929
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] tetrachromacy@lemmy.world 251 points 2 months ago

The first time the moderators countered his obvious dog-whistle lies I was absolutely blown away. You could have knocked me over with a feather. Then I started laughing and didn't stop.

The correction was really well done and completely natural by both moderators, I almost didn't register what happened. Love to see it.

[-] Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 231 points 2 months ago

Donald's whimpering rebuttal of "but but I saw it on TV" objectively did the most damage to his image of everything I have seen to date.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 90 points 2 months ago
[-] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 2 months ago

That's insulting to 5-year-olds. Many of them can actually complete sentences before going on to the next thought.

[-] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 68 points 2 months ago

Especially from the guy who made the phrase “Fake news” famous.

He’s definitely sundowning.

[-] kibiz0r@midwest.social 18 points 2 months ago

It still blows me away that he managed to take over the term “fake news”.

It was introduced as a way to explain how social media was leading gullible people into MAGA, but he turned it into a term for persecution of MAGA by conventional media.

It was actually an incredible move. I can’t think of anything he’s spun that well since 2016.

[-] kofe@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

I'm pretty sure Hitler or Mussolini popularized the term (Hitlers translation was closer to "lying press) originally to discredit journalists, socialists, scientists... Etc. Trump has been reported to have Mein Kampf on his bedside table, but I need to actually read it myself to confirm how much of his playbook comes from it. He for sure targets vulnerable, innocent groups (immigrants, women, LGBTQ, etc.). He eroded public infrastructure, attempting to privatize it where he could.

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Not Mein Kampf, it was a book of translated Hitler speeches.

[-] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 57 points 2 months ago

My favorite moment from the whole thing was when Harris offhandedly mentioned that his rallies were bad, and he spent a full minute of his rebuttal time insisting that his rallies were awesome, then started arguing with the moderators when they fact checked him. You could see that that, above everything else that went on, rankled him. It really highlighted the narcissism.

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 48 points 2 months ago

The highlight for me for the whole debate was not Trump's pet-eating outburst but the perfect setup and execution Harris did to bait him into that unhinged rant instead of talking about immigration.

She "invites" people to go to Trump rallies. She follows up the point about people leaving rallies early with a note along the lines of: you're about to watch Trump not talk about you. Sure enough, he fell into the trap, and Trump talked about what he cared about most at that moment.

[-] Infynis@midwest.social 29 points 2 months ago

It took him like 2 minutes to do everything she said, right in front of him, that he would

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Go back and watch Trump. His eyeballs pop when she says attendees are leaving out of exhaustion and boredom.

[-] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Buttons pushed.

[-] auzy@lemmy.world 14 points 2 months ago

I'd say it is when he suggested migrants were eating people's pets 😅

[-] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

That was all part of the same response and fact check sequence.

[-] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 12 points 2 months ago

The thing is, he looked visibly confused. As if he truly believes that the things he sees on TV are absolute truth.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I was watching it through Dylan Burns stream on it and he said trump sounded like an angry five year old.

Edit: said not sayed, fucken Redneck accent fucken up my spelling.

[-] Shapillon@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah this is one of those typos that you can hear ^^

[-] Kalysta@lemm.ee 3 points 2 months ago

What was it? “The people on TV said it!”

He sounded exactly like my grandmother with dementia the day I walked into her room to her freaking out about the postman stealing her cheerios.

[-] danh2os@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You misspelled refuttal. Orange you embarrassed?

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 97 points 2 months ago

Too bad they let him continue to lie about the thing they just fact checked, let him talk beyond his allotted time, reapond when it wasn't his turn, and shut down Harris the one time she tried to respond out of turn.

The moderators crossed an extremely low bar on fact checking last night, but did everything else the same way they always have.

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io 54 points 2 months ago

All his talking didn't help him at all. I don't think the Harris side cared about him self-destroying his image and giving lots for the talk shows later to make fun of.

[-] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 months ago

It gives him a platform. End of story. Every single minute he talks it allows for normalization.

[-] Bassman1805@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

This works for some things, but it's like the parable of the boiled toad: you need to push on the edges of truth, not come out guns blazing with "post-birth abortions", "Immigrants eating family pets", and "Democrats wanted Roe v Wade overturned also"

[-] frezik@midwest.social 11 points 2 months ago

It's too late for that. We deal with him or he gets back in the White House.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

But to who? His cult? They are lost, stop trying to save them. B

[-] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 45 points 2 months ago

It's complicated, since the Harris campaign wanted him to have more opportunities to ramble, interrupt and get mad. They were very much counting on him being himself and comparing that to someone who can speak in coherent sentences without getting mad.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 9 points 2 months ago

A well executed Batman Gambit in real life.

[-] jhymesba@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

My thoughts as well. Trump did himself no favours with undecideds and independents with his inane rambling rants. For the most part, Harris just seemed content to use her time to press him and let him make a fool out of himself, with only a couple of instances popping up when she seemed to want to interject but couldn't.

[-] ThePantser@lemmy.world 37 points 2 months ago

He shut her down twice. The one time was really over the line. But I loved the moderator saying there is no place in the USA that executing babies is legal. Wtf, 9 month abortions? Lol

[-] kofe@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

My mom fully believes this shit for some reason. She believes mothers carry to 9 months and just abort out of inconvenience, and that doctors don't work to keep the fetus alive out of the womb if possible. She shares pictures with descriptions of the procedures with zero sources beyond Christian crisis pregnancy centers. Or just Christians.

And she wonders why I started exhibiting signs of PTSD before I was even six.

[-] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

I support it. They have a job to let viewers know that the radical information is not true, and they should not take it as valid information to get worked up over.

It's the difference between Trump sounding like a maniac vs exposing a controversy. They don't need to stop him from sounding like a maniac. They just need to clarify that he is, in fact, a maniac.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

In this case his extra time actually hurt him.

[-] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 32 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That really showed what a shitbag outfit CNN has become under it’s new conservative ownership group. They are a wolf in sheep’s clothing now.

“I would like to see CNN evolve back to the kind of journalism that it started with, and actually have journalists, which would be unique and refreshing,” he said. Then he suggested a model: “Fox News, in my opinion, has followed an interesting trajectory of trying to have ‘news’ news, I mean some actual journalism, embedded in a program schedule of all opinions.”

Malone’s comments didn’t resonate much beyond a couple of places: At Fox News, which responded with glee, and inside CNN, where they sounded alarm bells.

—New board member and billionaire John Malone, a legend in the cable TV business and one who has deep and longstanding ties with David Zaslav

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 16 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

CNN was much more honorable—the debate we had with Biden was a much more honorably run debate.”

The CNN moderators in June notably did not fact-check or question statements made by Trump or Biden during that event, as per agreed rules.

Emphasis added

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

I would like to see any organization actually have journalists or actually do journalism. But my definition of journalism is different from this sociopath's, like I take telling the truth as an assumption.

[-] DogPeePoo@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

There are only a handful of journalists left. Two that come to mind are Pam and Russ Martens of WSOP (Wall Street On Parade) who have been speaking truth to power for decades but remain obfuscated like other journalists with integrity.

Obviously these are financial journalists and we need many like them and their courage in the political and world news spheres.

They are out there, but they are the very few.

[-] Kalysta@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Al Jazeera is pretty good with international news. Be skeptical of their middle east news though.

Also Democracy Now. Amy Goodman is still out there trying to break stories.

[-] renrenPDX@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Yeah the baby executioner bit was gold.

[-] tetrachromacy@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

THEY'RE EATING THE DOGS

this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
929 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2245 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS