Defend this, Cred Forums

Why shouldn't Hillary be able to call Trump out on something? Does she need a team of people googling for her instead of her being aware of the things she should know? Trump would be able to call out every one of Hillary's lies, why can't she do the same? Is she that stupid and helpless she needs an entire team of people?

Fact checking is not good when you're a serial fabricator like Trump

it doesn't change the fact that they are biased

This. Hillary is the only way we get reparations.

They won't fact check Hillary no matter what, and the "fact checking" meme that has been getting pushed lately has been full of pure leftist propaganda and often downright lies.
There's an honest answer OP, now admit that you're factually a shill

did he actually say they shouldn't "fact check", or did he simply express his concerns that they would only be "fact checking" him

maybe I could fact check you OP if you would be so kind as to post a source

FUCK YOU

Any fact-checking will be dominated by the (((liberal media)))

>ID

>unemployment rates for blacks went from "higher than 51%" to 18.7% in just under a year

seems legit

Because you can fact check opinions like "Hillary wants open borders". They will just harp on every opinion Trump has. This has NEVER happened in US presidential debates for a reason. Hillary just wants the moderators to speak for her because she is a dumb cunt that can't debate

fact checking could work in Trump's favor unless the fact-checkers are prepared to spew lies to cover Hillary's ass then this is bullshit.

this debate is gonna be like the glass tile mahjong episode from akagi.

>KuK
what could it mean?

>something isnt true if theres a (bullshit) explanation for it!

jesus christ what is wrong with politifact

>cUK
>KuK
we're the same, he and i

>Trump: Hillary will abolish the second amendment by appointing radical Justices
>(((Moderator))): That's FALSE she doesn't want to repeal the second amendment, just undo the Heller decision :^)

Nah the moderators can fuck off.

>wanting the mods to interrupt a debate between the candidates
I agree with Trump on that alone, the term (((fact-checking))) is what seals the deal.

>KuKYpitm
>cucky, pit, m
So, are you a cuck or a bottom?

#NotAllcUKs

>If there's a explanation that involves social injustice it's false even if it's true!

Because these terms of social justice are matters of opinion, not facts.

Checked
So as explained by KEK himself
>cucky pit (i.e bottom) m (male)

What?

Who is dolan?

Tbh i'd like to see them both fact-checked, by twitter. Debate moderator: dave chappelle.

Seriously he's redpilled as fuck. He hasn't said anything on BLM, so we know where he stands.

>KuK
meme magic works in mysterious ways

politifact is your #1 source for unbiased fact checking

Pbs

pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-says-debate-moderators-shouldnt-fact-check/

Inb4 liberal bias, all news now is either way left or way right

>I haven't read it, just wanted to see what you guys had to say about the headline

Fact-checking would be autistically checking every single statement made, and it would work against Trump, simply because of the way he speaks. I'd rather see a real debate where both debaters are free to speak in their natural way, without some autistic nerd saying "Hm, you said it was 97.6%, well it turns out it was actually 97.4%".

Hillary Clinton has a new toy. It's called hispanics. Democrats don't give a fuck about you and Hispanics will take all of your government jobs within 30 years.

It's too late to change it. You gave up your spot as the largest minority population to people who hate you more than white people ever will.

You clearly underestimate leftards

Let me put an actual example to this, and explain why it would be retarded.

Imagine if they were talking about BLM, and Trump said "Did you know blacks kill each other at a rate of 53.95 per 100,000? That's far more than the rate at which whites kill blacks."

The faggy little moderator would go "Hm, well we have the numbers right here. It turns out they kill each other at a rate of 53.94 per 100,000."

People at home would now interpret this statement as "wrong", despite it being 99.99% true and accurate. You'd see in the media, "Trump overestimates black on black crime". Hillary Clinton would get to smile smugly and act like Trump painted himself in a corner. BLM would take it as some sort of huge victory. All this - because he was off by .01%.

There should be a small margin of error, and there should be no fact-checking. It interrupts the natural debate process and it would get spun like everything Trump says is so inaccurate. Hillary has spent the last week laying in bed, memorizing arbitrary little statistics that she can shit out, like anybody gives a shit, because she speaks in a robotic manner and would benefit from this style of debate where everything is fact-checked.

Being real, being organic, speaking naturally, having charisma, etc. - These are all important things that should be factored into the debate. I don't care if Hillbot has some shitty little numbers memorized, and that shouldn't be the only thing the debate boils down to.

The moderator should be acting as a referee, not a judge. The things a candidate says are going to be analysed right back to their semantic roots in the following days anyway.

Implying this isn't a ploy to make the moderators go
FUCK YOUR DRUMF WE'RE GOING TO FACT CHECK EVERYTHING
And then they end up getting caught calling Hillary out on every one of her many lies.

>number is true
>still pants on fire
What is this shit