2 Comments

Before the Trump era, I might have agreed that fact-checking wasn’t necessary in debates. But now, it’s essential. Even though debates may not drastically shift public opinion, it’s important to call out falsehoods to keep the record straight. Too many people, who aren’t fully committed to candidates like Trump or Vance, might hear unchecked lies and believe them, swaying their votes. Post-debate fact-checks won’t work because many won’t watch them.

It's already hard to debunk claims like Trump's bizarre statement about people eating pets in Springfield, Ohio, even when challenged. Imagine if it wasn’t? The moderators were right to call out Vance’s false claim about illegal immigrants in Springfield. We know from reliable sources they are there under Temporary Protected Status (TPS), not for the reasons Vance suggested.

Likewise, Walz made inaccurate claims that should have been addressed. I support fair fact-checking for all candidates. While I strongly oppose Project 2025, Walz wrongly said it creates a pregnancy registry, which it does not, even if it sounds plausible. Project 2025 actually calls for collecting data on abortion and related statistics.

Maybe one day, we’ll return to a time when politicians don’t blatantly lie during debates, but I’m not holding my breath.

Expand full comment

I don't know if it's always true, but I have to think that in this particular election there is no such thing as an undecided voter. There are non-voters, there are people who don't want to admit who they are voting for, but any person who claims in 2024 that they definitely intend to vote but don't know where they stand on a 2nd Donald Trump presidency is lying or needs to be checked for CTE.

Expand full comment
Error