onto what is good. And THAT does not mean going to
your favorite daytime talk show host for answers. Try reading articles from 20
different news sources (such as the Google news page). Try reading the articles in
Christianity Today, about political candidates.

ABC is in the tank for the DNC. In fact, they fact checked Trump, but only provided context for what Harris said.

Note the hour program ABC had before the debate. Martha Raddatz and Johnnathan Karl are staunch democrats.
Donna Brazile was actually the head of the DNC and was fired by CNN for giving Hillary the questions Brazil
would be asking at the debate between Trump and Hillary.

Harris's worse lie was that no US Military members are in harms way. Actually, troops are in Iraq and Syria. My grandson's
naval battle group were in the Red Sea, fighting Houthis in Yaman.

Also, she said nothing about the 13 killed by the lousy Afghanistan withdrawal.

 

[dzheremi]

ABC is in the tank for the DNC. In fact, they fact checked Trump, but only provided context for what Harris said.

Note the hour program ABC had before the debate. Martha Raddatz and Johnnathan Karl are staunch democrats.
Donna Brazile was actually the head of the DNC and was fired by CNN for giving Hillary the questions Brazil
would be asking at the debate between Trump and Hillary.

Harris's worse lie was that no US Military members are in harms way. Actually, troops are in Iraq and Syria. My grandson's
naval battle group were in the Red Sea, fighting Houthis in Yaman.

Also, she said nothing about the 13 killed by the lousy Afghanistan withdrawal.

It's kind of weird that you would post this directly after posting a fine example of fact-checking Trump's statement about pet-eating immigrants. Is it that you're mad that ABC gave the job to people other than you, or what?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

It's kind of weird that you would post this directly after posting a fine example of fact-checking Trump's statement about pet-eating immigrants. Is it that you're mad that ABC gave the job to people other than you, or whai

I posted in this thread of where Trump got the statement of Haitians eating pets.
It came from a Springfield resident who spoke before the city council at a town meeting and
made the claim.

It was obviously wrong, but Trump ran with it and now suffers the consequences.

 

[iluvatar5150]

ABC is in the tank for the DNC. In fact, they fact checked Trump, but only provided context for what Harris said.

They only fact-checked the most obviously false, low-hanging fruit that they knew would be coming: the 2020 election, the cat eating, the claims of high crime, and the claim that Virginia wanted to allow killing live babies. They didn't fact check anything that Trump said about Harris, or anything that required more effort or nuance beyond saying "that's just not true."

Did Harris make any blatantly false claims about something other than Trump? Off the top of my head, the only thing I can think of that might qualify is her claim about combat zones. I haven't heard that claim before, but I can imagine how they might not have been prepared to push back on it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

They only fact-checked the most obviously false, low-hanging fruit that they knew would be coming: the 2020 election, the cat eating, the claims of high crime, and the claim that Virginia wanted to allow killing live babies. They didn't fact check anything that Trump said about Harris, or anything that required more effort or nuance beyond saying "that's just not true."

Did Harris make any blatantly false claims about something other than Trump? Off the top of my head, the only thing I can think of that might qualify is her claim about combat zones. I haven't heard that claim before, but I can imagine how they might not have been prepared to push back on it.

She also claimed that Trump supported Project 2025, which he has denied for a couple of months now. He was right that
the accusation was brought by the democrats.

 

[iluvatar5150]

She also claimed that Trump supported Project 2025, which he has denied for a couple of months now. He was right that
the accusation was brought by the democrats.

That issue is very much one of "who do you trust more?". I know he's claimed that he doesn't support it, but I don't believe him, at least not entirely. The program was written and developed by a significant number of people who were involved in his campaign and administration, and his VP pick wrote the forward for the upcoming book of one of its chief architects. Even if Trump himself isn't necessarily on board with the program, it's likely to have a significant influence on the policies his administration would attempt to implement. But he knows it's politically toxic, so he's trying to distance himself from it.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That issue is very much one of "who do you trust more?". I know he's claimed that he doesn't support it, but I don't believe him, at least not entirely. The program was written and developed by a significant number of people who were involved in his campaign and administration, and his VP pick wrote the forward for the upcoming book of one of its chief architects. Even if Trump himself isn't necessarily on board with the program, it's likely to have a significant influence on the policies his administration would attempt to implement. But he knows it's politically toxic, so he's trying to distance himself from it.

He said that he never even heard of Project 2025 until it was made public by a democratic source in that he supported it.

I believe him as I followed the story when it first came out.

 

[iluvatar5150]

He said that he never even heard of Project 2025 until it was made public by a democratic source in that he supported it.

I believe him as I followed the story when it first came out.

I can believe that he'd never heard of the formal plan prior to that, but that doesn't mean he's not amenable to or even supportive of the positions within it.