The thought process of " I'm not going to be fact checked so I'll just say the same shit anyway."
It's wild how blatant they are being to get clips for their brain rot base to eat up.
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
226 points (98.3% liked)
politics
19248 readers
2460 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I thought Vance won the debate (mostly through Gish galloping), but I'm not sure it's going to matter. The big moment of the evening was him being muted for aggressively talking over two women, and it wasn't a great look. I'm sure it played well to Trump's base of incels who hate journalists, but I doubt anyone else found it very appealing.
I loved that they repeatedly tried to get him to stop talking so they could talk but he kept going, got muted, and you could still hear him continuing to talk in the background, and when he realized he was muted he got louder in the background to try to be heard by more microphones anyway
Yeah, considering how bad their campaign did with abortion, cat ladies, and misogynistic bullshit, my gut says this moment did some damage.
Usernames that make you go "Wait, what?" and then transport you back in time 30 years.
It's an Amazon TV show now with two recent seasons...
I care not for the Dragon Reborn. I follow the Car'a'carn.
“You childless moderators contribute nothing of value to society!” -Vance said in response, mascara bleeding down his cheeks.
He definitely was not wearing mascara. He may have been wearing extra makeup to occlude his dreamy eyelashes, wait, I thought this was a funny way to go. These fascists such as Vance and Trump hate freedom. They hate personal autonomy.
Oh the mods came ready. They did fact checking and took no shit. It was glorious to watch.
No.
Its a stalemate. JD Vance accomplished what he needed to rally Republicans to this cause. Which is to shit on the moderators and make it sound like Walz and the Moderators are in cahoots. Worse, this kind of meta-debate is on-brand for the Republican strategy.
This is why fact-checking is so hard, because when you do it wrong it solidifies a huge number of Americans against the fact-checker and can even rally them to JD Vance's side.
Fact checking isn’t hard if you go by facts. Your response about ‘sounds like’ is contradictory is so many ways
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law
The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it.
Did you watch when they fact checked Trump on migrants and pets? People still believe it to be true.
Oh sweetie. I'm sorry to ask this,but where the fuck have you been the past 8~9 years!? C'mon dude. We're in over our heads inside la-la land; where you can just make up whatever you want and hordes of people believe it because they want to. Facts don't matter if you don't want them to.
Well no shit. You still have to say something. Even if you question if there is a soul on the receiving end
Fact checking isn’t hard if you go by facts.
For fucks sake did you not exist between the years 2016 and 2020?
My mom literally still thinks Obama is a Muslim.
has CBS explained why the moderators intervened and fact checked him? I'm going to assume some laywers stepped in and said, "We can't air that. We'll be sued to oblivion."
but also, like, Saying "we're not" and then doing it certainly feeds into the narrative that they were trying to help Walz. at least in republican minds.