I don't think there are many here familiar with me who are unaware of my anti-Trump sentiment. I haven't done a survey but I'm comfortable guessing
that I'm responsible for more anti-Trump threads than anyone else on ATS.
However, we shouldn't allow our opinions to get in the way of accepting objective reality.
Between focusing on the candidate's answers (made harder by the crosstalk and interruptions) and commenting in the Mud Pit thread as many of you were,
I wasn't paying particular attention to the balance of questions asked.
I have since reviewed
and for much of the debate, he asked the same questions of both candidates as expected. However, there were two instances where he asked specific
questions of Trump which were not not follow up questions, not neutral in nature and not offset by comparable questions of Clinton:
Mr. Trump, we're talking about the burden that Americans have to pay, yet you have not released your tax returns. And the reason nominees have
released their returns for decades is so that voters will know if their potential president owes money to -- who he owes it to and any business
conflicts. Don't Americans have a right to know if there are any conflicts of interest?
Mr. Trump, for five years, you perpetuated a false claim that the nation's first black president was not a natural-born citizen. You
questioned his legitimacy. In the last couple of weeks, you acknowledged what most Americans have accepted for years: The president was born in the
United States. Can you tell us what took you so long?
The questions themselves were fair enough (and Trump's answers were typical Trump BS) but they have no counterparts on the other side. He could have
asked Clinton something like this to retain an overall neutrality:
"Mrs. Clinton, while many have questioned why Mr. Trump hasn't released his tax returns, an equal number are concerned about your own lack of
transparency. You pledged to separate yourself from the operation of the Clinton Foundation. Leaked emails suggest that you or your staff have granted
special access to Clinton Foundation donors. Don't Americans have a right to know about your conflicts of interest?"
...or something along those lines as it's relatable to the question posed to Trump regarding his tax returns. For the second question maybe something
along these lines:
"Mrs. Clinton, the claim is that while Mr. Trump perpetuated the false allegations, your campaign was instrumental in promoting them to the public at
large in the first place. Was your campaign responsible for the rise of birtherism?"
It's also worth noting that Holt also challenged Trump on the nature and merits of Stop-and-Frisk which is not unreasonable but if you're going to
challenge the answers of one candidate, there should be equal treatment for those of the other. In that particular case, he should have let Clinton
respond rather than injecting himself into the debate.
My two cents. I have to call it like I see it. I'm sure Lester Holt was doing a dificult task, particularly during the first half an hour but every
effort for neutrality should be maintained and I hope the next debate is moderated such that there are no reasons (except those tricky microphones
that only Donald gets) to dimiss a poor debate performance.
I still firmly believe that Trump is worse than Clinton and I've come to the conclusion that he's at best a useful idiot for Putin and his pals and
possibly worse, that he has has been actively negotiating a potentional pro-Russian policy that if he were to become President, would lead to greater
Russian influence across the globe. (see Who Is Carter Page And How Did He Come To Work For
edit on 2016-9-27 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)