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

The gloves are off and they are ready to fight. This morning during a call in interview he stated the following....

nypost.com...

“I think we should have a debate with no moderator, just Hillary and I sitting there talking,” Trump said Monday morning in a phone interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.” The Republican presidential candidate said that criticism of NBC’s Matt Lauer following last week’s candidate forum in New York City is an effort to manipulate the presidential debates.

This is true. Ever since the CIC forum the media has been attacking Matt Lauer. It was tough on both candidates as Trump says here...

Trump praised Lauer in his interview with CNBC. “I think he was professional and has been treated unfairly,” he said. “He was not nice to me, and he was tough. I answered them better than she did.”

Now you have David Brock who was described by the Bern as one of the dirtiest in politics. A guy who was once conservative and jumped ship to the Clintons. Man that money is a flowing...

David Brock, founder of progressive media watchdog group Media Matters for America, made the allegations in a letter penned to the Commission on Presidential Debates Friday. "I am disappointed that an organization that prides itself on being non-partisan would make such a selection," Brock said in the letter.

So why not? What Wallace said in an interview recently is correct. He is a moderator. He is not a fact checker and that is what we will see in these debates and did happen in the GOP primaries. Happened in 2012 also with Obama and Romney. Obama asking if his facts are correct. Have the audience ask random questions and let them talk it out. No holds barred....

I have read a lot about Trump not wanting to debate in these forums and this is a definite challenge to the Clinton Camp. No protection...no way out...no filibustering. Just Q&A.


www.nydailynews.com...

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.

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.

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.

Not to mention she needs the questions ahead of time to formulate the deflection statements.

victuruslibert... as.com/2016/09/temper-temper-killary-goes-on-rampage-for-over-an-hour-throwing-glass-at-staffers-head/

i have read a few reports like this. clinton was so pissed at lauer for attacking her over the emails. calling for him to be fired, and throwing glasses at her staffers...

www.breitbart.com... /2016-presidential-race/2016/09/07/hillary-on-defense-snaps-at-matt-lauer-at-presidential-forum/
i know you liberals hate breitbart... but theres another source.

originally posted by: matafuchs
This is true. Ever since the CIC forum the media has been attacking Matt Lauer. It was tough on both candidates as Trump says here...

Trump praised Lauer in his interview with CNBC. “I think he was professional and has been treated unfairly,” he said. “He was not nice to me, and he was tough. I answered them better than she did.”

Was just this:

Hostile Media Effect
The hostile media effect, originally deemed the hostile media phenomenon and sometimes called hostile media perception, is a perceptual theory of mass communication that refers to the tendency for individuals with a strong preexisting attitude on an issue to perceive media coverage as biased against their side and in favor of their antagonists' point of view.[1] Partisans from opposite side of an issue will tend to find the same coverage to be biased against them.[2] The phenomenon was first proposed and studied experimentally by Robert Vallone, Lee Ross and Mark Lepper.
...
In 1982, the first major study of this phenomenon was undertaken;[2] pro-Palestinian students and pro-Israeli students at Stanford University were shown the same news filmstrips pertaining to the then-recent Sabra and Shatila massacre of Palestinian refugees by Christian Lebanese militia fighters abetted by the Israeli army in Beirut during the Lebanese Civil War. On a number of objective measures, both sides found that these identical news clips were slanted in favor of the other side. Pro-Israeli students reported seeing more anti-Israel references and fewer favorable references to Israel in the news report and pro-Palestinian students reported seeing more anti-Palestinian references, and so on. Both sides said a neutral observer would have a more negative view of their side from viewing the clips, and that the media would have excused the other side where it blamed their side.

Subsequent studies have found hostile media effects related to other political conflicts, such as strife in Bosnia[4] and in U.S. presidential elections,[5] as well as in other areas, such as media coverage of the South Korean National Security Act,[6] the 1997 United Parcel Service Teamsters strike,[7] genetically modified food,[8][9] and sports.

They got all butthurt over that, these the same people who've been calling Trump Hitler all damn election.

A debate without moderation is probably the only way Trump could turn the event in his favor. A moderator will keep the debate on topic and moving forward. That means Trump will have to actually talk about certain issues. He does not know the issues like Clinton does. If there is no moderator, he could derail the debate by talking about Clinton conspiracies.

Nice try though, Donald. We see what you are trying to do.

a reply to: DAVID64

This is why he is calling her out. I am for no moderators and I think this is a good blow from his camp saying he is not afraid and ready for what she thinks she will throw at him. There is no need for a party who will sway it one way as we all know it will flow.

The Clinton camp does not want Wallace because he will only "referee" and will not jump in to defend either candidate.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

It's interesting how you quote an article on Hostile Media Effect when Hillary complains about media bias the ONE time she thinks it happens to her, but Donald Trump's ENTIRE shtick has been that the media is corrupt and biased against him. Yet I've never seen you bring that point up about him. Very telling about YOUR biases.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If they are 2 grown ups why not? They are not kids. You just like to say that to fulfill your Trump fantasies.

Football and baseball have multiple people. A sport with two, like boxing, yes, I would love to see a fight with no referees. Those who are scared will always want that referee to protect them.

a reply to: matafuchs

I am not for no moderators

I would love to see a fight with no referees

Well, which is it? You are contradicting yourself.

a reply to: introvert

Lauer could not keep Clinton in check in the CIC forum. She talked over him and rambled. She was asked not to attack and stay on target and did not.

I think you are mistaken about the issues though. His wakeup call was the security briefing. I am not sure if anyone else has noticed but he has become very 'presidential' as they say since then. I think he heard something personally that scared the # out of him and he knows that he cannot let her win at any cost even if it is to his ego for a few months.

a reply to: matafuchs

Lauer could not keep Clinton in check in the CIC forum. She talked over him and rambled. She was asked not to attack and stay on target and did not.

Ok. Could you imagine how a debate between the two would go with no moderator?

I think you are proving yourself how bad of an idea it is.

a reply to: matafuchs

Talk about fulfilling Trump fantasies.

a reply to: matafuchs
Wait, you are for having boxing matches with no referees? I don't think you understand the point of having referees... They aren't there to coddle people scared of being hurt. They are there to keep the competition fair as well as make sure no one violates the established rules of the competition.

And this is something that Donal Trump WILL try to do. Break the rules. We already saw him shucking traditional rules of debate during the Republican primary debates, so we all know he'll do the same schoolyard bullying tactics in the general election debates too. Heck the only reason he's trying to either step out of the debate or with this article change the rules of the debate is likely because he knows he won't get away with his childish shenanigans in this debate.

a reply to: introvert

LOL...can you proof read all my posts for me..I corrected it. I was typing quickly and not proofreading. Happens when the thoughts come faster than the typing...you get a star for that one!

a reply to: introvert

It would be YYUUUUUGGGGEEEEEE!

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: matafuchs

Lauer could not keep Clinton in check in the CIC forum. She talked over him and rambled. She was asked not to attack and stay on target and did not.

Ok. Could you imagine how a debate between the two would go with no moderator?

I think you are proving yourself how bad of an idea it is.

It would look like an ATS Political Mud Pit discussion, but MUCH MUCH worse.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I coach baseball and umpire multiple leagues. I know what rules are thank you and why they are there. For boxing, yes, I like fights with no referees. When Mike Tyson bit Holyfields ear and he jumped like a baby I laughed. If I was fighting someone and they bit my ear I would want to beat them harder but I guess we are cut from two different cloths.

Trump is not stepping out of anything. He won the GOP debates and primaries. The rest were wimps....

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: introvert

It would be YYUUUUUGGGGEEEEEE!

It would be a waste of time.

All around bad idea.