Trump Doesn't Want Moderators At The Presidential Debates

[Unitedwestand13]

Here we go

Donald Trump has a solution in mind for those who've been unhappy with debate moderators: get rid of them altogether.

Trump said in a Tuesday interview with CNBC's "Squawk Box" that he wants to have a debate where he and Clinton are just "talking" sans moderator because of concerns that moderators are biased.

Anyone else not shocked by this?

Trump Doesn't Want Moderators At The Presidential Debates

 

[gmeyers1944]

Here we go



Anyone else not shocked by this?

Trump Doesn't Want Moderators At The Presidential Debates

I am not shocked. That is the way debates should be.

 

[Ikari]

I am not shocked. That is the way debates should be.

It would never be on target then.

On some level there is need for moderators, but mostly the "debates" are all staged and scripted events anyway.

 

[gmeyers1944]

It would never be on target then.

On some level there is need for moderators, but mostly the "debates" are all staged and scripted events anyway.

How would a debate without moderator NOT be on target? I think that they would HIT THE BULLSEYE.
Also there would be no script.

 

[eohrnberger]

And it's going to go exactly nowhere. :shrug:

 

[Manc Skipper]

They would hit the bull****, and never stop! Can you iagine Trump without someone to keep him honest?

 

[Ikari]

How would a debate without moderator NOT be on target? I think that they would HIT THE BULLSEYE.

Because each candidate would just be yelling at each other, trying to talk over each other, not answering questions, deflecting towards stump speeches, and overall not communicating a damned thing.

Given our level of politicians there is no way in hell that a debate without moderators would be anywhere close to being on target. It could only be a debacle of embarrassing levels.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Here we go



Anyone else not shocked by this?

Trump Doesn't Want Moderators At The Presidential Debates

Truth is, given the history of the media's lean to the left, and after the way Candy Crowley misrepresented the truth, interjected her opinion, and defended the Obama/Clinton lie about what the Obama Administration used as the reason for the Benghazi attack, yeah, I think it would be just fine for a time-keeper to be up there and maybe, just maybe, allow them to ask questions. No follow-up. No interjections. Let the American people decide who is telling the truth and who isn't, because the freaking media elite sure wont tell the truth either.

 

[Ikari]

because the freaking media elite sure wont tell the truth either.

Nor are the politicians. In the end, we're all just caught in the Republocrat machine and we're never afforded any actual information.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Truth is, given the history of the media's lean to the left, and after the way Candy Crowley misrepresented the truth, interjected her opinion, and defended the Obama/Clinton lie about what the Obama Administration used as the reason for the Benghazi attack, yeah, I think it would be just fine for a time-keeper to be up there and maybe, just maybe, allow them to ask questions. No follow-up. No interjections. Let the American people decide who is telling the truth and who isn't, because the freaking media elite sure wont tell the truth either.

Yeah, and no one to stop trump from talking over Hilliary....

 

[Beaudreaux]

Yeah, and no one to stop trump from talking over Hilliary....

A time-keeper can do that. Telling Trump or Hillary that it isn't their time to speak, is part of what a time-keeper would logically do. Interjecting their political opinion, however, is not.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

A time-keeper can do that. Telling Trump or Hillary that it isn't their time to speak, is part of what a time-keeper would logically do. Interjecting their political opinion, however, is not.

Someone has to call out the lies.

Candy Crowley did her job in 2012.

 

[jimbo]

They would hit the bull****, and never stop! Can you iagine Trump without someone to keep him honest?

That would be the job of Hillary.

My first thought was no way. Then why not? Hillary would ask the first question. 30 seconds. Trump rebuts. 3 minutes. Hillary 2 1 /2 minute rebuttal. Then Trump asks the question. Same scenario. Go overtime, you lose your turn.

We'd hear the candidates at their best and worst. No politicizing by some so called journalist. No teleprompters, no ear pieces.

There would however be enough surprises to make things interesting.

 

[Fletch]

Someone has to call out the lies.

Candy Crowley did her job in 2012.

That's not the job of a moderator. Besides, trying to keep these two honest would take an entire panel.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Someone has to call out the lies.

Who's job is it to call out the lies of the media, and why should we allow less than truthful and more than partisan members of the media act as the moderators? It's the job of the electorate to determine what is the truth and what is not. Anyone that relegates that responsibility to the press and decides to believe whatever the press says is true and what is not true, deserves to to be lied to.

Candy Crowley did her job in 2012.

No, she did not. The job of the moderator is to pose the questions to the candidates and let them debate the issues. The moderator is not part of the debate - that's called an interview, not a debate. Candy should never had interjected her opinion into the discussion - she was not running for any elected office, and should have stayed quiet. I would argue even today that what Obama said in the Rose Garden, was not what Candy Crowley tried to say it was, and she became an unprofessional partisan participant in a Presidential debate. She should never have opened her damned mouth, because I never saw her name on any ballot.

 

[jimbo]

Because each candidate would just be yelling at each other, trying to talk over each other, not answering questions, deflecting towards stump speeches, and overall not communicating a damned thing.

Given our level of politicians there is no way in hell that a debate without moderators would be anywhere close to being on target. It could only be a debacle of embarrassing levels.

You make the rules beforehand. You talk out of turn, your mike gets shut off.

Again the other candidate acts as moderator.

 

[Beaudreaux]

That's not the job of a moderator. Besides, trying to keep these two honest would take an entire panel.

And, an electric cattle prod.

 

[Ikari]

You make the rules beforehand. You talk out of turn, your mike gets shut off.

Again the other candidate acts as moderator.

Who is doing the "mike shutting off"?

Rules....lol, like politicians care about those.

 

[jimbo]

A time-keeper can do that. Telling Trump or Hillary that it isn't their time to speak, is part of what a time-keeper would logically do. Interjecting their political opinion, however, is not.

A timekeeping device could do that. At the end of your time, your mike shuts off.

Just like a chess game.

 

[cpwill]

How would a debate without moderator NOT be on target? I think that they would HIT THE BULLSEYE.

Because it would just be recitation of their stump speeches.

 

[Beaudreaux]

A timekeeping device could do that. At the end of your time, your mike shuts off.

Just like a chess game.

I like that idea - the mic is tied to the clock. Reminds me of that joke from Ron White about diamonds.

 

[jimbo]

Who is doing the "mike shutting off"?

Rules....lol, like politicians care about those.

Not that difficult with today's technology. My stock account has a voice activated password. You speak out of turn, you lose your turn.

That's the point. Take the pontificating out of the debate.

 

[backpacker]

A timekeeping device could do that. At the end of your time, your mike shuts off.

Just like a chess game.

I don't like time limits on the discussions as long as they are discussing the issue directly. Since they won't be, that is where the moderators would be needed.

 

[truthatallcost]

They would hit the bull****, and never stop! Can you iagine Trump without someone to keep him honest?

Honesty? Really, you want to complain about honesty?

 

[jimbo]

I don't like time limits on the discussions as long as they are discussing the issue directly. Since they won't be, that is where the moderators would be needed.

The problem with moderators as opposed to machines is that moderators are biased. What one considers the issue is another considers pontificating. If you don't have fixed time limits, you get rambling.

If the candidate does not think the time was ample, then they could use their next turn to expand.