Image

Moderators Turn Trump vs. Harris Debate Into the Commie-La Monologues

"Moderators fact-checked Trump, and fact-checked none of what Harris said, and she lied repeatedly."

Moderators made mincemeat of what will likely be Donald Trump’s only debate with Kamala Harris.

Blatantly hostile ABC News hosts, David Muir and Linsey Davis, visibly favoured the Biden administration appointee.

Muir’s leading questions, and his outright interrogative statements, betrayed an obvious bias against Trump.

Davis’ “fact-checking” double standards was simply a double down on misdirection.

Giving Harris a free ride, moderators communicated an obvious unwillingness to hold the Marxist Vice President accountable to the same apparent standard they were applying to Trump.

Muir and Davis let Harris’ lies slide.

Such as the “very fine people” hoax, Project 2025, Democrat disinformation about abortion, false claims about climate change, and January 6.

In the end, Trump wasn’t just debating Harris, he was unexpectedly forced to defend himself against attacks from the ABC.

Every time Trump scored big, the moderators moved the debate along.

After Trump landed a significant counter-punch, rightly stating that Democrat rhetoric helped “put a bullet in his head,” Muir reshuffled the already stacked deck.

Then when Trump delivered a knockout blow, cornering Harris on abortion up to birth, the discussion was met with a quick diversion, and Davis’ counter-accusations.

When Trump pinned Kamala, and company down on false claims about “insurrection,” by contrasting J6 with the destruction of Black Lives Matter, and Antifa rioters, Muir and Davis deployed misdirection.

This happened over, and over again.

What was advertised as fair play, was in truth, the ABC playing defence for the current administration.

Furiously protesting the one-sided moderation, independent media megastar, Megan Kelly, shared her thoughts,  stating, “ABC News is run by, Dana Walton – the guy responsible for Harris and her husband meeting.”

Muir and Davis “did Walton’s bidding tonight,” she argued.

The debate “was three against one.”

“Trump did the best he could under the circumstances,” even though he was outnumbered.

“He tried to take the all on. He did fine, even though he was thrown a few times when he was unnecessarily defensive.”

Trump was “getting angry, and so was I,” Kelly exclaimed.

“Trusting ABC News with this debate was a mistake,” she added.

“Republicans must learn from this, the same way Democrats never agree to do anything with moderators they don’t entirely trust.”

“This should be the last time Republicans ever do this because those two moderators tried to sink Donald Trump tonight.”

They, Megan continued, “fact-checked him, and fact-checked none of what Harris said, and she lied repeatedly.”

Robert F. Kennedy Jnr. also weighed in, saying the “moderators were clearly biased.”

They were “constantly fact-checking Donald Trump and none of these whoppers the Vice President was dropping.”

The ABC moderators, RFK Jnr said, didn’t call on her to explain inconsistencies.

They “simply sat there on the sidelines and allowed that to pass.”

Swimming superstar, and outspoken LGBTrans critic, Riley Gaines, noted, “Not even 2 months ago the former President was shot in the head in an assassination attempt and the moderators didn’t bring it up ONCE. You realize how deliberate and insane that is, right?”

William Wolfe quipped, “I’m still surprised the moderators didn’t give their own closing statements.”

In a CNN video of undecided voter responses to the debate, being shared widely on X, one female voter explained, “We need to remember that we’re voting for the leader of our country, and not who we like the most, or who we want in our wedding party.”

We’re “voting for who is actually going to make our country better.”

Both candidates have been in office. We’ve “gotten to see what they would do.

“When facts come to facts, my life was better when Trump was in office,” she said.

As Australia’s own, Miranda Divine concluded, “Trump came across as serious and resolute. Harris’ haughty split-screen pantomime came across as unserious and unlikeable.”

“It goes without saying that the ABC was a disgrace.”

The debate bottom line:

If Americans want a Commander in Chief, vote Trump.

If they want to be “mothered,” vote Kamala.

It’s MAGA vs. Marxism.

Despite biased moderators turning the presidential debate into the Commie-La Harris monologues, Trump ran a strong defence.

Contrary to the consensus, I don’t think he lost the debate.

Trump did all could do, given the moderators shielded Harris, by harassing him.

Special Request:

For nearly eight years, we've highlighted issues ignored by mainstream media and resisted globalist ideologies eroding Western civilization. We've done this joyfully, without paywalls, despite personal costs to our team. Your support has kept us going, but operating costs exceed donations, forcing us to use ads. We’d love to ditch them, so we’re asking for your help. If you value our work, please consider supporting us via Stripe or PayPal. Every bit helps us keep fighting for our kids’ future. Thank you!

What's New?

Use the blue arrows at the bottom to scroll through the latest.
A Government That Won’t Acknowledge Christianity Can’t Defend the Nation

A Government That Won’t Acknowledge Christianity Can’t Defend the Nation

"By refusing to name its own moral foundations, the state undermines its ability to openly distinguish between belief systems that can coexist within its legal and moral order and those that fundamentally conflict with them. A society that cannot articulate its core moral commitments cannot coherently defend them."
By
by Staff WriterJan 16, 2026
Hate Speech Laws Are Just Blasphemy Laws

Hate Speech Laws Are Just Blasphemy Laws

"Blasphemy laws protect a society’s sacred object from verbal violation. Hate speech laws do the same, only the sacred object has changed. They are secularism’s answer to blasphemy law: enforcing reverence for the system’s ultimate values while denying that those values are religious at all."
By
by Staff WriterJan 15, 2026
Opposition Grows to Labor’s “Horrendous” Hate Speech Bill: “Worst Assault on Freedom Yet”

Opposition Grows to Labor’s “Horrendous” Hate Speech Bill: “Worst Assault on Freedom Yet”

Opposition to the federal government’s Combating Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Bill 2026 is mounting across multiple parties, with MPs and senators warning that the rushed, broadly worded legislation threatens free speech, religious freedom and civil liberties while failing to address the causes of extremism.
By
by Staff WriterJan 15, 2026
Democrats Want Trump’s War Powers Limited Over a War With Venezuela That Doesn’t Exist

Democrats Want Trump’s War Powers Limited Over a War With Venezuela That Doesn’t Exist

“This Vote greatly hampers American self-defence and National Security, impeding the President’s Authority as Commander in Chief,” Trump wrote.
By
by Rod LampardJan 14, 2026
True Leaders Inspire Unity, Weak Men Legislate It

True Leaders Inspire Unity, Weak Men Legislate It

"Heavy-handed laws, by contrast, are a symptom of weakness—a last resort when authority has decayed, and coercion is all that remains."
By
by Staff WriterJan 13, 2026
Australians Sound Alarm Over New Draconian “Hate” Bill

Australians Sound Alarm Over New Draconian “Hate” Bill

"The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security has allowed less than 48 hours for public submissions on the 144-page draft bill."
By
by Staff WriterJan 13, 2026
Hate Speech Laws Are an Admission of Government Failure

Hate Speech Laws Are an Admission of Government Failure

"Hate speech laws are evidence that our governments can no longer inspire loyalty, trust, or solidarity. They are an admission that policymakers have no unifying vision capable of bringing diverse people together voluntarily. So instead, they use force."
By
by Ben DavisJan 13, 2026
UK Leads Talks With Canada and Australia on Potential X Ban

UK Leads Talks With Canada and Australia on Potential X Ban

"Free communication has always posed a problem for those who seek to centralise authority. Open platforms like X allow claims to be challenged, narratives to be contested, and power to be scrutinised. That is precisely why they become targets when governments feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, or threatened."
By
by Staff WriterJan 12, 2026

Image

Support

If you value our work and would like to support us, you can do so by visiting our support page. Can’t find what you’re looking for? Visit our search page.

Copyright © 2025, Caldron Pool

Permissions

Everything published at Caldron Pool is protected by copyright and cannot be used and/or duplicated without prior written permission. Links and excerpts with full attribution are permitted. Published articles represent the opinions of the author and may not reflect the views of all contributors at Caldron Pool.

Caldron Pool does not condone the use of violence, threats, or intimidation for political or religious purposes. We strongly advocate for peaceful, respectful, and free communication and open debate without fear of reprisal or punishment.