• ResoluteCatnap@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    130
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Let me get this straight, CBS is refusing to fact check the VP nominee who, on TV, admitted that if he has to make up lies to get America’s attention then he’d do just that?

    Eat shit CBS

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    14 hours ago

    he has no power on his own. go after the shadow drivers that hide behind his buffoonery if you really truly want to see clarity

  • Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Don’t act like Walz wiping the floor with Vance is a forgone conclusion, it’s not. That’s what people thought about Biden’s debate. Whether we admit it or not, there’s intelligent Republican debaters who can’t be baited out there, Trump just isn’t one of them.

    I genuinely wonder if the best option wouldn’t be to refuse the VP debate until live fact-checking is in place for both candidates. That, or correcting simple untruths didn’t count toward their time. I love Tom Walz, but if he has to literally spend his entire time refuting very obvious lies continuously spewed by Vance, his time would be better spent campaigning in swing states. How much does a Vice-Presidential debate really matter, anyway?

    • PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      There’s intelligent Republican debaters who can’t be baited out there

      This is true, but I’ve seen Vance speak, he has zero charisma. I feel like you need some amount of charisma to be a bullshit artist and have people not see straight through you. I mean people with any semblance of intelligence will see through you no matter what, but votes aren’t weighted on intelligence.

    • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 hours ago

      correcting simple untruths didn’t count toward their time

      This would be THE BEST rule ever for all debates of any kind.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I disagree, that’ll be abused by candidates to get more screen time.

        We should keep the fact checking ABC did and perhaps deduct time for candidates that are consistently caught out on lies. The fact checkers should be approved by all candidates as well, so they can’t just point to the hosts as favoring one or another.

  • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    145
    ·
    22 hours ago

    If there is no fact checking, Kamala needs to be ready to ask why Trump nominated someone who isn’t allowed in any Ashley Furniture store in the lower 48 states and Alberta.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      You… do know Harris (it’s weird you used her first name) and Trump won’t be at the Vice-Presidential debate, right?

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      I agree with the sentiment, but that tees up Trump to reply with something that normalizes getting banned from places. You know, the sorts of consequences for the actions of “fine people” everywhere. It doesn’t even have to make complete sense nor be morally defensible; simple soothing words and support from perceived “leadership” is enough to make that play.

      If your opponent isn’t rational, and their base much less so, appealing to general reason is probably not going to work. Better to go on the attack and out specific weird behavior as, well, weird and not a part of the overall group (voters) dynamic. The key is to signal that there’s something wrong with this kind of behavior with your time on the mic, rather than hope that your opponent will just screw up their rebuttal.

  • celsiustimeline@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Surely CBS knows that a random person cannot unilaterally revoke their broadcasting license and shut down their legal corporation.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      8 hours ago

      The president absolutely can. Would it be legal? Probably not. Would that matter after federal agents kick everyone out of your studio and lock it? Probably not.

    • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 hours ago

      A random person - no.

      A person who controls millions of narrow minded gun wielding nationalists - maybe.

        • Zexks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          15 hours ago

          So you didn’t pay attention to any part of the immunity ruling. Got it.

        • Revan343@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          Depends how much of the rest of the government apparatus Trump’s brown shirts manage to take control of

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    50
    ·
    21 hours ago

    Part of the problem is that nearly every sentence trump spoke was a lie, so fact checking was not 100%. They just fact checked random things, like, nobody is eating our pets. ProfessorWeKnowDis.gif

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 hours ago

      They fact checked the most obvious stuff on purpose. It’s irrefutable. You cannot seriously claim they were biased when their two fact checks were the most basic shit. And yet that highlights just how bad Trump is.

  • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Walz needs to make outlandish, unbelievable, rumors. Couch fucking should sound normal.

    Vance is technology he’s own great-,grandfather/ brother. You know, he’s Grafa bro! His pet ladybug is very proud of their accomplish.

    • Diurnambule@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 hours ago

      That would be so fun if he would use the maga debate technic and go full lie after lie making Vance lose his time refuting everything

  • AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    He has no power to shut down a major news network, so one must ask why they decided to change the policy. It is not because of Trump’s impotent threats.

    • Telorand@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Because they want a piece of that sweet, lucrative, “insane spectacle” money. The execs don’t care, as long as they get paid.

    • the_tab_key@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I assume the Trump/Vance campaign privately told CBS no fact checking else Vance drops out of the debate.

  • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    24 hours ago

    It’s not that Trump is killing anything; no more than millenials killed anything. It’s the media that’s the problem. If we’re going to blame anybody for failed media, then let’s blame the appropriate people. Instead of giving them a scape goat, we hold their feet to the fire.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Some people are under the mistaken impression that corporate news is not run specifically by republiQans to promote conservatism.

    🌎🧑‍🚀🔫👨‍🚀

    • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Do you mean that these entities are run by people who believe qanon? Or you weren’t being literal? Just the former I’d be really curious to see what lead you to opinion

      Hilarious and sad if true

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Do you mean that these entities are run by people who believe qanon?

        It’s kind of a ‘trick question’ because they don’t have to believe Qanuts to support them. I like to think they don’t but statistically - i.e. Elon - some must. It becomes irrelevant when they simply repeat Qanon idiocies without brutally mocking them.

        A defining quality of Qanon “theories” is that they literally aren’t theories in any sense but in the largest most general term. Like “robots are stealing my luggage” is a “theory”.

    • OpenStars@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Is this one though, or are they merely… “useful”?

      My own point is that if those two are functionally indistinguishable, then that should tell us something about how dangerous the situation has become.

      Very nice emojis btw!

  • Pavidus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I kinda wanna see the entire debate evolve into ludicrous, outlandish claims back and forth. Just sheer comedy. I know this isn’t the right way to fix anything, but it’s what we deserve at this point for letting the situation get this far unchecked.

  • shutz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Is the debate being simulcast on all the major networks? I seem to remember seeing the Trump/Harris debate on ABC, CBS and NBC (just with different talking heads before and after).

    If so, ABC should broadcast the debate with fact-checking overlays (Pop-up video style?) and advertise the shit out of the fact that they’ll be doing this.