politics

Yeah trump didn't make that shit up...but he's a useful idiot who absolutely can be manipulated into letting it happen

They did that on purpose. Harris originally suggested open mics but Trump pushed back. I'm guessing she told the moderators not to worry too much about letting him get in an unsanctioned response, knowing that if he's at the point where he's barging in and ignoring decorum, he's likely going to self-immolate on camera.

She wasn't wrong. She was concise enough to get almost every question answered, and baited Trump into humiliating himself. Some of the most damaging things he said were said during time he wasn't supposed to be speaking.

It's the perfect trap. Giving him extra time sabotages him, but he can't complain that getting extra time to speak was a trap, because, as you suggest, at face value, it was unfair to Harris.

It also potentially saved the debate from an early conclusion. Trump has walked out of interviews and debates in the past when they forced him to stop talking or move on.

They really played him well.

Yeah, definitely a double standard on mic control. Any time he opened his mouth they turned his mic on, she tried once and they did a hard pass. Hell, even while they refuted his dog eating claims his mic was on talking over the moderator.

And that's because all of the media loves Trump. They have a bias, sure, but they know the crazy shit he says sells views/headlines and that's their business, informing the public is a byproduct.

It's not the job of the person disproving it to prove anything. It's the job of the person making the assertion and "Well, someone said it on TV!" isn't proof.

You're falling for their propaganda.

Republicans started this racist rumor about Haitians in Ohio.

The media talks to city officials and determines that these claims are unfounded.

Republicans claim that the city's response wasn't an outright denial, and suggest that this lends some amount of legitimacy that it might be happening.

But that's bullshit. Government PR (and pretty much every journalist) knows to never make statements of negative fact, because you cannot logically prove a negative. It's the same reason newspapers use "allegedly" to describe accused criminals: because future events could hypothetically change the truthfulness of the statement.

And that's all these claims will ever be: hypothetical. When all you have is a hypothesis, it is irresponsible to run away with it as if it were evidence of anything.

"Can't be disproven" is the default state of most social issues. That alone is equivalent to having zero evidence, and so repeating the completely baseless claims that Haitians might be eating pets, while technically true in a hypothetical sense, could be said about literally any group you want, because there will exist the same amount of evidence of it being true (none).

One can only conclude that anyone peddling this narrative solely wishes to spread racist ideas about Haitians.