Community

The First Presidential Debate of 2024 Mired in Trump’s Lies, Poor Media Moderation

Forget alternative facts and political spin: the first presidential debate of 2024 was an overwhelming flood of falsehoods. The twice-impeached and 34-times convicted felon former President Donald Trump unleashed a torrent of misinformation on topics ranging from terrorism to taxes during the first debate of the 2024 general election. Poorly moderated to the point of farce by two CNN anchors, the debate will likely go down in history for the sheer volume of lies broadcast to the American people.

Published

10 months ago

July 12, 2024

Oakland Post

The First Presidential Debate of 2024.

By Stacy M. Brown
NNPA Newswire

Forget alternative facts and political spin: the first presidential debate of 2024 was an overwhelming flood of falsehoods.

The twice-impeached and 34-times convicted felon former President Donald Trump unleashed a torrent of misinformation on topics ranging from terrorism to taxes during the first debate of the 2024 general election.

Poorly moderated to the point of farce by two CNN anchors, the debate will likely go down in history for the sheer volume of lies broadcast to the American people.

Trump, who boasted that he could grab women by their private parts and later was found responsible for sexually assaulting a woman, lied about everything from the economy to racism and having sex with an adult film star.

“I spent 90 minutes debating on a stage with a guy who has all the morals of an alley cat. I mean, did you see Donald Trump last night? He must have set a new record for the number of lies ever told in a single debate,” President Joe Biden said after the June 27 debate.

“He lied about what a great economy he created when we all remember the pandemic. He lied about how great he was for veterans when we can recall how he called veterans who had given their lives for this country ‘suckers’ and ‘losers.’

And he even lied about how he had nothing to do with January 6,” Biden asserted.

Biden reminded debate viewers that they had all witnessed a Trump-supporting mob attack the U.S. Capitol, including assaults on police officers. “The Capitol was ransacked,” Biden said. “Folks, for all of Trump’s lies, we did learn some important truths. We learned he is still proud of being the person who killed Roe v. Wade. Donald Trump showed us who he is last night. We have to believe him.”

The litany of key questions Trump refused to answer on the debate stage further highlighted his evasion and dishonesty. Instead, Trump deflected, blamed others, and continued his pattern of misinformation.

He also made racially charged claims about immigrants taking jobs from Black and Hispanic Americans. “They’re taking Black jobs now, and it could be 18, it could be 19, and even 20 million people,” Trump said, showing just how racist he can be. “They’re taking Black jobs, and they’re taking Hispanic jobs, and you haven’t seen it yet, but you’re going to see something that’s going to be the worst in our history.”

Derrick Johnson, CEO of the NAACP, responded succinctly, “There’s no such thing as a Black job or a white job.”

Although Biden received poor marks and criticism for his performance, backlash against Trump also proved swift and severe. Democratic Party of Virginia Chair Susan Swecker; Army veteran Terron Sims II, chair of the DNC Veterans and Military Families Council; and Air Force veteran Sean Monteiro, chair of the Virginia Beach Democratic Committee, all called out Trump for his long record of disrespecting Americans in uniform.

They criticized his efforts with MAGA GOP extremists to cut veterans’ benefits, which would have a significant impact on the Hampton Roads area — home to nearly 120,000 active-duty military members and 220,000 veterans.

“Donald Trump’s record, rhetoric, and actions have all proved that he is against everything that our military stands for and works to protect,” Swecker stated.

“There is only one man on the ballot in November who has stood up for veterans time and again.” Swecker said. “That man is Joe Biden, a father who knows what it feels like to have a son fighting for his country, and a president who has delivered the most significant expansion of benefits and services for veterans.”

President Biden and Democrats are working to protect freedom and defend democracy, standing up against aggression abroad and hate at home,” said Monteiro.

“Donald Trump only cares about himself – and, with the backing of his MAGA Republican allies, he’s willing to insult service members and destroy the very ideals of democracy in his own pursuit of personal power, revenge, and retribution,” Monteiro said. “We have to defeat Trump and MAGA Republicans once and for all — so he doesn’t have a chance to do any more damage to our democracy and our values as a country.”

The debate has revealed the stark choice facing American voters. On one side is Biden, 81, who has spent four years cleaning up his predecessor’s misdeeds. Biden has worked tirelessly to rebuild the economy, navigate the country through a devastating pandemic, and restore America’s global reputation.

He has fought for healthcare, veterans’ rights, and the middle class, as well as relieving tens of millions of dollars of student debt.

On the other side stands Trump, 78, whose presidency nearly decimated the economy, whose inaction during the pandemic allowed countless people to die, who spews hate, racism, and violent rhetoric, and who all but ruined America’s standing in the world.

“For over a century, the NAACP has worked tirelessly to ensure Black voices are heard in every election,” Johnson stated. “This year is no different. We need candidates who are going to prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion, not attempt to mischaracterize Black workers as anything but American workers.”

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Hundreds of Revelers Cheer Parade, Join Fun at Juneteenth Festival in Nicholl Park

Don't Miss

Juneteenth Mass Shooting Suspect Charge with Multiple Counts of Felony Assault by Alameda County DA Pamela Price

Oakland Post

Click to comment

Activism

Gov. Newsom Approves $170 Million to Fast Track Wildfire Resilience

AB 100 approves major investments in regional conservancies across the state, including over $30 million each for the Sierra Nevada, Santa Monica Mountains, State Coastal, and San Gabriel/Lower LA Rivers and Mountains conservancies. An additional $10 million will support wildfire response and resilience efforts.

Published

30 minutes ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Courtesy of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s Facebook page.

By Bo Tefu
California Black Media

With wildfire season approaching, last week Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 100, unlocking $170 million to fast-track wildfire prevention and forest management projects — many of which directly protect communities of color, who are often hardest hit by climate-driven disasters.

“With this latest round of funding, we’re continuing to increase the speed and size of forest and vegetation management essential to protecting communities,” said Newsom when he announced the funding on April 14.

“We are leaving no stone unturned — including cutting red tape — in our mission to ensure our neighborhoods are protected from destructive wildfires,” he said.

Newsom also signed an executive order suspending certain regulations to allow urgent work to move forward faster.

This funding builds on California’s broader Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan, a $2.7 billion effort to reduce fuel loads, increase prescribed burning, and harden communities. The state has also launched new dashboards to keep the public informed and hold agencies accountable.

California has also committed to continue investing $200 million annually through 2028 to expand this effort, ensuring long-term resilience, particularly in vulnerable communities.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Rideshare Drivers and Supporters Step Up Push to Unionize

Today in California, over 600,000 rideshare drivers want the ability to form or join unions for the sole purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid and protection. It’s a right, and recently at the State Capitol, a large number of people, including some rideshare drivers and others working in the gig economy, reaffirmed that they want to exercise it.

Published

53 minutes ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Antonio‌ ‌Ray‌ ‌Harvey‌
California‌ ‌Black‌ ‌Media‌

On July 5, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into federal law the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Also known as the “Wagner Act,” the law paved the way for employees to have “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,” and “to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, according to the legislation’s language.

On April 8, the rideshare drivers held a rally with lawmakers to garner support for Assembly Bill (AB) 1340, the “Transportation Network Company Drivers (TNC) Labor Relations Act.”

Authored by Assemblymembers Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) and Marc Berman (D-Menlo Park), AB 1340 would allow drivers to create a union and negotiate contracts with industry leaders like Uber and Lyft.

“All work has dignity, and every worker deserves a voice — especially in these uncertain times,” Wicks said at the rally. “AB 1340 empowers drivers with the choice to join a union and negotiate for better wages, benefits, and protections. When workers stand together, they are one of the most powerful forces for justice in California.”

Wicks and Berman were joined by three members of the California Legislative Black Caucus (CLBC): Assemblymembers Tina McKinnor (D-Inglewood), Sade Elhawary (D-Los Angeles), and Isaac Bryan (D-Ladera Heights).

Yvonne Wheeler, president of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor; April Verrett, President of Service Employees International Union (SEIU); Tia Orr, Executive Director of SEIU; and a host of others participated in the demonstration on the grounds of the state capitol.

“This is not a gig. This is your life. This is your job,” Bryan said at the rally. “When we organize and fight for our collective needs, it pulls from the people who have so much that they don’t know what to do with it and puts it in the hands of people who are struggling every single day.”

Existing law, the “Protect App-Based Drivers and Services Act,” created by Proposition (Prop) 22, a ballot initiative, categorizes app-based drivers for companies such as Uber and Lyft as independent contractors.

Prop 22 was approved by voters in the November 2020 statewide general election. Since then, Prop 22 has been in court facing challenges from groups trying to overturn it.

However, last July, Prop 22 was upheld by the California Supreme Court last July.

In a 2024, statement after the ruling, Lyft stated that 80% of the rideshare drivers they surveyed acknowledged that Prop 22 “was good for them” and “median hourly earnings of drivers on the Lyft platform in California were 22% higher in 2023 than in 2019.”

Wicks and Berman crafted AB 1340 to circumvent Prop 22.

“With AB 1340, we are putting power in the hands of hundreds of thousands of workers to raise the bar in their industry and create a model for an equitable and innovative partnership in the tech sector,” Berman said.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Activism

California Holds the Line on DEI as Trump Administration Threatens School Funding

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

Published

2 hours ago

April 28, 2025

Oakland Post

Shutterstock

By Joe W. Bowers Jr
California Black Media

California education leaders are pushing back against the Trump administration’s directive to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in its K-12 public schools — despite threats to take away billions in federal funding.

The conflict began on Feb. 14, when Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), issued a “Dear Colleague” letter warning that DEI-related programs in public schools could violate federal civil rights law. The letter, which cited Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended race-conscious admissions, ordered schools to eliminate race-based considerations in areas such as admissions, scholarships, hiring, discipline, and student programming.

According to Trainor, “DEI programs discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another.”

On April 3, the DOE escalated the pressure, sending a follow-up letter to states demanding that every local educational agency (LEA) certify — within 10 business days — that they were not using federal funds to support “illegal DEI.” The certification requirement, tied to continued federal aid, raised the stakes for California, which receives more than $16 billion annually in federal education funding.

So far, California has refused to comply with the DOE order.

“There is nothing in state or federal law that outlaws the broad concepts of ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion,’” wrote David Schapira, California’s Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction, in an April 4 letter to superintendents and charter school administrators. Schapira noted that all of California’s more than 1,000 traditional public school districts submit Title VI compliance assurances annually and are subject to regular oversight by the state and the federal government.

In a formal response to the DOE on April 11, the California Department of Education, the State Board of Education, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond collectively rejected the certification demand, calling it vague, legally unsupported, and procedurally improper.

“California and its nearly 2,000 LEAs (including traditional public schools and charter schools) have already provided the requisite guarantee that its programs and services are, and will be, in compliance with Title VI and its implementing regulation,” the letter says.

Thurmond added in a statement, “Today, California affirmed existing and continued compliance with federal laws while we stay the course to move the needle for all students. As our responses to the United States Department of Education state and as the plain text of state and federal laws affirm, there is nothing unlawful about broad core values such as diversity, equity and inclusion. I am proud of our students, educators and school communities who continue to focus on teaching and learning, despite federal actions intended to distract and disrupt.”

California officials say that the federal government cannot change existing civil rights enforcement standards without going through formal rule-making procedures, which require public notice and comment.

Other states are taking a similar approach. In a letter to the DOE, Daniel Morton-Bentley, deputy commissioner and counsel for the New York State Education Department, wrote, “We understand that the current administration seeks to censor anything it deems ‘diversity, equity & inclusion.’ But there are no federal or State laws prohibiting the principles of DEI.”