Fact-Checking the First Biden-Trump Debate of the 2024 Campaign

#GoRightNews Shared by Peter Boykin

American Political Commentator / Citizen Journalist / Activist / Constitutionalist for Liberty

Web: https://PeterBoykin.com
Kick: http://Kick.com/PeterBoykin
Rumble: http://Rumble.com/GoRightNews
YouTube: https://youtube.com/@PeterBoykinForAmerica
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/boykin4congress
Twitter: https://twitter.com/GoRightNews
Telegram: http://t.me/realpeterboykin

Like the Content? Please Support!

Stripe: https://gorightnews.com/donations/support-gorightnews/

Cash App: http://Cash.app/$PeterBoykin1

 

Fact-Checking the First Biden-Trump Debate of the 2024 Campaign

Joe Biden and Donald Trump clashed in a pivotal debate amidst the 2024 election cycle. Biden’s performance has sparked concerns regarding his capability to lead as commander-in-chief, a sentiment echoed by critics across the political spectrum.

President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, faced off in a spirited debate characterized by a relative absence of the interruptions that had plagued prior encounters, thanks to stricter debate protocols.

Biden began the debate with a hoarse voice and encountered difficulties during certain exchanges, including when he claimed his administration had “finally beat Medicare.” Post-debate, while visiting a local Waffle House, Biden informed reporters of his sore throat, as reported by the press pool.

In critiquing his opponent’s behavior, Biden raised issues regarding criminal convictions, remarking on what he perceived as a lapse in moral standards akin to “alley cat” behavior.

CNN hosted the debate, conducted without a live audience, from its Atlanta studio. Moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash enforced rules allowing CNN to mute candidates’ microphones to maintain order.

Throughout the debate, Biden and his adversary clashed over pivotal issues such as the economy, immigration policies, abortion rights, and the relevance of their respective ages, particularly Biden at 81.

Key Issues Under Biden’s Administration: A Critical Examination**

Biden’s Debate Claims Under Scrutiny

In the inaugural debate of the 2024 campaign, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump engaged in a robust dialogue punctuated by a series of assertions that have come under scrutiny for their accuracy. Topics ranged widely, encompassing immigration, economic policies, abortion, and taxation. Below in this article, we delve into a detailed analysis of President Biden’s statements from the perspective of Constitutional Republican principles.

President Joe Biden put forth a multitude of claims across various domains, including Social Security, tax reforms, healthcare initiatives, immigration reforms, abortion regulations, climate change policies, agricultural prices, trade imbalances, economic accomplishments, tax reductions, energy self-sufficiency, and counterterrorism efforts. It is imperative, from a Constitutional Republican viewpoint, to meticulously assess these assertions to safeguard the foundations of our Constitutional Republic.

Opinion-Based Statements

Many of Biden’s claims, especially regarding the potential impacts of his policies, reflect his administration’s viewpoints and should be understood as part of broader policy debates. These opinion-based statements are intended to frame the discussion around Biden’s legislative agenda. For instance, the assertion that raising corporate and high-income taxes will benefit lower-income households is a matter of economic policy interpretation and not an absolute fact. These statements should be understood as part of the broader debate on fiscal policy and income distribution.

Debate Highlights

The debate covered a spectrum of critical issues, spanning the economy, border security, inflation, abortion rights, international conflicts, the events of January 6, and what Biden referred to as ‘threats to democracy.’

Memorable moments included:

In discussing the economy, Biden stumbled right out of the gate, mistakenly claiming to have added “15 thousand jobs” instead of a million. Trump swiftly retorted, accusing Biden of job creation policies that allegedly benefit illegal immigrants, all while pointing out the economic challenges exacerbated by inflation under Biden’s administration.

One of the most viral moments occurred when Biden faltered during a discussion on Medicare, struggling through fragmented sentences and confusing statements. Trump seized the opportunity to criticize Biden’s coherence, sarcastically remarking, “Well, he’s right. He did beat Medicare. He beat it to death.”

Another notable moment arose during an immigration debate when Biden again struggled to articulate a coherent response. Trump, in response to moderators, emphasized his administration’s achievements in border security, claiming they had established the safest border in American history.

Trump deftly redirected questions about January 6, highlighting his administration’s achievements before that date, including energy independence, low taxes, minimal regulations, and enhanced global respect for the United States.

Reaction from the Left

Following the debate, left-leaning analysts across media platforms expressed dismay over Biden’s performance, with discussions emerging within the Democratic Party about potentially replacing him on the 2024 ticket. CNN’s chief national correspondent John King reported internal conversations among Democrats questioning Biden’s viability, labeling his debate performance as dismal.

Poll Results

A CNN flash poll conducted immediately after the debate indicated a decisive victory for Trump, with 67% of respondents favoring him over Biden’s 33%.

Media’s Role Exposed

The debate not only revealed Biden’s mental acuity issues but also cast a spotlight on the mainstream media’s role in shielding his decline from the public eye. Critics argue that the media’s longstanding support of Biden has perpetuated a false narrative of his capabilities, now laid bare by his debate performance.

Assessment of Trump

While Trump delivered a strong performance, some critique him for overly focusing on the failures of Biden’s administration without sufficiently outlining his positive agenda for a potential second term.

What’s Next?

With the Democratic National Convention scheduled for August 19, speculation swirls about potential efforts within the party to replace Biden before then, reflecting growing concerns over his ability to lead.

The Issues: a Breakdown of What Was Discussed during the debate

Biden’s Immigration Policies: A Closer Look

In his efforts to reform immigration, President Biden has emphasized a commitment to creating a more humane system while addressing the challenges of illegal crossings. Despite policy changes aimed at humanitarian concerns, illegal immigration remains a hot-button issue. The concern over border security persists, with many arguing that the administration’s approach has not sufficiently deterred illegal crossings and has strained border enforcement resources.

President Biden stated, “I’ve changed (the law) in the way that now you’re in a situation where there are 40% fewer people coming across the border illegally.”

This claim is mostly true. The Department of Homeland Security reported a 40% decrease in illegal immigration encounters, reducing daily crossings to fewer than 2,400, following a new policy largely barring asylum access for individuals entering the U.S. at the southern border. This policy was announced in early June 2024.

However, immigration experts caution against attributing the decline to a single factor. Seasonal changes, such as hotter weather, can also influence migration patterns. The long-term impact of this policy remains uncertain, given its recent implementation. Colleen Putzel-Kavanaugh, an associate policy analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, indicated that the policy might have a short-term deterrent effect. Adam Isacson, defense oversight director at the Washington Office on Latin America, observed that no enforcement action in the past decade has had lasting success.

In discussing a bipartisan border bill, Biden mentioned, “By the way, the Border Patrol endorsed me, endorsed my position.”

This statement is half true. While the National Border Patrol Council, the union for U.S. Border Patrol agents, endorsed a bipartisan border security bill in February 2024, it did not personally endorse Biden. Brandon Judd, the union’s president, acknowledged the bill as a step forward despite its imperfections, and the union supported its swift passage. Biden endorsed the bill and expressed his intention to sign it into law if passed. However, the bill failed in the Senate by a 49-50 vote.

It’s important to note that Judd and the Border Patrol union have been critical of Biden and his immigration policies, having endorsed his opponent in the 2020 election. The National Border Patrol Council clarified that they have never and will never endorse Biden.

Opinion Analysis

This article contains a few opinion-based statements. The view that “illegal immigration remains a hot-button issue” reflects the contentious nature of the topic rather than an objective fact. Additionally, the assertion that “the administration’s approach has not sufficiently deterred illegal crossings and has strained border enforcement resources” is an opinion shared by some but not universally accepted. These perspectives highlight the ongoing debate over immigration policy.

 

Biden’s Abortion Policies Face Conservative Criticism

President Biden has been vocal in criticizing Republicans for their stance on abortion, accusing them of pushing for restrictions that he claims do not align with the views of most Americans. He emphasizes the importance of preserving abortion access under the standards set by Roe v. Wade, which permitted abortions up to fetal viability, generally around 24 weeks. Biden and other Democrats argue that exceptions should be made beyond this point if necessary for the health or life of the pregnant woman.

Biden points out that third-trimester abortions are rare, accounting for less than 1% of all abortions in the United States. These cases typically involve severe fetal anomalies or life-threatening conditions for the woman. He supports the perspective that medical decisions in such circumstances should be left to healthcare providers in consultation with their patients.

In discussing legislative efforts, Biden refers to the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2022. He supports this bill, which aims to safeguard abortion access and prevent states from imposing undue restrictions. The bill proposed that abortions after fetal viability should be permitted if continuing the pregnancy would endanger the woman’s life or health, based on the medical judgment of the healthcare provider.

Biden has expressed support for restoring Roe v. Wade as “the law of the land.” The Supreme Court ruling, which established a constitutional right to abortion, was overturned after Biden took office. Biden’s stance aligns with many Americans who support abortion rights. However, it is crucial to note that Biden’s administration must navigate a deeply divided political landscape on this issue. His statements reflect his policy position but also cater to a significant portion of his political base, illustrating the ongoing contentious debate over abortion rights in our Constitutional Republic that ensures our Democracy.

Opinion Analysis

The assertion that Republican abortion restrictions do not align with the views of most Americans is a perspective often shared by Democrats but is contested by many Republicans and pro-life advocates. Additionally, Biden’s emphasis on preserving abortion access and supporting the Women’s Health Protection Act reflects a partisan stance that resonates with his political base but is opposed by those who view abortion restrictions as necessary for protecting the unborn. These perspectives highlight the deeply divided nature of the abortion debate in this Nation.

 

Assessing Economic Claims Under Trump and Biden

Economic Achievements

President Donald Trump frequently highlighted his administration’s economic achievements, often claiming it to be the greatest economy in U.S. history. Yet, when measured by inflation-adjusted GDP growth, the economy experienced moderate expansion influenced by global economic conditions. During Joe Biden’s administration, the focus shifted to economic recovery post-pandemic, with periods of notable growth amidst ongoing inflationary pressures.

Employment Inflation and Trade A Comparative Analysis of Biden’s Economic Policies

In discussions surrounding the state of employment, inflation, and trade, President Biden’s administration has put forth several claims that merit a closer examination, particularly from the perspective of a Constitutional Republic that ensures our Democracy with a moderate/conservative Republican viewpoint.

Jobs Employment and the Economy

President Biden asserted that the jobs created under his administration were not solely for illegal immigrants or merely rebound jobs from the COVID-19 pandemic. He highlighted that total nonfarm employment has exceeded pre-pandemic levels, with an uptick in employment rates for native-born workers. This point, though factually sound, requires context. While nonfarm employment has indeed surpassed pre-pandemic levels, the assertion that jobs are flourishing for native-born workers needs further nuance.

Regarding semiconductor jobs, Biden stated these positions pay over $100,000 and don’t necessarily require a college degree. This claim, however, is misleading. According to Oxford Economics and the Semiconductor Industry Association, the average salary in the semiconductor sector is approximately $170,000. This figure aggregates all roles within the industry, without specifying those accessible without a college degree. Generally, to earn $110,000 or more in this field, employees typically need undergraduate or graduate degrees. Those without a four-year degree see maximum salaries around $70,000.

Biden also claimed that Black unemployment is at its lowest level in a long time, a statement that aligns with data showing a record-low Black unemployment rate of 4.8%. Though it has slightly increased to 6.1%, it remains lower than much of Trump’s first two years. Under Trump, Black unemployment reached a record 5.3%, a milestone Biden later surpassed.

Contrastingly, former President Trump has argued that Biden’s job creation primarily benefited illegal immigrants and COVID-19 recovery jobs. This claim overlooks the fact that since Biden took office, the number of foreign-born Americans employed has risen by approximately 5.6 million, while the number of native-born employed has increased by almost 7.4 million. This data suggests a broad employment gain for both native-born and foreign-born Americans, including those legally in the country for decades.

Employment under Biden had surpassed pre-pandemic levels, with the U.S. economy adding 6.2 million jobs since then.

Black Unemployment Rates

Biden’s assertion that Black unemployment is at its lowest in a “long, long time” is accurate but overlooks the low rates achieved during Trump’s tenure before the pandemic. This context is crucial for a balanced understanding of employment trends among Black Americans.

Inflation and Economy

Addressing the cause of inflation, Biden pointed to pandemic-induced economic disruptions. When he assumed office, year-over-year inflation was approximately 1.4%, influenced by the lingering effects of the pandemic. As conditions improved, consumer spending surged, and supply chain shortages persisted, compounded by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, pushing gasoline prices higher. Consequently, inflation peaked at 9%, the highest in four decades.

Economists generally agree that Biden’s American Rescue Plan exacerbated inflation by boosting consumer spending amid limited supplies. Nevertheless, attributing inflation solely to Biden’s policies is an oversimplification.

Food Costs

Food costs have surged under Biden, increasing by 21%, a notable rise but not as severe as claims of a fourfold increase. Egg prices, for example, are 84% higher than when Biden took office. However, some food categories have seen slower price hikes, making the annual increase around 6%, offset in part by rising wages.

Biden criticized the inflationary impact on food prices, highlighting substantial increases but exaggerating their extent. He claimed, “It’s killing people. They can’t buy groceries anymore.” However, the Consumer Price Index for food has risen by 17.5% since January 2021, not the doubled, tripled, or quadrupled amounts implied. This inflationary pressure has indeed strained household budgets, reflecting broader economic challenges.

Opinion-Based Content: The statement that inflationary pressure has strained household budgets involves an element of opinion, as it reflects a perspective on the economic impact of rising food prices.

Tariffs

Biden mentioned that proposed tariffs would cost the average American $2,500 annually. While this figure is broadly accepted, it’s slightly higher than some estimates. The American Action Forum, a center-right think tank, projected additional costs per household ranging from $1,700 to $2,350 annually. Similarly, the Peterson Institute of International Economics estimated that such tariffs would cost a middle-income household about $1,700 more per year.

Deficit and Spending

Biden inaccurately stated that Trump presided over the “largest deficit of any president.” The largest budget deficit occurred under Trump, largely due to emergency spending related to COVID-19.

This analysis reflects the complexities and nuances of economic policies under Biden’s administration, underscoring the importance of informed debate in a Constitutional Republic that ensures our Democracy.

 

Social Security, Medicare, and Taxes

Social Security

Joe Biden claimed that Donald Trump “wants to get rid” of Social Security, referring to a March interview where Trump mentioned the potential for cuts related to waste and fraud within entitlement programs. While Trump’s discussions around entitlement reform suggested potential cuts, equating this to an intent to eliminate Social Security is misleading. Trump has consistently stated he would not cut benefits, a stance corroborated by his public declarations against raising the retirement age or directly cutting the program. His campaign has repeatedly emphasized this position.

Taxes

Trump inaccurately claimed that Biden intends to raise taxes by four times. In reality, Biden proposed a tax increase amounting to about 7% over the next decade, primarily affecting the top 1% of taxpayers, starting at incomes just under $1 million annually. For taxpayers earning up to $60,400, taxes would generally decrease, while those earning between $60,400 and $107,300 would experience a modest increase.

Biden correctly stated he has not raised taxes on individuals making less than $400,000 per year, honoring a campaign promise. Although some corporate tax increases have been implemented, these do not directly affect individual income taxes for those below the $400,000 threshold.

Trump also incorrectly asserted that he delivered the largest tax cut in history. While the 2017 tax cuts were significant, they were not the largest when adjusted for inflation or as a percentage of GDP. Treasury Department figures place these cuts fourth in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1940 and seventh as a percentage of GDP.

Opinion-Based Content

– The statement about Trump’s economy being the greatest is an opinion based on a selective interpretation of economic data.
– The characterization of Biden’s tax increase proposals as reasonable for the top 1% is opinion-based, reflecting a particular stance on tax policy and equity.
– Assertions about the largest tax cut in history involve subjective interpretation of what metrics to prioritize, thus containing an element of opinion.

Analyzing Taxation and Economic Policies Under Biden and Trump

Taxation Policies

Biden’s taxation policies have drawn significant attention during his presidency. Contrary to claims that he intends to raise taxes by four times, Biden’s proposals predominantly target high-income earners and corporations. His plans include increasing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%, restoring the top individual tax rate to 39.6%, and implementing a 25% minimum tax on wealthy individuals. These measures aim to redistribute income more equitably, primarily impacting the top 1% of earners while offering potential benefits to lower-income households.

Opinion-Based Content: The idea that these measures aim to redistribute income more equitably is opinion-based, reflecting a specific stance on economic fairness and tax policy.

Tax Cuts

Trump’s claim of enacting the largest tax cut in U.S. history is misleading. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act significantly reduced taxes, yet its size relative to GDP and inflation-adjusted dollars places it below the historical benchmarks set by previous tax reforms. Biden’s administration continues to face debates on tax policy, striving to balance fiscal priorities amidst ongoing economic recovery efforts.

Opinion-Based Content: The assertion that Trump’s tax cut claim is misleading involves a subjective assessment of what constitutes the largest tax cut, thus containing an element of opinion.

Billionaire Tax Rates

Biden has reiterated a misleading claim that billionaires pay an average federal tax rate of 8%. This figure, calculated by the White House, includes unrealized gains on unsold stock as income, a method not used in current tax assessments. When actual income is considered, the top 0.1% of earners pay an average federal tax rate of 25.1%. Biden’s argument stresses the need to revise how earnings on assets are taxed, advocating for taxes on unrealized gains to prevent these from potentially going untaxed if held until death.

Biden vs. Trump: The Battle Over Crime

The clash over Biden’s past statements on crime illustrates the broader political dynamics at play. Both sides are engaging in a narrative battle, seeking to influence the electorate’s view on critical issues such as crime and race. In evaluating these claims, it is essential to delve into the original context and intentions behind the statements, promoting a more informed and nuanced public discussion.

Biden’s Critique of Trump’s Statements

Former President Joe Biden has called out Donald Trump for allegedly misrepresenting his past statements on crime, particularly the claim that Biden referred to Black people as “super predators” during the 1990s. Trump’s accusation has stirred considerable controversy, but Biden asserts that it is a distortion of the historical record.

The 1993 Senate Speech

In a 1993 speech on the Senate floor, Biden expressed deep concerns about a segment of youth who he believed were growing up without adequate supervision and opportunities. His remarks highlighted the potential social issues that could arise if these young individuals were neglected. Biden’s speech did include the term “predators,” but he did not associate it with any specific racial or ethnic group. His focus was on the broader issue of crime and the need for preventive measures to address it.

The 1998 Attorneys General Conference

Similarly, in a 1998 address at an attorney general conference, Biden used the term “predators” once again. This usage, like the one in 1993, was made in a broader context, addressing the general problem of crime without any racial connotation. Biden’s intention appeared to be drawing attention to the importance of addressing crime at its roots, rather than targeting any particular community.

Opinion-Based Analysis

The back-and-forth between Biden and Trump is steeped in political strategy. It’s crucial to recognize that Trump’s framing of Biden’s past statements could be seen as a tactic to sway public opinion by casting Biden in a negative light regarding racial issues. Meanwhile, Biden’s responses aim to clarify and contextualize his past remarks, attempting to refute what he sees as a mischaracterization. From the viewpoint of a Constitutionalist for Liberty with a Moderate/Conservative Republican Partisanship slant, this exchange underscores the importance of factual accuracy and context in political discourse. Misrepresentations and out-of-context quotes can significantly skew public perception and undermine the principles of honest debate that are vital to our Constitutional Republic that ensures our Democracy.

 

Health Care Policy Battle Over Insulin Costs and Prescription Drug Prices

The debate over healthcare policies, particularly regarding insulin costs, reflects broader political dynamics and the continuous effort to improve the healthcare system. By examining the context and effectiveness of both administrations’ policies, a clearer understanding emerges, promoting a more informed and nuanced public discussion.

Biden’s Efforts to Cap Insulin Costs

President Joe Biden has made significant strides in addressing the cost of insulin for seniors under Medicare. His administration’s comprehensive law set a $35 cap on insulin, a measure that benefits all seniors. This policy builds upon an earlier proposal by pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly in 2019. Unlike the limited pilot project initiated during the previous administration, Biden’s law extends this benefit universally.

Trump’s Claims on Lowering Insulin Costs

Trump’s claims of credit for lowering insulin costs for seniors have been met with scrutiny. His administration did introduce the Part D Senior Savings Model, which capped insulin costs at $35 per month for some Medicare enrollees. However, this model was voluntary and did not cover all insulin types and dosages. In contrast, Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act made the $35 cap mandatory for all Medicare prescription plans, covering all insulin types and dosages, thereby surpassing the scope of Trump’s initiative.

Clarification on Prescription Drug Prices

Biden also highlighted his administration’s success in reducing prescription drug costs, specifically mentioning insulin. He initially stated the price was brought down to $15 per shot, which he later corrected to $35. This correction aligns with the actual policy enacted under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which instituted a $35 cap on monthly insulin costs for Medicare enrollees.

Trump’s Position on the Affordable Care Act

Regarding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Biden has characterized Trump’s stance as somewhat inconsistent. Trump campaigned on repealing and replacing the ACA in 2016 and supported efforts to dismantle it while in office. However, by 2023, Trump had moderated his stance, indicating he no longer sought to terminate the ACA but aimed to improve it, although he did not provide specific details on the proposed improvements.

Opinion-Based Analysis

While Trump initiated a valuable pilot project, Biden’s legislation expanded and solidified the benefits, demonstrating a more comprehensive approach to healthcare reform. Biden’s narrative around insulin pricing underscores his administration’s commitment to making healthcare more affordable for seniors. However, it is crucial to note the factual context: the $35 cap was part of the Inflation Reduction Act, effective from 2023. This context helps clarify any misconceptions from Biden’s initial misstatement during a debate.

 

Rejoining the Paris Agreement: A Step for Climate Action

President Biden stated his decision to rejoin the Paris Agreement, emphasizing that exceeding the 1.5 degrees Celsius threshold for global warming would mean “there’s no way back.” Although this statement underscores the urgency of climate action, it’s important to recognize that mitigation efforts remain possible even if this specific threshold is surpassed. The administration’s commitment to international climate agreements reflects a broader strategy to combat global warming and its adverse effects.

*Note: The prediction about climate change impacts contains elements of scientific consensus but also includes a degree of opinion about policy implications.*

 

Energy Independence: A Shared Achievement

Former President Donald Trump’s claim of achieving energy independence is based on the fact that the U.S. exported more energy than it imported during his tenure. This trend has continued under President Biden, with the U.S. maintaining robust levels of energy production and exports. The ongoing debate on energy security versus environmental sustainability remains central to the nation’s energy policies. Both administrations have made significant contributions to energy independence, showcasing a complex balance of economic and environmental priorities.

*Note: While the data on energy exports is factual, interpretations of energy independence and its significance can vary and may reflect partisan viewpoints.*

 

Foreign Policy and Terrorism

Terrorism

In response to Trump’s claims of a terrorism-free era under his administration, President Biden pointed to significant incidents involving foreign-born attackers. Examples include the 2017 New York City truck attack and the 2019 shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola. These events underscore ongoing security challenges despite differing strategies between administrations.

President Biden inaccurately asserted that he was the sole president of this decade without any military casualties worldwide during his term. While no U.S. service members were reported killed in combat in 2022, 13 service members lost their lives in an attack during the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021. Additionally, three U.S. soldiers were killed in a drone strike in Jordan in January.

Contrary to Trump’s claims, his presidency witnessed several significant terrorist attacks, some tied to extremist global jihadist ideologies. Trump himself recognized the 2017 attacks in New York City as acts of terrorism during his 2018 State of the Union address. Furthermore, the December 2019 shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola was labeled as terrorism by Trump’s Attorney General, William Barr.

 

Assessing Presidential Legacies

President Joe Biden highlighted the findings of the 2024 Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey, which polled 154 presidential historians on their evaluations of U.S. presidents. This survey ranked Donald Trump as the lowest-rated president in American history. The historians assigned scores ranging from zero to 100 for each president. Abraham Lincoln topped the list with an impressive average score of 95. President Biden was placed as the 14th best president, securing an average score of 62.66, while Trump lagged significantly with an average score just below 11 points, cementing his position at the bottom of the rankings.

*Note: The assessment of presidential greatness and rankings by historians involves subjective judgment, making this section inherently opinion-based.*

 

The Golf Moment: Where the Debate Broke Down into two old rich white men complaining about their Golf Game

During a presidential debate, Biden challenged Trump to a driving competition and claimed he held a 6 handicap while serving as vice president. Trump responded skeptically, stating Biden could only hit a ball 50 yards.

As per the United States Golf Association (USGA), Biden is currently listed with a 6.7 handicap, playing out of Fieldstone Golf Club in Delaware. His last posted score in the system dates back to 2018. Handicaps are derived from the average of the lowest 8 out of the most recent 20 scores, with lower handicaps indicating better golfing proficiency.

Comparatively, Ivanka Trump holds a 20.9 handicap, while Eric Trump is listed at 13.6 (with no recent scores since 2015). Donald Trump, a member of Winged Foot Golf Club in New York, lists a handicap of 2.5 but hasn’t posted a score since 2021.

 

Checking the Record on Various Misc Statements

Regarding the allegations about Trump’s statements:

Trump Legal Cases

Regarding legal cases against Trump, he claimed that Biden indicted him because he was his opponent. The investigation into Trump’s business records by the Manhattan district attorney began before Biden became president, and Trump was charged in 2023, during Biden’s presidency. The investigation started in response to actions that occurred before Biden took office, and Biden’s presidency claims they did not initiate or influence these legal proceedings.

Trump has also faced indictments from a Fulton County, Georgia, grand jury and two federal grand juries. Biden, however, claims he is not responsible for the decisions of state or federal prosecutors to pursue these cases.

Veterans and Trump’s Comments

Biden referenced Trump allegedly calling U.S. veterans killed in World War I “suckers and losers,” a quote from The Atlantic based on anonymous sources. While Trump denies this, a former Trump chief of staff later seemed to confirm the statement.

Snopes, a fact-checking website, has addressed these claims:

1. Claim: Trump called U.S. veterans killed in World War I “suckers and losers.”

Biden claimed that Trump referred to American soldiers who died in wars as “suckers” and “losers.” This claim stems from a September 2020 article in The Atlantic, citing unnamed sources alleging Trump made derogatory remarks about military members.

Snopes Finding: This claim originated from a September 2020 article in The Atlantic, which cited anonymous sources alleging that Trump made derogatory remarks about military members. Snopes rates the claim as “Mixed” because it remains disputed due to the anonymous sourcing.

Former chief of staff John Kelly confirmed elements of these remarks in October 2023, stating that Trump referred to fallen military members in disparaging terms. ions.

2. Confirmation by John Kelly:

Snopes Finding: In October 2023, former Trump chief of staff John Kelly confirmed that Trump had indeed made disparaging remarks about fallen military members. This confirmation supports the essence of the original claims.

Trump has consistently denied these allegations.

3. Trump’s Denial:

Snopes Finding: Trump has consistently denied making these specific derogatory remarks about veterans and fallen soldiers.

For the most detailed and updated information, checking directly on Snopes or other reliable fact-checking sources can provide additional context and any new developments on this issue.

Very Fine People

In an ongoing narrative that intertwines history and contemporary politics, President Joe Biden recently resurrected contentious claims about former President Donald Trump’s remarks on national reconciliation. Biden alluded to an assertion that Trump had remarked favorably on Hitler’s policies, as detailed in CNN anchor Jim Sciutto’s book citing John Kelly. Kelly reportedly recounted Trump’s discussion on Hitler’s economic strategies, although this conversation lacks independent verification, and Trump’s campaign spokesperson dismissed Kelly’s statements as biased.

Biden also revisited Trump’s comments concerning the 2017 Charlottesville protests, where clashes erupted over the removal of a Confederate statue. Biden contended that Trump had referred to Nazis protesting in Charlottesville as “very fine people.” Trump’s actual statement acknowledged the presence of “very fine people on both sides” of the statue’s removal debate, while separately condemning neo-Nazis and white nationalists involved in the violence. Trump clarified that not all participants in the protests were affiliated with extremist ideologies, distinguishing between peaceful demonstrators and those engaged in unlawful activities.

This narrative underscores the ongoing ideological divide in America, reflecting contrasting interpretations of historical events and political rhetoric within the context of a Constitutional Republic that ensures our Democracy.

Left Wing Fact-Checker Admits Trump Never Called Charlottesville Neo-Nazis Very Fine People in Blow to Biden

In a significant development, the left-leaning fact-checking site Snopes recently acknowledged that former President Trump did not refer to neo-Nazis as “very fine people” during his press conference following the 2017 Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally. This revelation deals a blow to President Biden, who has frequently cited this claim as pivotal in his 2020 campaign.

Critics of Trump have long asserted that he equated neo-Nazis with counter protesters after the Charlottesville event. Biden prominently featured this narrative in his campaign launch video, positioning it as a stark example of national division under Trump’s leadership.

According to Snopes, “While Trump did say that there were ‘very fine people on both sides,’ he also specifically noted that he was not talking about neo-Nazis and White supremacists and said they should be ‘condemned totally.’ Therefore, we have rated this claim ‘False.'”

This fact-check by Snopes corroborates years of arguments from Trump’s supporters, who have maintained that his remarks were taken out of context. The fact-checker highlights how this false narrative spread widely on the Left, ultimately becoming a cornerstone of Biden’s electoral strategy.

These statements have been sources of controversy and debate, reflecting differing interpretations and perspectives on Trump’s remarks and their implications.

 

Final Breakdown

President Biden’s recent statements on critical issues highlight the intricate dynamics of governance within our Constitutional Republic that ensures our Democracy. Distinguishing between factual assertions and rhetorical flair is pivotal in assessing presidential declarations. As policy discussions persist, fostering well-informed public dialogue remains paramount in navigating the complexities inherent in national governance.

Verifying the accuracy and contextual relevance of these assertions is fundamental to upholding the tenets of our Constitutional Republic that ensures our Democracy. As the political landscape evolves, a discerning and informed electorate remains indispensable for the vitality of our democratic processes. The recent debate underscored the imperative for voters to critically analyze President Biden’s statements, ensuring factual integrity to sustain the trust and credibility of our Constitutional Republic that ensures our Democracy.

The debate illuminated numerous instances of factual inaccuracies and embellishments from both candidates. It is incumbent upon voters to meticulously scrutinize these assertions and rely on substantiated information to make judicious decisions. This scrutiny underscores the profound significance of transparency and accountability within our Constitutional Republic that ensures our Democracy.

 

[Sources: FactCheck.org, APNews, ABC News, Politifact, NewsMax, Newsweek, USA Today, Fox News]

To Watch The Debate:

 

 

 

 

 

This Article is Brought to you by Go Right News and Edited by Peter Boykin

Visit GoRightNews.com for More Articles and Visit PeterBoykin.com to Learn more about Peter Boykin

Like what you see?

#GoRight with Peter Boykin

https://PeterBoykin.com

Follow Telegram

https://T.me/RealPeterBoykin

https://T.me/GoRightNews

Follow on Kick

https://Kick.com/PeterBoykin

Follow on Rumble

https://Rumble.com/GoRightNews

Tags:

#ncpol #NCpolitics #Boykin4NC #BoykinFor2024 #BoykinForNC

#Android #Apple #Trump #trumptrain #Trump2024 #TRUMP2024ToSaveAmerica #2024Election #election #election2023 #electionchallenge #ElectionIntegrity #ElectionsMatter #ElectionCommission #GoRightNews #GaysForTrump #tuesday #GoRight #ihatemondays #applemusic #applewatch #applepodcasts #ApplePay #appleiphone #bidenisnotmypresident #BIDENSAMERICA #BidenBorderCrisis #Bidenflation #Biden #BidenCrimeFamily #northcarolina #government #Governor #politics #political #politicians #politicalchallenge #politicalmeme

 

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]