“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.”

[Auld Phart]

Famous quote by Sen D Moynihan

I have to wonder if he's spinning in his grave after the debate.

Opinion - With fact-checks like these, how does truth stand a chance?

 

[Woodznutz]

Opinion and fact are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Famous quote by Sen D Moynihan

I have to wonder if he's spinning in his grave after the debate.

Opinion - With fact-checks like these, how does truth stand a chance?

The very notion that a moderator should also act as judge, jury and executioner is SO far gone from the way an actual debate should be held as to not even be recognized as something American.

Old Stassi members must love it.

 

[expat_panama]

money?

$24 dollars' worth of pretty beads.

you sold cheap.

What's interesting is whether the story is true or even complete, it's good to remember that $24 invested at just 6% per year would now be worth over $280Trillion. That's more than all the private wealth of the entire U.S. --including Manhattan.

cheap indeed.

 

[Delldude]

Opinion and fact are not mutually exclusive.

Remember, it was Biden who said they believe truth over the facts.

 

[whitehall]

There's a fine line (if any) between propaganda, spin and opinion vs. facts. You can rig statistics, you can pull an out of context phrase and spin it to something different, you can pick out a throwaway line and turn it into a federal case. you can pretend that an overestimation or an underestimation is a lie. All those things fall into the category of facts depending on the political motivation.

 

[Auld Phart]

will never happen, but I'd like to see integrity brought to debates.

2 moderators, 2 basically silent fact checkers.

Moderator asks the question, candidate responds, if the response is deemed inaccurate, fact checker sounds a buzzer. they don't correct, they don't say anything, just hit the buzzer.

it would be up to the candidate to revise their statement, knowing they were wrong.

 

[Delldude]

There's a fine line (if any) between propaganda, spin and opinion vs. facts. You can rig statistics, you can pull an out of context phrase and spin it to something different, you can pick out a throwaway line and turn it into a federal case. you can pretend that an overestimation or an underestimation is a lie. All those things fall into the category of facts depending on the political motivation.

You get that from the DNC playbook?

 

[task0778]

One of the big problems we face today is determining fact from fiction or exaggeration. I don't know about you, but I don't believe anybody without doing some back-checking as best I can. Most of everything we see or hear or read has a slant to it, one way or the other. Maybe not everything, but damn if it isn't hard to tell what is truth and what is somewhat distorted truth or outright misinformation/disinformation. So, with such a shaky foundation of truth, how does one trust anybody if you don't really know them personally?

 

[Rawley]

will never happen, but I'd like to see integrity brought to debates.

2 moderators, 2 basically silent fact checkers.

Moderator asks the question, candidate responds, if the response is deemed inaccurate, fact checker sounds a buzzer. they don't correct, they don't say anything, just hit the buzzer.

it would be up to the candidate to revise their statement, knowing they were wrong.

?? Trump accurately says that crime is way up under Harris. Dickhead Muir hits his buzzer. Exactly what is Trump supposed to do?

 

[Auld Phart]

?? Trump accurately says that crime is way up under Harris. Dickhead Muir hits his buzzer. Exactly what is Trump supposed to do?

Moderator is NOT the fact checker.

 

[whitehall]

You get that from the DNC playbook?

Actually it's the mainstream media playbook.

 

[Rawley]

One of the big problems we face today is determining fact from fiction or exaggeration. I don't know about you, but I don't believe anybody with doing some back-checking as best I can. Most of everything we see or hear or read has a slant to it, one way or the other. Maybe not everything, but damn if it isn't hard to tell what is truth and what is somewhat distorted truth or outright misinformation/disinformation. So, with such a shaky foundation of truth, how does one trust anybody if you don't really know them personally?

The person's own words.

Harris vowed to ban fracking.
She supported gun confiscation
Gvt paying for sex change operations for illegal.

All her positions were/are in her own words. Fact.

 

[Rawley]

Moderator is NOT the fact checker.

OK, THe Dickhead David Muir look alike in some room back in NYC. What's the difference?

THere should be no "fact checking" other than by the debate participants. None. Zero. Problem solved.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Actually it's the mainstream media playbook.

There is a difference?

They are just two intertwined arms of the world economic forum.

 

[Foxfyre]

Famous quote by Sen D Moynihan

I have to wonder if he's spinning in his grave after the debate.

Opinion - With fact-checks like these, how does truth stand a chance?

Free speech allows people to differ in their opinions, conclusions, beliefs, perceptions. Free speech allows people to be wrong. When (the collective) you do not allow people to think or believe wrongly without retaliation, you do not believe in free speech at all.

The ONLY speech that should be censored in any way is that which maliciously harms people/violates their unalienable rights and that which via social contract is considered unsuitable in public--public nudity, vulgarity, obscenities, etc.--though it can be expressed freely in private.

Whenever you hear somebody say that 'disinformation' should be suppressed or disallowed, you know that somebody means that if what THEY want the public to believe is opposed, the opposition should be shut down. There are few things more dangerous to the people's liberty than that.

 

[whitehall]

There is a difference?

They are just two intertwined arms of the world economic forum.

good point

 

[Woodznutz]

will never happen, but I'd like to see integrity brought to debates.

2 moderators, 2 basically silent fact checkers.

Moderator asks the question, candidate responds, if the response is deemed inaccurate, fact checker sounds a buzzer. they don't correct, they don't say anything, just hit the buzzer.

it would be up to the candidate to revise their statement, knowing they were wrong.

That would be the end of political debates.

 

[Delldude]

Actually it's the mainstream media playbook.

You can tell the difference?

 

[whitehall]

The definition of "debate"....a formal discussion in a public meeting in which opposing arguments are discussed". It doesn't include "fact checking". Debates are about opinions. WTF would we do if a candidate merely recited some "facts" that were certified propaganda and the other candidate was fact checked for every thing he said? Oh yeah that really happened.