2016 Presidential Debate II

[ddt]

And after it's over and sixty million or more viewers turn off their tellies? It's Reagan time? The slickest performer and most believable actor wins?

For that format to be acceptable, I want them sitting in a wading pool holding and exposed, but dead, 220 v cable that is hooked up to a fact checker. Without moderators, the best liar wins. That's the problem with people saying the moderators should butt out. The moderators should call out blatant lies and refusals to address the questions.
It's a "news" broadcast. News connotes journalism. Journalism is supposed to be a search for the truth, isn't it?

I agree on both counts.

As further measure, I'd like to see that a candidate who drifts off from the question gets a time penalty on his next question. 10 seconds for the first evasion, 20 for the second, etc.

Mod Please comment on your "grab them by the pussy" comment, Mr. Trump?
Trump. I'm sorry that video clip got out there, and we have to combat ISIS.
Mod. This question is not about ISIS but about your attitude to women. 10 seconds penalty.
Trump. But ISIS is really bad.
Mod. 20 second penalty. Your view on women, Mr. Trump?
...
Mod. What do you think about healthcare reform, Mr Trump? Due to your evasions, you have 30 seconds to answer.

Alternatively, wiring the candidates to live 10kV would also do the trick. I don't see the problem with that as Trump loves torture (and he's the only one who evaded questions).

BTW, has anyone caught the irony of Trump trying to deflect combating ISIS? I don't understand his issue with ISIS, after all they're in perfect agreement as to treatment of women, viz. as chattel.

 

[Aepervius]

ETA: removed found another thread about it

 

[Foolmewunz]

The woeful chorus at Fox is hyping the third debate and the earth-shattering first.... First Time a Foxie Has Moderated a Debate, In All of History. One plug even said, right after mentioning that, "Don't miss this historical event."

Sadly, I think the writers meant, like a Presidential Debate is a historical event, but Fox Viewers are expecting Hannity to don a leopard skin and come swinging in on a vine to deliver the knockout blow.

Chris Wallace sure ain't Mike Wallace, but I doubt his "fairness" (which in Foxtown USA means "pick on the Democrats") is going to give Trump an overwhelming edge. The Trumpies reckon he'll interrupt and say, "Mrs. Clinton, you go back two paces and skip a turn because you're a lying bitch."

 

[Babbylonian]

The woeful chorus at Fox is hyping the third debate and the earth-shattering first.... First Time a Foxie Has Moderated a Debate, In All of History. One plug even said, right after mentioning that, "Don't miss this historical event."

Sadly, I think the writers meant, like a Presidential Debate is a historical event, but Fox Viewers are expecting Hannity to don a leopard skin and come swinging in on a vine to deliver the knockout blow.

Chris Wallace sure ain't Mike Wallace, but I doubt his "fairness" (which in Foxtown USA means "pick on the Democrats") is going to give Trump an overwhelming edge. The Trumpies reckon he'll interrupt and say, "Mrs. Clinton, you go back two paces and skip a turn because you're a lying bitch."

There is no hope in this debate for any conservative Republican with a brain in their head. My expectation would be for Wallace to go tough both ways. Since the election is a virtually foregone conclusion, the only way Rupert and Fox get a positive bounce out of this is if Wallace makes Fox look truly "fair and balanced."

 

[Fast Eddie B]

I periodically tune into Fox News Sunday.

Chris Wallace, while leaning right, comes across to me as a reasonable man. Whether his guests represent the right or left, he does zero in on waffling and hypocrisy.

I think he will go out of his way to be both fair and balanced.

We'll see.

 

[Delvo]

There is no hope in this debate for any conservative Republican with a brain in their head.

They've been hopeless for a long time because there aren't any conservative candidates.

Since the election is a virtually foregone conclusion

There's no such thing. And if Hannity is involved, what really matters isn't whether it's really foregone but just what Hannity thinks about its foregonitude. As far as Clinton's opposition is concerned, she's been so protected and coddled so far that the voters just aren't aware yet of all the horrible stuff she's done because everybody else so far has at least once talked to her about something else instead when they could have been talking about scandals, and if the voters find out what she's done then they won't vote for her. So he'll spend his time harassing her as much as he can about scandals, then complain later that constraints of time & format didn't allow him to get the word out even more.