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: 9
23
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



In other words, you would be naive to think that Hillary wouldn't be just as bad with attacks as Trump in this format.

You only mentione how Trump would do this, and it would be a benefit for him. I was just pointing out that both candidates would be bad in thta format.


Yes, she would attack her opponent, but I do not believe she would stoop to the same level as Trump. That is based on his conduct so far during his campaign.



And yet she lost in the forum with Lauer, despite many people saying that because Trump couldn't personally attack her in that format, her knowledge of the issues would allow her to perform much better than him.

Perhaps Trump has better positions than people give him credit for. Or more likely, Hillary doesn't have the knowledge of the issues that so many claim.


The idea she lost the forum is nothing more than opinion. I think she did well on discussing her email issue and the other topics. I think Trump conducted himself well, but fell short on substance.

So it's all about opinion.




posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
A debate with someone who actually knows how to run a debate would be novel...

No moderator? The mind shudders at the thought of those two unfettered...



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Fair enough. But it is also just your opinion that he would not win a fair debate.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
If only we could get the other three candidates in there as well.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

That!!!!



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
double post
edit on 12-9-2016 by amazing because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: amazing

That!!!!


The discussion would be so much better and the awareness that there are other choices would be so much higher. There is no negative to allowing Stein, Castle and Johnson in the debate. Either they are afraid or they aren't. A 4-5 person debate is very doable. Even if you just allowed Johnson in, it would liven things up.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I like that idea. But they will never allow it though.

I feel that there should be two moderators for each debate. One picked by Trump and the other picked by Clinton. Matt, while he did a good job, still let Hillary lie about not losing any men, he also let her babble on and on and even allowed himself to be stopped by her because she 'felt' that it was an important subject to explain.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: amazing

That!!!!


The discussion would be so much better and the awareness that there are other choices would be so much higher. There is no negative to allowing Stein, Castle and Johnson in the debate. Either they are afraid or they aren't. A 4-5 person debate is very doable. Even if you just allowed Johnson in, it would liven things up.

I understand where you're coming from. But why would the Democratic Party and Republican Party agree to that? These debates get a lot of viewers and are basically advertisements for those 2 parties' candidates. Why would they willingly allow more opponents to share some of that attention? Especially when the success of those 3rd party candidates will directly reduce the amounts of votes for their own candidates?

Remember, these debates are not a requirement. Both major parties agree on the terms of the debates beforehand, and they are well within their rights to refuse to have debates at all. So they have no incentive to give outside candidates any consideration whatsoever.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 09:58 PM
link   
So referees in sports are never biased? They never allow other teams to "win"? I think I remember a certain Lakers/Kings playoffs game where a certain ref put money on knowing what the outcome was going to be before the game even started.
Yup, leftists seem to think EVERYONE in their camp is an honest human being filled to the brim with integrity. Not a corrupt bone in their body. But if your an "alt-right" you're the spawn of Satan and deserve to rot in the 666th layer of hell.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: rollanotherone
So referees in sports are never biased? They never allow other teams to "win"? I think I remember a certain Lakers/Kings playoffs game where a certain ref put money on knowing what the outcome was going to be before the game even started.
Yup, leftists seem to think EVERYONE in their camp is an honest human being filled to the brim with integrity. Not a corrupt bone in their body. But if your an "alt-right" you're the spawn of Satan and deserve to rot in the 666th layer of hell.

Nice strawman. None of us said that. Also, how does your argument counter the point that there should be moderators for presidential debates?



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
What a ludicrous, stupid, asinine idea. Why don't we just let them also bring clubs studded with spikes and they can wear fur outfits and go full-barbarian? A moderator is there to keep the actually IMPORTANT issues that need to be debated to the fore. Not allow the discussion to get derailed by moronic arguments. Man.. I bet foreign countries are salivating at the idea.. they'd love this.

Trump of course, being the bellowing bully that he is, would love that format. Which I imagine is why he suggested it.



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

They should do it standing and for 2 hours...if she really has bad health issues (which we know she does) she will faint mid debate



posted on Sep, 12 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I wish I could debate someone on ATS without a moderator. Sad that we have to act like 8 year olds on here and skirt around subjects that are causing problems for many people.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: beeyotch
I wish I could debate someone on ATS without a moderator. Sad that we have to act like 8 year olds on here and skirt around subjects that are causing problems for many people.

8 year olds have moderators?

I was 8 a long time ago and maybe things have changed but, I don't recall any moderators. Maybe what you want to do is act out like an 8 year old.
edit on 13-9-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

Fair enough. But it is also just your opinion that he would not win a fair debate.


....

He didnt even win any debates when he was debating his own party..........the only reason he polled ahead of anyone is because of good ol ignorance.....

If you look back at his answers to the questions they were complete BS, and not political pandering type BS, they were completely off the charts type of: I have no idea what im talking about, Address the crowd and avoid the question, completely answer WRONG type of BS......

The ONLY reason he has come out on top is because apparently there is a larger majority of America that is just as ignorant as he is.......



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 06:12 AM
link   
The only role of a debate moderator should be to keep time and present the questions from the audience. They shouldn't be allowed to comment, to filter the questions or maybe not even be seen. Moderators are humans and therefore opinionated and when they are left...they follow the typical liberal agenda to damn the right's candidate and enhance the left's. But...when I have seen right based moderators...surprise...they are fair and only considered unfair by the left because they actually ask questions the people want answered.

Sorry...just my experience.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: rollanotherone
So referees in sports are never biased? They never allow other teams to "win"? I think I remember a certain Lakers/Kings playoffs game where a certain ref put money on knowing what the outcome was going to be before the game even started.
Yup, leftists seem to think EVERYONE in their camp is an honest human being filled to the brim with integrity. Not a corrupt bone in their body. But if your an "alt-right" you're the spawn of Satan and deserve to rot in the 666th layer of hell.

Nice strawman. None of us said that. Also, how does your argument counter the point that there should be moderators for presidential debates?

Nice deflection. You also didn't disagree with my statement. Also, aren't we talking about two grown adults having a debate? Two adults don't need another adult acting like sister Mary elephant with a ward stick ready to swat hands when these two grown adults stray off the time limit.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: rollanotherone
So referees in sports are never biased? They never allow other teams to "win"? I think I remember a certain Lakers/Kings playoffs game where a certain ref put money on knowing what the outcome was going to be before the game even started.
Yup, leftists seem to think EVERYONE in their camp is an honest human being filled to the brim with integrity. Not a corrupt bone in their body. But if your an "alt-right" you're the spawn of Satan and deserve to rot in the 666th layer of hell.

Nice strawman. None of us said that. Also, how does your argument counter the point that there should be moderators for presidential debates?

Nice deflection. You also didn't disagree with my statement. Also, aren't we talking about two grown adults having a debate? Two adults don't need another adult acting like sister Mary elephant with a ward stick ready to swat hands when these two grown adults stray off the time limit.

Just so you know, the definition of a straw man argument is "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted". Or as wikipedia puts it, "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1]"

The fact that I called your argument a "straw man" shows that I directly reject it's credibility. So yes, I did disagree with your statement.

And second, debates aren't the same as common conversations, arguments, and negotiations. Rules are put in place to make sure that each participant gets a chance to answer questions, present their proposals, and respond to the words of the other participants. You could think of a debate as an intellectual "sport" like chess, and the moderators are the referees/umpires.

Many times, debates don't go as smoothly as hoped. And less prominent or less influential participants may not get many opportunities to speak. But it's still better than the lawless alternative.



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

And yet again, you think the moderators aren't partial to a particular candidate. Kind of like NBA refs aren't partial to particular teams and players. What ever though. Let Hillary reign supreme with zero checks and stops to keep her from totally demolishing the constitution. Oh I'm sorry, is that another "straw man"?







 
23
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join