It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Gloves are off...Trump wants to debate Clinton without a moderator

page: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

There is negative coverage of Hillary on CNN-ABC-New York Times-LA Times, but it has to be something really bad. Then, they usually sugar-coat it in some way to make it not seem as bad. I got a big laugh out of that Dr. Sanjay Guptka on CNN making excuses for Hillary yesterday.. "Several people at the memorial were overcome by heat and grief."




posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Terrible idea. Debates need moderators. Particularly debates between people who will just talk over each other the whole time.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I´m not american and both candidates suck but I would like to see/hear Trump bringing the "I´m alergic to Trump" statement to the table. Although the tip of his cane is full of dirt, too. But to be honest, I condem the Clintons far more dangerous. Deceitful and slippery like an eel and even as a foreigner I can see they have their fingers all over, mixing up private and government.

It also raises flags if the moderator is biased (is he?), but that was foretellable. If it´s not the moderator, they will find someone unbiased dumb enough the go by a biased script/questions, the rest is smart cutting....



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
That format would be nothing but Trump talking over her the whole time. She would have to try to do the same to stay even. It would be like one of those cable news talking heads segments that gets out of control and you can't hear a thing anyone is saying.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Actually that's exactly how debates used to work. Thr two candidates sit down and discuss there views there is still rules just no one to chose thr topics of discussion. It would start by one candidate telling you why you should vote for them then the other candidate would get to rebuttal there comments . Then the other candidate chooses there topic and the other gets to rebuttal that. Moderators really weren't used until the Nixon Kennedy debates in thr 60s.But really the only diffrence is questions aren't asked or chosen.they just have a time limit on what they can say and thr other candidate gets an equal amount of time for there views.

Here's a shocker for people in debates the candidates allready know what the moderator will ask that is worked our by the. And I'd ates before hand.It's called Memorandum of understanding consider it an agreement on topics by both candidates. Open format debates this doesn't exist and the candidate is free to being up any topic.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
Yes. I like corruption...dirty tactics...not following the rules....DAMN!

I guess I have to vote for HIllary now.


Or Don, unless you want to ignore his past.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert




My English is just fine. The problem is, which one of those statements are true.

He says maybe there should not be a moderator, but you say that's not what he said.


But you left out the rest of his sentence. You've focused on the hyperbole, while leaving out the arguments, which was my point from the beginning.


Wasn't his entire argument focused on the reasons why him and Hillary should have a debate with no moderation?



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Of course he wants no moderator. Then he can rant, shout down, bully his opponent. Guess what? That's not a debate. He doesn't want a REAL debate.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
Of course he wants no moderator. Then he can rant, shout down, bully his opponent. Guess what? That's not a debate. He doesn't want a REAL debate.


The GOP was moderated too. Yet Trump crushed them all with his style. Debates usually get into the weeds anyway and that is where Trump will take it and flourish. Hillary will get smacked down in the first debate, guaranteed.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Wasn't his entire argument focused on the reasons why him and Hillary should have a debate with no moderation?


No. His arguments, asserted in the beginning and reiterated in the end, were given emphatic weight by his "maybe we shouldn't have moderators". Obviously, that's the only way the debates would be fair to Trump. At no point was he demanding or even hinting he wanted unmoderated debates. Taken in context, he showed only that he wants fair debates.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
That ain't gonna happen. She is not going to get involved in any debate that is not scripted line by line and the questions fed to her in advance. Hillary can't speak off the cuff, without her disdain for the little guy comes rolling out and we see her true opinions of us.

Wait a second. Are we supposed to ignore that Trump has to use a teleprompter just to keep himself on message? The guy literally has to use scripted speeches to stop himself from lashing out at random demographics and causing more scandals for himself.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Can you imagine this place with no moderators.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

Gosh you're a piece of work.



I simply suggested you can choose to keep opinions to yourself and now I want to stop free-speech.


You're the one who brought up Fight Club, bare-knuckle boxing and free-speech. You were pulled up on them and deflected.

Nope, nothing else on the OP, why bother. You clearly don't like debates.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: 191stMIDET

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
A debate without a moderator would be a terrible idea. It wouldn't even be a debate as the discussion would likely quickly devolve into a shouting match. Not surprising that Trump (someone who such a situation would benefit) would suggest this idiotic idea.

I'd take a biased moderator over no moderator any day. Would you let a game of professional football be played without referees? Would you let two teams play professional baseball without umpires? Of course not. So why let a professional contest between two public speakers be ran without a moderator? That is unless you WANT an elementary playground argument between the two people trying to get the position of the most powerful person in the US.


This is exactly what came to mind. There is no "debate" without a format, rules, and a moderator. It would just be a "conversation" at best and an "argument" at worst.


I think you MEANT to say an argument at worst a fist fight at best 😉

Nah, I actually hate the idea of guys hitting women. The only time I'd be ok with politicians fighting is if those fights were a replacement for wars. Let them beat each other up while we spare the civilians, infrastructures, etc.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:15 PM
link   
So, to ask all of those opposed to the OP, just what do you feel a moderator should do?

This...watch the video...Obama uses the moderator and then lays the smackdown. Multiple times.....

www.dailymail.co.uk...

and then look how the Left is complaining



“No actually that is your job,” Peter Hamby, Snapchat’s head of news and a former CNN political correspondent, responded on Twitter. Several other journalists and media commentators similarly took issue with Wallace’s view that the candidates themselves ― and not the moderator ― should challenge one another’s claims on factual grounds.


www.huffingtonpost.com...

and what Wallace says as the moderator of the first debate is correct.



“Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace, the moderator for the third presidential debate, said in a Sunday interview that it isn’t his role to call out the candidates’ false claims.

“That’s not my job,” Wallace told his Fox News colleague Howard Kurtz. “I do not believe that it’s my job to be a truth squad.”


So again, my OP was right and there is a reason there should not be a 'moderator' as is the current sense because of how it will work.

I think we see who is afraid and it is not Trump...it is the Hillary camp.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:19 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

Who cares about who whines? That's the system. I've got no problem with no moderator though. Just shut off the others mic when one is speaking.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

If you can't tell the difference between a fight and a sporting event that requires referees and think that I want referees because I'm scared of a fight then you are SERIOUSLY deluded.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

These so-called debates really confuse me.

Isn't there a "classical" debate forum protocol? One that's stood the test of time and is universally accepted in college debates and debate clubs and debate contests?

Second, why do they have to chose some media hack to be the moderator? Why don't they use a "certified" Debate coach or "judge" or moderator from one of the top Debate schools in the country? Someone who knows what they're actually doing?



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
I think we see who is afraid and it is not Trump...

More Trump fantasies.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
A debate without a moderator would be a terrible idea. It wouldn't even be a debate as the discussion would likely quickly devolve into a shouting match. Not surprising that Trump (someone who such a situation would benefit) would suggest this idiotic idea.

I'd take a biased moderator over no moderator any day. Would you let a game of professional football be played without referees? Would you let two teams play professional baseball without umpires? Of course not. So why let a professional contest between two public speakers be ran without a moderator? That is unless you WANT an elementary playground argument between the two people trying to get the position of the most powerful person in the US.


This is exactly what came to mind. There is no "debate" without a format, rules, and a moderator. It would just be a "conversation" at best and an "argument" at worst.

Exactly, and knowing this election I'd lean on an argument happening before a conversation happening. Nothing productive would come from a debate without a moderator.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join