Well, of course he doesn’t want moderators! They keep time clocks. They would make him shut up and let Hillary say something. Donnie figures he would be able to start yakking and just not stop, riding roughshod over Hillary.
Also, one of them might just get uppity and point out that he lied. Or that he didn’t answer the question. Or have the audacity to ask a follow-on question.,
Because, of course, if Hillary insists on some time for her own answers or poitns out his lies, she’s being strident and bitchy and is probably having hot flashes… Or perhaps she’s not feeling well and needs to sit down…before she falls down…
Great idea. Agree on the topic. Flip a coin to determine who goes first in the first debate; the other person goes first in the second, the first candidate goes first again in the third.
Then, have a very loud gong that sounds at the end of the designated time for statements and responses. And keeps on going until the speaker shuts the hell up and lets the other person go. Have the gong sounds if one candidate interrupts the other.
Works for me–it would keep Donny Boy from trying to bully Hilllary.
He’s starting the process to weasel out of them. He’ll make some ridiculous conditions upon him participating, and say that anything that doesn’t meet his conditions are “unfair”, “rigged”, or “biased”. If Hillary doesn’t agree to debate using his conditions, then he will claim she is the one who is afraid to debate.
The question is whether the media lets him get away with it. If this campaign so far is any guide, then the answer is yes - they will let him get away with it.
Two things: 1) I’m betting he finds an excuse, any excuse to get out of the debates in spite of promising he will take part in all three and 2) there will be no blowback (or if there is, it will be insignificant and his followers will anyhow agree that it was all rigged against him anyway).
Trump began by defending NBC’s Matt Lauer, who hosted the Commander-in-Chief Forum last week to unfavorable reviews. He said that Lauer did well and that criticism of his performance was unfair, then predicted that when the presidential debates start Trump will be the one treated unfairly.
So did anyone ask him about that '04 [Esquire][1] article?
"As far as the debates are concerned, and the system is being gamed because everybody said I won the so-called forum that your group put on, but they all said I won and that Matt Lauer was easy on me, and he wasn’t,"
“Where to start?”
So after that forum, [Heavy.com][2] ran a bullet points summary of the event, which asked at the end who won the forum?
The thing is (and which Trump naturally ignored) is that anyone can likely vote more than once in those types of polls. However it didn’t stop him from posting the win as a tweet.
Actually, a debate where the only moderation is a strictly enforced time clock (enforced by turning the mike off if necessary) would be fine with me.
Let Trump speak for 2 minutes, then Clinton for 2 minutes, etc.
Yes, but he is doing a poor job of it. Because what his whine is, is he thinks he won the “forum” but he isn’t getting the win because Lauer was too soft on him.
That pretty much sounds like an open invitation for all the moderates to come down on Trump like a ton of bricks. So there will be NO question of them being too soft.
No need for a gong. Shut his microphone off. Put them both in sound-proof booths so he can’t shout over HRC.
And let’s structure it like a real debate, while we are at it.
Proposition: The United States of America should adopt Donald Trump’s tax plan.
Obviously, HO is pro, HRC is con. Statement of case by Dishonest Don. Rebuttal by HRC. Statement of case by HRC. Rebuttal by DD. Summary by DD. Summary by HRC.
Next topic, please.
Proposition: The United States should adopt Hillary Clinton’s tax plan.
etc.
He’ll get humiliated by Clinton in any forum with the structure to reign in his bombastic, steamroller tactics.The Lauer debacle is turning out to be an advantage, with the possible exception of Wallace who already declared his eagerness to allows lies, the moderators will have to exert some discipline on the Donald.
Not just work the refs; get rid of them altogether.
I’m surprised that Candy Crowley got the pushback she did when she corrected Romney during that Presidential debate, and I’m still surprised by the fact that moderators don’t think they should be fact-checkers during debates.
We’ve lost what it means to be objective: if Trump (or Clinton, for that matter) were to come out and say that 2+2=5, I would expect a neutral moderator to say “No, that’s wrong” right then and there.
Likewise, if Trump repeats any of the already-disproven statements he’s made, I expect pushback from the moderator, and if Clinton were to misstate facts, I’d expect the same.
Leaving it to Clinton to correct Trump lets him get away with saying “oh, that’s just her opinion,” and that’s exactly where he wants to be.
Hah. This is a sure sign that he’s beginning to choke in anticipation of a real debate going one on one with Hillary. And no Donald, you don’t get to make the rules, change the rules, or pretend like there are no rules. Try as you might, this time, you can’t be the King.
Too bad he has to wait all the way until the last debate to have Ailes’ friend at Faux Snooze moderate the debate. Wallace already signaled he won’t fact check YamMan. How convenient is that? And why again are we not talking about a pervert, extortionist and sexual predator advising that POS? You’d think that would be front page news from here to the election if the fucking news were doing their job. So while Cosby goes to trial for committing serial rape over a lifetime…Ailes advises a Presidential candidate. Sick.
I hope Hillary coughs all over that fucking germophobe…just for shits and giggles.
