Trump wants to debate Clinton without a moderator

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,614
47,222
136
Sounds good to me, that way the left or the right can't blame a biased moderator

Without a moderator (and with Trump) it seems highly likely it would quickly devolve into a rambling, incoherent mess. Even debates involving less erratic people have moderators to ensure that things stay on topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caminetto

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
we should just have IBM's Watson moderating and doing real-time fact checking.

seems like a job a computer could do pretty well, all you'd really need is speech recognition and a sensor to cut off the candidates when they go over their time limit.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Of course he doesn't want a moderator. That gives him the edge since he can be a lot more aggressive.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
He can't stand up to a supposedly dying Hillary without changing the rules?
Then he should bail out of the debate.
 

ozzy702

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2011
1,151
530
136
Given how liberal and meddling the moderators have been in past debates (Candy Crowley anyone?), I don't blame Trump for wanting a free for all. Now knowing Trump he would just try to steamroll Clinton and while entertaining it wouldn't make for a good debate.

That said, who is in charge of picking the moderators and why doesn't the silent majority have someone at the debates that even slightly represents them? It's unreal how poorly they've done in years past and I have no doubt they will bring their bias in full measure to the upcoming debates as well.
 

Blue_Max

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2011
4,227
153
106
Sounds good to me, that way the left or the right can't blame a biased moderator
Agreed. All too often, the "moderator" is only there to steer conversation and enforce a pre-conceived position/narratives. If they can't be completely impartial, they're not doing their job.

Without a moderator (and with Trump) it seems highly likely it would quickly devolve into a rambling, incoherent mess. Even debates involving less erratic people have moderators to ensure that things stay on topic.

I think they aughta' start using soundproof bubbles and give only one side at a time the ability to speak. One talks, the other can only listen.
These are supposed to be political DEBATES, not bickering divorcees snarling at each other.
 

Strk

Lifer
Nov 23, 2003
10,198
4
76
Given how liberal and meddling the moderators have been in past debates (Candy Crowley anyone?), I don't blame Trump for wanting a free for all. Now knowing Trump he would just try to steamroll Clinton and while entertaining it wouldn't make for a good debate.

That said, who is in charge of picking the moderators and why doesn't the silent majority have someone at the debates that even slightly represents them? It's unreal how poorly they've done in years past and I have no doubt they will bring their bias in full measure to the upcoming debates as well.

Meanwhile Trump is the one who threw the hissy fit over the Fox News' moderators. Yup, damn liberals.....
 

ozzy702

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2011
1,151
530
136
Meanwhile Trump is the one who threw the hissy fit over the Fox News' moderators. Yup, damn liberals.....

I'm not defending Trump at all, all I'm saying is that in years past the moderators have been terrible and extremely left leaning. I think Trump's reality TV beefs with FOX and others is a show of weakness but I suspect it was also part of his game plan. I have a feeling we won't see that kind of behavior out of him with the upcoming events but maybe I'm wrong.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
Sounds good to me, that way the left or the right can't blame a biased moderator
Exactly right.

I'll take it even further. Because it is glaringly obvious that the media as a whole is unable to perform their work without bias either subtle or in our faces, no members of the media should even be considered for positions as a moderator.
 
Last edited:

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
I think having a moderator makes sense, but only if it's not the usual left wing media hildebeast pusher. If they can't find a suitable one, then having a debate without the moderator is fine.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
Idea: How about a debate without WORDS?
I mean, just fists.
Ok, insults etc. would be allowed.
That would be perfect for this "election" cycle, imho.
And of course no fucking "moderator".

John-cena-Seth-Rollins-WWE.jpg
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,614
47,222
136
I think having a moderator makes sense, but only if it's not the usual left wing media hildebeast pusher. If they can't find a suitable one, then having a debate without the moderator is fine.

Do you think Matt Lauer was biased against Clinton?
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,350
7,427
136
What, don't want a candy crush repeat from 2012?
Come on, it's perfectly legitimate for Democrat moderators to step in, swing the election for their candidate, and then later apologize for being wrong.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,629
2,355
126
It's a secondary role (at best) for the moderator to call them out on their BS. I've seen probably a hundred or more real political debates (excluding the GOP reality clown shows of 2012 and 2016) and have seen the moderators push back a few times, and very weakly at that. It's the job of the audience and the commentators afterwards to do the fact-checking.

The moderator does perform a real role, asking the questions (especially follow up questions) and allocating the time.

Without a moderator, and with Trump there, the "debate" would be mindless bickering at best.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,614
47,222
136
It's a secondary role (at best) for the moderator to call them out on their BS. I've seen probably a hundred or more real political debates (excluding the GOP reality clown shows of 2012 and 2016) and have seen the moderators push back a few times, and very weakly at that. It's the job of the audience and the commentators afterwards to do the fact-checking.

The moderator does perform a real role, asking the questions (especially follow up questions) and allocating the time.

Without a moderator, and with Trump there, the "debate" would be mindless bickering at best.

I mostly agree, the moderator is not a fact checker, they are a moderator. That being said, it does seem that with Trump just to be able to ask follow up questions is probably going to involve some fact checking. I mean he claims that he has superior foreign policy judgment to Clinton based on his opposition to the Iraq war. How do you ask him a question about that without noting that he didn't actually oppose the Iraq war and his statements to the contrary are lies?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
It's a secondary role (at best) for the moderator to call them out on their BS. I've seen probably a hundred or more real political debates (excluding the GOP reality clown shows of 2012 and 2016) and have seen the moderators push back a few times, and very weakly at that. It's the job of the audience and the commentators afterwards to do the fact-checking.

The moderator does perform a real role, asking the questions (especially follow up questions) and allocating the time.

Without a moderator, and with Trump there, the "debate" would be mindless bickering at best.

Matt Lauer didn't follow up when Trump openly lied about his support for Iraq war. He should have asked about his statements at the time of the invasion.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,481
29,051
146
What, don't want a candy crush repeat from 2012?
Come on, it's perfectly legitimate for Democrat moderators to step in, swing the election for their candidate, and then later apologize for being wrong.

I love how it's never the glaringly unpopular core beliefs and policies of the republican party and their candidates, but the evil liberal media and evil liberal debate moderators that manage to convince the population that the liberal candidate is better.

Come on guys, none of this theory makes sense: if you guys are so smart and it's so painfully obvious that "the others" are biased against your "silent majority," then wouldn't that actually show in the polls? Those of you in the "silent majority" know that the media is biased against you, so of course such biases don't effect your voting, right? It doesn't, because there is no such thing as the "silent majority" as invented by Nixon and, yes: voters actually don't support republican policies. If you actually were a majority and are immune to these evil biases, then you would manage a majority of votes despite the evil liberal lies in the media.

Further, considering that republicans usually turn out at a higher rate than democratic voters, it shows just how much of a minority the GOP has become.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Gotta love the way that the Trumpsters are making excuses in advance, pointing out imaginary bias from previous debates. Putting on the mantle of victimhood as usual.

It's probably true that Donald doesn't have a prayer if he can't control the narrative.which is why he'd prefer a weak moderator or no moderator at all.

Such is not to be, however. We'll see if he can save face while weaseling out of it like he weaseled out of his tax returns or if he can survive in the environment presented.

I'm not seeing him coming out of it with his notoriously thin skin still attached but only time will tell.
 
Feb 16, 2005
14,023
5,305
136
you need a moderator, a neutral moderator. not having a moderator allows the candidates to lie without fact checking. That's all I want the moderator to do, fact check and ensure they have equal time to talk.
 

ozzy702

Golden Member
Nov 1, 2011
1,151
530
136
you need a moderator, a neutral moderator. not having a moderator allows the candidates to lie without fact checking. That's all I want the moderator to do, fact check and ensure they have equal time to talk.

Agreed. I think that's all anyone wants but that has rarely been the case.