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: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Can you answer my questions below?

I like to watch "good" debates; but these political debates are, to my mind, never very "good".




posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t




I don't see what you are getting at with that block of text. To me that clearly says that Trump is asking for no moderator because he thinks a moderator will be biased against him due to a backlash of criticism towards Lauer for not being hard on Trump during the mock debate.


That "block of text" was what Trump said. His real points are asserted and reiterated, but both are missing from your little analysis.

And instead of explaining how you can see how Trump is saying that he didn't mean to say that he wanted a debate without a moderator with those words, you instead choose to mock me derisively.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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.


He did not demand or hint at wanting unmoderated debates. He said it plain as day.


I think we should have a debate with no moderator


He then continued to state that the debates would not be fair, correct, but that is what he was using to qualify the statement that there should be a debate with no moderator.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Can you answer my questions below?

I like to watch "good" debates; but these political debates are, to my mind, never very "good".


They aren't debates. They are "Yo Momma" contests. That's why Trump wants to go there. That's where he's at his best.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Can you answer my questions below?

I like to watch "good" debates; but these political debates are, to my mind, never very "good".

Here's the thing. It's entirely possible that even with a moderator, the debate will turn out poor, but here is my point. WITHOUT a moderator, your chances of having a good debate drop significantly to near zero if not zero. At least with a moderator you still have a chance of having a decent debate.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

To pull for one side of the other. That is why I put in the link to this debate...



This is why there should be no 'moderators' in the current sense of how it is applied.

It should be a non partisan person who simply makes sure that it flows. This clip shows exactly why I posted this OP.
edit on 09pm30pmf0000002016-09-12T12:29:59-05:001259 by matafuchs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Excuse my own assumption that the NYPOST had quoted Trump in full. After listening to the interview reading the transcripts, I cannot stand by my previous statements. Here is Trump in full. (Excuse the all-caps; that is the way it is in the transcript)




AS FAR AS THE DEBATES ARE CONCERNED, THE SYSTEM IS BEING GAMED. BECAUSE EVERYBODY SAID THAT 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. WELL, HE WASN'T. HE WAS, I THOUGHT HE WAS VERY PROFESSIONAL, I HAVE TO BE HONEST. I THINK HE HAS BEEN TREATED VERY UNFAIRLY BUT THEY ALL SAID THAT I WON. AND WHAT THEY ARE DOING IS THEY ARE GAMING THE SYSTEM. SO THAT WHEN I GO INTO THE DEBATE, I'M GOING TO BE TREATED VERY, VERY UNFAIRLY BY THE MODERATORS. SO, I MEAN, I CAN SEE THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE GREAT BOBBY KNIGHT, WHO I AM A BIG FAN OF AND HE ENDORSED ME, AND BOY DID THAT MEAN A LOT FOR INDIANA. BECAUSE I WON IN A LANDSLIDE AFTER GETTING BOBBY KNIGHT'S ENDORSEMENT. BUT BOBBY WOULD DO NUMBERS ON THE REFEREE AND TOWARD THE END OF THE GAME, THEY WOULD JUST SORT OF, YOU KNOW, VERY MAYBE SUBCONSCIOUSLY, THEY WOULD GIVE HIM THE CALLS. AND HE WAS A MASTER AT IT. WELL, THEY ARE DOING THE SAME THING NOW. THEY ARE SAYING ABOUT HOW MATT LAUER WAS NICE TO TRUMP. HE WASN'T NICE TO ME. HE WAS ON TOUGH ME. HE GAVE ME TOUGH. I ANSWERED THEM BETTER THAN SHE DID. THE FACT IS THEY ARE GAMING THE SYSTEM. AND I THINK, MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE NO MODERATOR. LET HILLARY AND I SIT THERE AND JUST DEBATE. BECAUSE I THINK THE SYSTEM IS BEING RIGGED. SO IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY UNFAIR DEBATE. AND I CAN SEE IT HAPPENING RIGHT NOW BECAUSE EVERYONE'S SAYING THAT HE WAS SOFT ON TRUMP. WELL NOW, THE NEW PERSON IS GOING TO TRY AND BE REALLY HARD ON TRUMP JUST TO SHOW THE ESTABLISHMENT WHAT HE CAN DO. SO, I THINK IT'S VERY UNFAIR WHAT THEY ARE DOING. SO I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A DEBATE WITH NO MODERATOR, JUST HILLARY AND I SITTING THERE TALKING.


I still think he is merely raising the question for the sake of emphasis of his main points, that they are gaming the system, that the new moderator will be obsequious to the establishment, that the system is being rigged, and that the only way Trump will get a fair debate is if there are no moderators.
edit on 12-9-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Yo momma contests....classic...



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

You posted this OP because of what Trump said.

What he said seems rather silly to me. Shows to me that Trump is setting-up the conspiracy of why he may lose upcoming debates.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I thoroughly agree with you on that point; without a moderator, it would turn out to be an over talking shouting match.

I just wish they'd use a non-partisan "professional" debate type person from say, one of the University Debate Clubs and follow the traditional rules. Only in that manner can I really judge who's one or lost a debate because the focus isn't on the moderator, its on the debaters and the responses are "timed", (if I remember correctly), so it becomes a test of facility and ability to think on their feet.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

He agrees with everything Trump says. No matter how silly. If you'll notice, now that he got called out on this silliness, he has recently moved the goalposts back and is suggesting that there should be a "non-partisan person to make sure it flows" (which is a moderator... but anyways). At no point will you see him walk back and actually say that Trump was mistaken and that was a poor idea though.
edit on 12-9-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS
Why are you so sure that these moderators are biased to begin with? Because Trump said so? I certainly don't believe Hillary saying that Lauer was biased against her.

How are the Debate Moderators Chosen? The moderators are selected by the CPD. The CPD uses three criteria to select its moderators: a) familiarity with the candidates and the major issues of the presidential campaign; b) extensive experience in live television broadcast news; and c) an understanding that the debate should focus maximum time and attention on the candidates and their views. The moderators alone select the questions to be asked, which are not known to the CPD or to the candidates. They do not meet with the campaigns, nor do the campaigns have a role in moderator selection. Starting in 1996, the CPD has used a single moderator for all of its debates in order to keep the focus on the candidates and their positions.

Commission on Presidential Debates - Overview



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

this is why.....




posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You want a personal link too...




posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Not moving goal posts...but you punted per usual...



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Because Trump said so? No.......I haven't listened to even one Trump speech.
I can't stand to listen to HRC's voice, I haven't listened to one of her speeches either..........I could write them however.

I've only heard blurbs and out takes of either one of them and they're incredibly predictable and repetitive.

I get the impression, don't know if its right or wrong, but an impression that the problem with the people they select, be it a Lauer or Wallace, or whoever is going to be inclined to a certain bias because they come from the Mass Media industry, its an industrial bias and it causes these people to come at things with a certain slant or tilt, if you will, because they also tend to be opinionaters. Its just what they do.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
You all crack me up...
Debating isn't much different than negotiating. They both require the proper use of tact, finesse, and pressure.
Negotiating billion dollar business deal doesn't require a moderator. If Trump is such a loose cannon how on earth has he been so successful negotiating all these deals? Sure he is brash and says what he feels from his heart. Rather than his words running through a PC filter. Could you imagine of we really heard what Hillary Clinton has in that tiny little black heart of hers?
Would probably make Manson blush...

I do however believe a moderator is beneficial. But it doesn't mean the debate won't degrade into a proverbial pissing match.
Just take the recent Dinesh VS Cenk debate.

Cenk was a total douche flute and the moderator just sat idly by. Watching while Cenk riled his surrogates in the audience to cheer his personal attacks of Dinesh ever time he made a very valid point or argument. Was very sad that people thought that was a legitimate debate.

Despite the obvious disadvantage Dinesh still mopped the floor with Cenk.

Just an observation but...
Why are all the Hillary cheerleaders on this thread?
Did you all miss what happened on Sunday?
Figured you all would be rushing to her defense rather than focusing on this.
edit on 12-9-2016 by JAY1980 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   
with Hillary so sick and carrying so much baggage, what difference does it make who the moderator is?

even Michael Moore as moderator would not be able to help Hillary at this point.
edit on 9/12/2016 by carewemust because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Apparently Hilary Clinton asked the same of Obama in 2008:


"I'm offering Sen. Obama a chance to debate me one-on-one, no moderators. ... Just the two of us going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions; we'll set whatever rules seem fair," she said.

"I think that it would give the people of Indiana and I assume a few Americans might tune in because nearly 11 million watched the Philadelphia debate. And I think they would love seeing that kind of debate and discussion. Remember, that's what happened during the Lincoln-Douglas debates," she added.


Clinton to Obama: Let's Debate Like Lincoln



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Right. A civil debate. Do you think Trump can do that? I mean CAN. I don't think he's capable of it.




top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join