No, I didn’t watch last night’s “debate.” I never do anything after 9:00 PM that challenges my ability to hold onto my dinner. (Leftover takeout Hot & Spicy Shredded Pork! Yum!) But I have read some of the recaps, which make me doubly pleased that I “missed” it.
Today’s QOTM is from Power Line’s Scott Johnson:
Who will “fact-check” the fact-checkers?
“Fact-checking” by obviously partisan “moderators” is about as duplicitous as human behavior gets.
3 comments
And then, “Who will fact check Kamala Harris?”
The thing that pi$$es me off the most about fact checkers is that they ASSUME we’re just too damned stupid to know how to research claims for ourselves.
They act like we’ll just hop on the first result in Google, and never notice that is from Goobers R Us. Or the DNC. Like we aren’t able to compare the validity of sources, analyze a data table, interpret stats, or otherwise make a rational assessment of the claims.
No, we don’t always do it, but we CAN.
Something I like to point out is that since the founding of the Republican Party in 1854, there have been precisely zero cases of a Democrat being elected to replace a different incumbent Democrat President. The only times you have two consecutive Democrats in the Oval Office is because of the death of the sitting President, and swearing-in of his VP. (Gore came closest in 2000, but still lost.)