Staff Reports
The recent presidential debate hosted by ABC News has been dubbed a “DEI debate” by Fox News host Greg Gutfeld, highlighting the absurdity of the moderators’ approach toward the candidates. The debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump showcased a blatant bias, with moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis acting more like partisan defenders than impartial facilitators. The so-called “fact checks” they provided were riddled with inaccuracies, leaving viewers questioning the integrity of the entire event.
Muir and Davis seemed to take delight in interrupting Trump at nearly every turn, dispelling claims with dubious “facts” that could only be described as wishful thinking. The moderators absurdly maintained that full-term abortion was illegal across all states, ignored police records regarding criminal activity involving illegal immigrants in Ohio, and insisted that widely circulated footage of Nancy Pelosi blaming Trump for January 6 was fabricated. To top it off, they claimed that Trump lost every court case surrounding the 2020 election—a statement that could only be backed by a dismissive wave of the hand at the actual evidence.
She says it as it is. “I think it’s d… obvious why Kamala Harris insisted on having the debate on ABC … because those m….. f…… were biased as f…!” #MAGA #Trump pic.twitter.com/0GGI6BPXcJ
— Gunnar Isholm (@gunnarisholm) September 11, 2024
Meanwhile, Harris had the chance to spread her own misinformation without the same scrutiny. Among her dubious assertions was the unfounded claim that police officers died during the January 6 events, an echo of the faulty “very fine people” narrative, and a misrepresentation of Trump’s supposed support for an abortion ban. It was a veritable buffet of fibs, served up without any pushback from the moderators.
Gutfeld, in a session of “The Five,” aptly pointed out that the true loser of this spectacle was the American people. He likened the debate outcome to trying to guess the value of a painting suspected to be a forgery, suggesting that there were no objective criteria to determine a winner in such a farcical setup. In essence, this was an exercise in futility, as it was clear that one candidate was held to rigorous standards while the other faced no scrutiny whatsoever.
This horrendous display invites a broader critique of fairness in political debates. Gutfeld articulated the notion that fairness was sacrificed for a predetermined outcome, leaving the audience to question who really won or lost. One can only wonder if the left should truly be proud of a candidate who requires such an uneven playing field to compete effectively. The debate’s mechanics were not merely flawed; they were engineered to undermine every principle of open discourse and honest competition, leaving many to wonder what has become of real political engagement in America.
