Well he does fund the Heritage Foundation…Praising Orban wasn’t on my debate bingo card…
The same folks who wrote the “project” document he knows nothing about…?
Takeaway: If DJT had the sense to let this staffer (or anyone other than himself) run his twitter account from the start he'd likely still be President
apnews.com
Well, one name definitely popped up more often in that link…The EBB (Early Bird Brief) had a link
FACT FOCUS: A look at false and misleading claims made during Trump and Harris' debate
In the first debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, their highly different views of the country provided a distinct contrast between their agendas.
One big one that no one is mentioning for some reason is when he said that Ashley Babbit died “wrongly” on J6.
Nah, Taylor Swift is clearly for eating cats. Probably on her list of requirements when she does shows. A bowl of cats and mineral water.
Their performances weren't equal. All of left and some of the right agrees that Harris "won". What is also true is that neither candidate did particularly well or poorly. Trump couldn't discipline himself, but didn't plumb new depths that people haven't already seen. Harris didn't achieve either of the two goals of explaining the dichotomy between her "values" and positions, or the dichotomy between having been an important part of the current administration and running as a candidate for "change", but presented well. From what Nate Silver, Harry Enten, and the RCP poll averages are saying, presenting well and enjoying the benefit of positive hype seems to have reached its ceiling for Harris and isn't enough.
The moderators had to fact-check a few blatant Trump lies, like the claim that in some states it’s a legal practice to murder babies post-birth. Otherwise it was very lightly moderated, and he frequently interjected after attempts by the moderators to move on to the next topic. He generally insisted on cutting in with a last word or three, and they let him do so. But as you say, you didn’t watch.
This is an example in which the literal claim doesn't match reality, but in which fact-checkers find it convenient to limit the amount of information they deliver. It is not legal to kill babies after birth. It is legal to deny them care and permit them to die after an abortion. Obviously it's not the only example of such hair-splitting. People ought to be informed not only of what is wrong, but also of what is right so that they can see where misunderstandings and myths arise.
It’s not ‘hair splitting’ to say post-birth abortion (Trump used the word “execute”) is a pure fiction. They also corrected him in peddling the lie that migrants in Ohio were kidnapping people’s pets and eating them. That’s the kind of lies that merited moderator action.
All politicians (really, all people) make statements that range from misleading to mythical because neither they nor their staff (or friends) have adequately checked the details ("fine people"), or they hear/read what they want to despite what was said/written ("51 intelligence officials..."), or the issue simply becomes fuzzy in their minds (many of Biden's "onion belt" stories). There's almost always some foundation that hasn't been correctly represented and is worthwhile talking about. Being clear and correct and complete are useful; evasion-by-pedantry isn't useful.
That's the kind of lies that need to be investigated. One of the foundations of the story appears to be that 20,000 people moved into a community of 60,000 (Springfield OH). Why did that happen, were political agencies involved, and what have been the effects? I can guess that the players and the effects haven't been something the campaign wants to talk about, hence the enthusiasm with which people are using one potentially ridiculous assertion to avoid talking about it at all.
That's a pure judgement call.
I'm sure the Harris campaign would consent to a debate on Fox, where they have no control or influence.
