Why? Those were the rules Vance and Walz had agreed to and what CBS said they would do:
CBS said the moderators â Norah OâDonnell, the anchor of âCBS Evening News,â and Margaret Brennan, who hosts âFace the Nationâ â would primarily focus on encouraging exchanges between the candidates and enforcing the ground rules, rather than fact-checking.
...
âThe goal of the debate is to facilitate a good debate between the candidates, and the moderators will give them the opportunity to fact-check each other in real time,â Ms. Milne said. CBS said it would remind viewers that the networkâs approach to a debate was distinct from a one-on-one interview with a candidate, as on âFace the Nation.â
Brennan arguably broke those ground rules when she interjected to "clarify for [their] viewers" that many Haitians in Springfield had legal status. She did this after Walz had already responded to Vance (candidates were supposed to fact check each other, Walz had the opportunity), and then didn't give Vance a chance to respond.
Wait, is there a list of ground rules that said no fact checking? I think I need to see the moderators say they would not fact check under any circumstance before I buy that load of goods.
I seem to remember âperfect phone callsâ from Trump and explanations that unless someone says quid pro quo, it isnât a quid pro quo arrangement.
I quoted you New York Times summarizing CBS as saying:
moderators ... would primarily focus on encouraging exchanges between the candidates and enforcing the ground rules, rather than fact-checking.
I don't think an official list of rules was ever made public, but no one disputed this reporting. "under any circumstance" was probably not included, but it's hard for me to see why Brennan thought it was necessary after Walz had already had a chance to reply.
Well, sometimes as a moderator you have to make some calls. And letâs be clear whatâs going on here: some republicans who have bent, broken, fought, and ignored rules and norms every step of the way are complaining that some unwritten and/or unpublished, but definitively unofficial rules arenât being followed?Â
This guy, (couchfucker Vance)that complained about being fact checked, handwaved away being called out for a racist lie about Haitian immigrants eating peoples pets in America! JustâI think itâs a good story,â or some bullshit. No apology or admission of wrongdoing or correcting the record. He needs to be factchecked.
I mean most of what he said was a flat out lie. Reading his answers on foreign policyare flat out lol worthy given how terribly the admin has handled that. But this is the part I referring to
âNow, Governor Walz brought up the community of Springfield, and heâs very worried about the things that Iâve said in Springfield. Look, in Springfield, Ohio and in communities all across this country, youâve got schools that are overwhelmed, youâve got hospitals that are overwhelmed, you have got housing that is totally unaffordable because we brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce homes. The people that Iâm most worried about in Springfield, Ohio, are the American citizens who have had their lives destroyed by Kamala Harrisâs open border. It is a disgrace, Tim. And I actually think, I agree with you. I think you want to solve this problem, but I donât think that Kamala Harris does.â
None of what he says is correct and it is xenophobic nonsense that has proven to be false. Remember this was said immediately after Trump accused the Springfield Haitian community of eating cats and dogs. An utterly nonsense lie with no evidence.
6
u/10gherts 1d ago
That should have disqualified the entire GOP. Like what the actual fuck, no facts?? They're in their own world man