• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Presidential Debates

I've said it before, I'll say it again man

Judge Judy

She wouldn't take any crap

[IMGw=640]https://i.imgflip.com/165vne.jpg[/IMGw]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We are hosting one of the debates, in early October. Alas, I will be sitting this one out (literally, I'm getting my knee replaced...) but I don't mind missing this one as from the security standpoint we're all convinced it will be a nightmare.
We've had the secret service, homeland defense, and all the local police agencies and the highway patrol in pretty much constant meetings and liason for months now.

Now, both the conventions were pretty tame, security-wise, but these debates have to potential to draw out all the loonies and radicals on both sides of the fence.
I'll be watching on TV....
 
Stacko said:
Chris Wallace has admitted he's not going to do his job.
Click to expand...

It's not clear to me that a moderator is supposed to challenge misstatements in a debate. In competitive debates, from what I understand, moderators do not challenge statements of fact, but of course the presidential debate isn't the same as a competitive debate.

As far as I can tell, the moderator's role is pretty much up to the moderator to decide.

Jim Lehrer wrote an interesting book about moderating presidential debates (as well as a novel with similar topic), but it's been too long since I read it.
 
It is a moderator's job to ensure that both sides get equal time.
If Trump starts to ramble, it would be his job to switch of his mike.
 
phiwum said:
It's not clear to me that a moderator is supposed to challenge misstatements in a debate.
Click to expand...

In this case, I think that they should not challenge the lies told by candidates. If they did, it would become nothing but a debate between Trump and the moderators. Besides, Trump supporters would believe Trump over facts anyway. The fence-sitters that care about facts will go with the fact checkers after the debate and Trump will lose them.
 
thaiboxerken said:
In this case, I think that they should not challenge the lies told by candidates. If they did, it would become nothing but a debate between Trump and the moderators. Besides, Trump supporters would believe Trump over facts anyway. The fence-sitters that care about facts will go with the fact checkers after the debate and Trump will lose them.
Click to expand...

In terms of the debates, so far we're talking about the Chris Wallace moderated one, I believe. The other on-air personalities haven't said anything about not challenging stuff that sets off the bs-ometer.
 
Surprise!

The stupid, greedy, lying, spoiled Trump is already whining about the upcoming debates.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-media-is-gaming-the-system-ahead-of-debates/

Donald Trump says the media is ‘gaming the system’ ahead of debates

Donald Trump on Sunday accused the news media of "gaming the system" ahead of the presidential debates, saying the criticism that followed Matt Lauer's performance as moderator of a candidate forum this month is designed to set the Republican nominee up for harsher scrutiny.

...

rump appears to be doing the same thing but with the opposite goal — trying to soften up the moderators by making them fear accusations of bias. He said Thursday in an interview with The Washington Post that Cooper will be "very biased" and should not be a moderator, indicating that Trump might cry foul if he does not like the questions he is asked.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Details, so to speak, of the debate topics.



All Trump-friendly topics, on the surface.
Click to expand...

In some ways. But she wants Trump to bring up that stuff about how her plan "only" is projected to have 2.5% growth, according to some independent analysis. He will boast how his plan is for 4% growth, so there!

And then she can mention that the same analysis that showed her plan having a 2.5% growth concluded that his plan would destroy the economy, and that his assertion of 4% growth is completely made up.

And thanks for conceding that she has a plan to grow the economy. Meanwhile, everyone agrees that he is going to sink it.
 
pgwenthold said:
In some ways. But she wants Trump to bring up that stuff about how her plan "only" is projected to have 2.5% growth, according to some independent analysis. He will boast how his plan is for 4% growth, so there!

And then she can mention that the same analysis that showed her plan having a 2.5% growth concluded that his plan would destroy the economy, and that his assertion of 4% growth is completely made up.

And thanks for conceding that she has a plan to grow the economy. Meanwhile, everyone agrees that he is going to sink it.
Click to expand...

It depends on how much he's allowed to bluster. We haven't seen the questions and hopefully they don't Lauer it and toss great big hanging curve balls and allow him to "Hillary Hillary Hillary" every answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom