Trump also falsely claimed that some Democrats want to “execute the baby” after birth in the ninth month of pregnancy.
"falsely claimed" needs to get punted into space. What a slimy capitulation.
this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2024
430 points (99.1% liked)
politics
19144 readers
2106 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I 100% agree, and IANAL, but it’s my understanding that it is for legal purposes… even though we all “know” it’s true, asserting that someone lied opens a can of legal worms.
The only legal excuse for this is the slander/libel laws, which only apply in cases where calling someone a liar is untrue. If you’re calling out verifiable lies as lies (e: and you can bring receipts, which they can), that’s not slander.
They’re just pussies.
Hey now, I love pussy. Lets go with “cowards”.
My guess would be that the word „lying“ implies the intent to claim something untrue, which is hard to prove (not saying this isn’t the case here), opposed to „falsely claiming“ which includes situations where you actually believe what you’re saying even though it’s objectively false.
The law doesn’t make that distinction, though. ‘Untruth’, falsely claimed’, and ‘lied’ are all the same under the law. The only thing those laws care about is whether your words were true. If I call you a liar in a headline and I can prove you actually lied, you have no case.
Weasel words don’t protect them from lawsuits, it’s just another part of the degradation of journalism and the fact that whitewashing and softening their language gets them more clicks & eyeballs, because it’s less likely to offend people who disagree.
The supreme court says the law does make a distinction if it's a public figure. Better check your hypotenuse, science bitch.
With public figures, the bar to meet slander/libel includes that it must have been done with ‘actual malice’ – not anything different about which words were used.
Private figures must show that the defendant acted "negligently.“
Public figures must show that the defendant acted with "actual malice."
The bar for bringing such a case is even higher for public figures than private people, but it’s still not about the word ‘lie’ vs ‘untruth’.
If you’re aware of a single case where synonyms like that mattered, I’d love to know.
Ostensibly, sure. And as a general rule, that’s fine and prudent. When it comes to trump, though - he’s so far over All The Lines that they really have been taken hostage by his outrageous disregard for the truth and his consistent desecration of the spoken word.
Will he sue? Possibly. He’s currently $100 Million dollars in debt just for legal fees and depending on what they say he “lied” about, He Will Lose.
Say that he lied about the 2020 election being “stolen”. Let him sue over that. That’ll be a trial to watch, the news outlet would make their money back plus interest just covering their own trial. Plus he’d lose.
egregious lies like this have gotten abortion docs killed.
It was the best answer the whole night.
Seriously. Its great to hear a clear answer on abortion for once from anyone really.
I don't think Kamala demolished Trump as thoroughly as some people seem to claim, and I think she could have been way stronger and more direct on a lot of issues and talking poins. There is no denying however that her responses, stances and delivery on abortion was stellar. The whole "they didn't want that" part was very powerful.
You can't talk about issues with Trump on stage, otherwise he will just grab the whole spotlight. She did as good as you p possibly can, while debating Trump.
She should probably be holding some townhall type events on major news stations so she can talk about the issues, without a raging narcissistic right beside her.
The moment was a reminder that Harris is uniquely positioned to talk about the hot-button, national topic in a way that Biden, an 81-year-old Catholic who had long opposed abortion, never felt comfortable doing.
I would have voted for his administration regardless, had he stayed in the race, but I have detested Biden since the 90s (maybe 80s, I dunno time is getting weird). He became ever so slightly better liked thanks to Obama, but he was never liked.
Biden was far from my choice, too, but I’d have voted for his corpse to keep the fascists out of office. Harris is a no-brainer. I hope she keeps bringing up the abortion issue in the personal, relatable way she did in this debate, with specific, verifiable examples of the real human toll the right-wing cruelty has wrought.
Women and girls unable to get care because hospitals are afraid of litigation, women forced to become walking coffins. She’s right, it’s unconscionable.
I felt it did a good job pulling the issue back to the rights of the ~~adults~~ ~~consenting parties~~ people who are dealing with this as a legit medical issue of their own bodies. You don't relinquish your own autonomy the moment you get pregnant, and morality and religion are both meant to be left out of medical issues beyond that individual patient's will.
By focusing on individuals suffering and the dysfunction caused to the medical system by infusing fear into treatment of patients, it really removes many of the attacks the anti-abortion people have.
And a huge thank you to the moderators calling out Trump's lies immediately. The mods really were a cut above the typical ones we get anymore.
The moderators were still biased towards Donald, letting him interrupt and go over time. But I agree doing even the slightest fucking thing about the parade of lies is a massive improvement over what we have had previously.
I did find it odd that they unmuted him so many times, but they at least waited so it didn't interrupt Kamala or the moderators.
Having to unmute him for him to go on baseless rants also seemed to highlight the fact that he was interrupting and couldn't control himself or his lies as they still fact checked his interrupting. They still essentially had to grant him permission to interrupt, and like the way the opening handshake and greeting led by Kamala made him look unprepared and weak, I feel the purposeful unmute had a similarly subtle but tangible effect.
They did let Harris chime in a few times in the same way, so I feel it was fairly unbiased. Without him being in a soundproof booth, the mic cut can only help so much as you could hear him on Kamala's mic before his was turned back on. The way the handled it felt like a compromise, so as she got a chance to wrap up her thought before the interruption was purposely addressed, while still handling it as an interruption and not giving it additional validity like if he could just jump in, cut her off, and gain control of the situation. The mods were still in control the whole time, which I feel is rare for any conversation with Trump.