AceTKen

Sure. They lied. I'm not going to watch it to verify, but I'll take your word on it. But again, that's not what they're there to stop. It's akin to getting mad at Sesame Street for not showing you how to make a good stew.

And also, they wanted usage rights. Now that they had footage that they owned, CNN the same night and next day aired basically pick-aparts using their own footage demolishing a lot of those points. Is your issue that it wasn't done live even though it never has been?

These debates rarely have given equal time to all candidates involved. Historically, they give the most time to the most popular candidates no matter where the debates are aired.

Here is some current polling.

So this is to show that the results are not set in stone. I understand that polling this early on isn’t meaningful, but I think what it does illustrate is that Biden isn’t obviously dominating in a Biden-Haley match up. If anything it looks Haley beats Biden by a larger margin than Trump does.

Rather than trying to support Haley because she is perceived to be less of a (insert whatever pejorative you'd use here) or because Biden will do better against her in a general election (and as far as we know, he won’t), we should focus on pressuring Biden to enact policy changes that his voting base are demanding.

And again, if using a US barometer for politics, none of this really shows that CNN is centrist or right-wing now out of nowhere (while still arguing against and frequently mocking right-wing policies).

Absolutely, which is why I'm asking for clarification. Keep in mind that like 90% of our TV, movie, and internet content is American, so it's not like we're clueless about the goings-on there, we just don't have some of the finer points nailed down.

So assuming the Equal-Time rule doesn't apply, splitting the vote still does. Also, as a show of political fairness it still counts, not to mention that you can't properly fight what you don't understand.

You didn't answer my question if the Democratic equivalent had a fact-checker. I'd look myself, but I'm not sure what it's called.

And before I forget, thanks for talking. It's not often you can debate on any social media without the other person being rude and condescending. I appreciate it.

I moderate (and do most of the writing for) [email protected] if you'd ever like to stop by!

I misused a term, my apologies (I'm Canadian and my terminology was a little off). I was using Democratic Primaries in place of whatever the Democrats have as a candidate debate session like this was for the Republicans. If you let me know what it's called, I'll correct my post! Regardless of the name, did they have a fact checker there at that event?

Again, I don't believe the candidates have a chance against Trump UNLESS he is rejected as a candidate by enough states or other lawsuits have results that prevent him from running. If those do occur, then it will have been useful because it's not like the Republicans are just going to not field a candidate. Also as I mentioned, if a candidate has a strong base that really believes in them, sometimes they won't vote for the person that beat "their" candidate, thus splitting the vote. This is a good thing from the opposite side.

It's also a good thing because they're abiding by the Equal-Time Rule (essentially an updated version of the Fairness Doctrine).

Was there a fact-checker at the last Democratic primaries? If not, then why would there be a double standard?

And I think you may be mistaken about what these debates exist to do. They aren't there to "check facts" and make sure everyone only has correct opinions (which I would argue that even some on Democratic side do not have). They are there to show what the candidates believe, how they behave, and how they respond to pressure. They show how they act in front of a crowd, and how they respond later to missteps during the debates. In effect, they show a good public face for judging a politician.

The simple fact is that you aren't going to have every fact going into, say, a negotiation with China - you have to think on your feet.

I would even argue that it wasn't pointless. Trump is certainly the biggest candidate for the Right, but there are plenty of things that could get in his way at the moment.

And "hearing them out" is a way to show that you're not just unfairly maligning them and keeping them down by keeping them out of media that you don't want to see. It's also helping to split the Right, which is INCREDIBLY valuable.

Just because you can't think of a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.

But airing a candidate debate is not a right-wing thing. Since when (in the last 20 years at least) has anything right-wing allowed debates from both major sides in the American political spectrum? Making an attempt to be fair is a centrist or Left-wing thing. If anything, that would further prove my point.

I can't debate this as I don't watch any news channels, but are you able to counter what Media Bias Fact Check (which, as far as I have seen is extremely accurate and vets their information) states, or is this a case that people on the extreme sides of any political movement see anything even slightly closer to the centre as "the other side?"

I like this! Would I be able to bother you to post this to https://lemmy.ca/c/actual_discussion

I feel it would be a really worthwhile topic to dig into and you've articulated it well!

Absolutely! It's the first community I've run on Lemmy, so I'll definitely have to pull from how you post it if that's okay.

Maybe something like: "If you like Casual Conversation instead of Competitive Ranked conversation, try https://lemmy.ca/c/[email protected] !"

Was going to start doing a few topics today, actually. Slept like garbage though so they may be... dumber than standard.

I liked With Teeth, but it's a pretty far cry from The Fragile (or even TDS).

Yeah, it may be hard to set the tone at first without alienating anyone. I'm hoping that I'm up for it.