ABC News Moderators Blasted For Extreme Bias, Fact Checking Trump But Not Harris

[RDKirk]

We are talking about people with legal status.

I've never been talking about people with legal status.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've never been talking about people with legal status.

Weren't you talking about not permitting 20k people to move to one smallish city like Springfield? Those people have legal status. You can't stop them. (People without legal status can be summarily deported. No need to limit how many are in a city.)

 

[childeye 2]

One person was killed by a police officer doing something that Trump did not tell them to do

Who said anything about Trump telling an officer to shoot someone? I'm talking about manipulating thousands of people into thinking that the election was stolen, which subsequently led to the events that followed because of that lie. What? You think lies don't do damage when they're believed? One reason why Malignant narcissism is a public danger is because as a contagion, it recreates itself in those who believe the fantasy.

 

[childeye 2]

No matter his faults the country will be better off with him than with Harris.

Trying to get Pence to reject the valid votes because he doesn't want to be the loser is a sickness, not a fault. He's a sick mind and Harris is a healthy mind. There's no comparison. People who fawn over him like his followers do, only deepens his psychopathy.

Kamala Harris is a prosecutor. She deals with mental psychosis in criminal minds all the time. She pushed his jump buttons over and over. She knew if she mentioned his rallies and people leaving, he would lose focus on all other things. She knew he measures his self-worth according to numbers like crowd size and ratings.

Malignant narcissism is also a contagion. Even though the reality is Kamala played him like a yo-yo in front of the world, many people will join in his fantasy that he beat her like a drum.

 

[Canuckster]

Some are going to see my speaking out against negative prejudice as trying to make Kamala Harris look sincere. If anyone wants to show me where I'm incorrect, I would be thankful to them for doing so.

I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to show you where you're “incorrect” after saying those that can’t stand a politician that you like are “prejudice”.

 

[childeye 2]

I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to show you where you're “incorrect” after saying those that can’t stand a politician that you like are “prejudice”.

Thank you for your honesty.

The term prejudge means, "To form a judgment on (an issue or person) prematurely and without having adequate information". I would evaluate the claim by looking for the facts that they say prove the claim. If the facts are inadequate or not there at all, then I will explain how and why they did not prove an intention to deceive others.

I don't recall saying "they" are prejudice. Saying something like that could be taken as a personal attack. Also, keep in mind that these are generally articles that are posted that contain claims of lying.

So, I would say something that conveyed those who wrote the article were reasoning upon a negative prejudice, and I would show why or how I came to that conclusion. Note that I specify "negative prejudice". That is because I too am reasoning upon "prejudice"; a positive prejudice that presumes innocence until proven guilty. Negative prejudice manifests hypocritical judgement, but positive prejudice loves others as I would want to be loved without even knowing them.

So, anyone can read my reasonings as to why the claims fell short and they can correct me by showing me something I didn't factor in or misunderstood, etc...

Good talk.

 

[Canuckster]

Thank you for your honesty.

The term prejudge means, "To form a judgment on (an issue or person) prematurely and without having adequate information". I would evaluate the claim by looking for the facts that they say prove the claim. If the facts are inadequate or not there at all, then I will explain how and why they did not prove an intention to deceive others.

I don't recall saying "they" are prejudice. Saying something like that could be taken as a personal attack. Also, keep in mind that these are generally articles that are posted that contain claims of lying. So, I might say something that conveyed those who wrote the article were reasoning upon a negative prejudice, and I would show why or how I came to that conclusion.

So, anyone can read my reasonings as to why the claims fell short and they can correct me by showing me something I didn't factor in or misunderstood, etc...

Good talk.

I'm sorry but I don't understand, When you say "Some are going to see my speaking out against negative prejudice as trying to make Kamala Harris look sincere.", are you not making the claim that the "negative prejudice" is coming from people who can't stand her?

 

[childeye 2]

I'm sorry but I don't understand, When you say "Some are going to see my speaking out against negative prejudice as trying to make Kamala Harris look sincere.", are you not making the claim that the "negative prejudice" is coming from people who can't stand her?

Again, Prejudice means a prejudgment without any factual reason. If you can't stand someone for no good reason, then you're being unreasonable. Is there a good reason why you can't stand her, or a bad reason?

Note that I specify "negative" prejudice. That is because I too am reasoning upon "prejudice"; only it's a "positive" prejudice, that presumes one's innocence until proven guilty. Negative prejudice manifests hypocritical judgement, but positive prejudice loves others as I would want to be loved without even knowing them, and in that there is no hypocrisy.

What if someone, who didn't even know you, looked at you talking or whatever and then said to someone else, "I can't stand that person Canuckster", without any good reason? Is that how you would want to be loved? If not, then yes, you're being hypocritical and reasoning upon negative prejudice if you can't stand Kamala Harris for no good reason.

 

[Canuckster]

Again, Prejudice means a prejudgment without any factual reasoning to make it reasonable. If you can't stand someone for no reason, then you're being unreasonable.

Note that I specify "negative" prejudice. That is because I too am reasoning upon "prejudice"; a "positive" prejudice, that presumes one's innocence until proven guilty. Negative prejudice manifests hypocritical judgement, but positive prejudice loves others as I would want to be loved without even knowing them.

What if someone, who didn't even know you, looked at you talking or whatever and then said to someone else, "I can't stand that person Canuckster", without any reason? Is that how you would want to be loved? If not, then yes, you're being hypocritical and reasoning upon negative prejudice if you can't stand Kamala Harris for no reason.

So when you're "speaking out against negative prejudice" towards Kamala Harris then it's only towards those people that you feel "can't stand Kamala Harris for no reason"?

 

[childeye 2]

So when you're "speaking out against negative prejudice" towards Kamala Harris then it's only towards those people that you feel "can't stand Kamala Harris for no reason"?

First and foremost, I believe there is a such thing as the spirit of the devil. Devil=accuser/slanderer. I was speaking out against the assertions claiming to be facts, that deceived people into believing Kamala Harris had lied. I did that because I believe there is a spiritual entity that deceives people into not loving others as their selves by using semantics to rationalize slander.

The reason that I said some are going to see my speaking out against negative prejudice as trying to make Kamala Harris look sincere, is because it's predictable that the spiritual enemy will cause some to assume within themselves that I'm defending Harris because I can't stand Trump. It's also known as projection.

I need to go to bed now. Thanks for the discourse. If you have more to say, I'll get to it tomorrow.

 

[Canuckster]

First and foremost, I believe there is a such thing as the spirit of the devil. Devil=accuser/slanderer. I was speaking out against the assertions claiming to be facts, that deceived people into believing Kamala Harris had lied. I did that because I believe there is a spiritual entity that deceives people into not loving others as their selves by using semantics to rationalize slander.

The reason that I said some are going to see my speaking out against negative prejudice as trying to make Kamala Harris look sincere, is because it's predictable that the spiritual enemy will cause some to assume within themselves that I'm defending Harris because I can't stand Trump. It's also known as projection.

I need to go to bed now. Thanks for the discourse. If you have more to say, I'll get to it tomorrow.

So you believe that people who think that Harris is lying are deceived by the devil into not loving her as themselves, and that the negative prejudice accusation is only directed towards the predictable people in the can’t stand Harris group who've been swayed by the devil to assume you’re defending Harris because you can’t stand Trump.

Thank you for sharing your interesting take on things and have a great evening.

 

[7thKeeper]

The point is ... the moderators are not supposed to inject their views into a debate.

Those weren't views. The cats and dogs not being eaten and abortion after birth not being a thing are fact.

 

[BPPLEE]

Trying to get Pence to reject the valid votes because he doesn't want to be the loser is a sickness, not a fault. He's a sick mind and Harris is a healthy mind. There's no comparison. People who fawn over him like his followers do, only deepens his psychopathy.

Kamala Harris is a prosecutor. She deals with mental psychosis in criminal minds all the time. She pushed his jump buttons over and over. She knew if she mentioned his rallies and people leaving, he would lose focus on all other things. She knew he measures his self-worth according to numbers like crowd size and ratings.

Malignant narcissism is also a contagion. Even though the reality is Kamala played him like a yo-yo in front of the world, many people will join in his fantasy that he beat her like a drum.

Kamala did what the people who prepped her told her to do.
The ability to make Trump mad does not make someone a good fit for president

 

[RDKirk]

Kamala did what the people who prepped her told her to do.
The ability to make Trump mad does not make someone a good fit for president

The propensity to get taken off task by being triggered by inane issues does not make someone a good fit for president. That's an effect of dementia that is only going to get worse. Trump is too old; the GOP should have chosen better.

 

[BPPLEE]

The propensity to get taken off task by being triggered by inane issues does not make someone a good fit for president. That's an effect of dementia that is only going to get worse. Trump is too old; the GOP should have chosen better.

I don't know if it's dementia but I pretty much agree with your post

 

[wing2000]

I've done a bit of research. Apparently the "eating pets" allegation stems from one woman's social media post that she had been missing her cat for several days and then saw her Haitian neighbor game-dressing what was apparently a cat from a tree in their backyard. There was another photograph distributed allegedly of a Springfield Haitian with two Canada geese in hand. That photograph has been proven to have been taken in some other location at some other time...no further background on it seems to be available.

Nor is it true that the Biden Administration "shipped 20,000 Haitians" into Springfield. What has happened is that after the 2021 earthquake, the State department halted deportations of illegal immigrants back to the country under standing rules. It happens.

The word got around in Haitian circles that there were plenty of jobs in Springfield and about 20,000 Haitians did, indeed, quickly migrate there. I've seen that happen in Texas...a nexus of immigrants finding success in one place very quickly draws more from the same country. It can definitely feel like an invasion. In my area, even the Mexicans are griping about the sudden influx of Hondurans.

I fully empathize with the resulting agitation residents of Springfield. It's a city of less than 60,000 people. A sudden influx of 20,000 immigrants who are not at all blending in (they're supposed to be deported eventually) would be disturbing, no doubt. It would scare my family, too. That was a problem, and IMO the federal government has a responsibility of providing assistance in such cases. IMO, the federal government should already have a policy of dispersing immigrants to prevent that kind of impact on a community.

It would be nice if JD Vance joined his Senate colleague to discuss how the Federal Governmet could support Springfirled instead of expoliting it for a political message.

 

[childeye 2]

Kamala did what the people who prepped her told her to do.

I'm not saying she had no advisors. I'm saying she's an accomplished prosecutorial professional. I'm saying she has the experienced of many years of consulting with professionals in psychiatry who do forensic criminal profiling. She did what she does in court, use tactics that make people say what she knows they will say using those tactics.

The ability to make Trump mad does not make someone a good fit for president

Who ever said or ever even thought that whoever had the ability to make Trump mad would make that person a good president? You're dodging the point. You're displaying the contagion. She manipulated him with the most absurd of petty things, his crowd size.

 

[childeye 2]

So you believe that people who think that Harris is lying are deceived by the devil into not loving her as themselves, and that the negative prejudice accusation is only directed towards the predictable people in the can’t stand Harris group who've been swayed by the devil to assume you’re defending Harris because you can’t stand Trump.

I made no negative prejudice accusation; I showed why there is inadequate supporting facts to verify the accusations of an intent to deceive. To sum up, I would point out ---> I KNOW slander is wrong, so I don't believe bad things said about other people without proof, and I believe that everyone KNOWS this.

 

[BPPLEE]

I'm not saying she had no advisors. I'm saying she's an accomplished prosecutorial professional. I'm saying she has the experienced of many years of consulting with professionals in psychiatry who do forensic criminal profiling. She did what she does in court, use tactics that make people say what she knows they will say using those tactics.

Who ever said or ever even thought that whoever had the ability to make Trump mad would make that person a good president? You're dodging the point. You're displaying the contagion. She manipulated him with the most absurd of petty things, his crowd size.

Yes, that's a good tactic in a debate. It doesn't make you a good president though.
She won the debate, that's obvious, so what is it that I'm dodging?

 

[7thKeeper]

Yes, that's a good tactic in a debate. It doesn't make you a good president though.
She won the debate, that's obvious, so what is it that I'm dodging?

That your preferred candidate is that easily manipulated?