Trump wants to debate Clinton without a moderator

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,112
318
126
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.

Examples of blatant bias in moderation during the 2012 debates?
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
155
106
Wow! Some guy who does "fact checking" and doesn't allow the candidates to lie....with Trump and Hillary on stage.
I think we just found THE.WORST. job ever!
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Examples of blatant bias in moderation during the 2012 debates?

You don't understand. In their minds, the only reason Righties ever lose is because they were cheated, not because too many people see thru the bullshit they believe in so fervently & irrationally. It's perpetual victimhood.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,176
28,169
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.
I wish moderators did fact checking but I don't think that has ever really been their role. I'd love to see video come on every time Trump lies showing him saying the exact opposite of what he claims he said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel
Feb 4, 2009
34,451
15,661
136
I wish moderators did fact checking but I don't think that has ever really been their role. I'd love to see video come on every time Trump lies showing him saying the exact opposite of what he claims he said.

I'm sure they could change the format a bit so at the end there is a 5-10 minute period when they go over what back office fact checker have found but I doubt the candidates would agree to those terms.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
45,993
8,595
136
My dream scenario would be an unmoderated debate that was taped and then replayed absolutely unedited EXCEPT that, after each BS statement from either candidate, they would splice in a thorough, factual, full-throated debunking. So, the original taped exchange would be around an hour long, with the spliced in debunking taking up another 1-2 hours. ;)

. . . Or three buxom women who somehow couldn't resist me. That would be my other dream scenario. But I digress . . .
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,194
14,863
136
The role of a moderator is to keep the debate going in a productive direction. When it becomes a back and forth quibble the moderators job is to step in and move the debate forward, sometimes that includes fact checking the debators, just as Crowley did in 2012. Its the job of the debators to fact check each other.
The problem is that trump is a pathological liar and even trying to fact check him 25% of the time would slow these debates down and turn them into an endless bickering match.

Ideally, I'd love to see the networks add crawlers that fact check the candidates in real time when it comes to easily verifiable lies.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
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.

No, moderators are not fact checkers. They are moderators, they need to moderate the discussion, not interject their opinion or fact check. Leave that up to the public and other places to do with more time. The moderator can't be "fact checking" on the fly. That's recipe for disaster.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,112
318
126
Jaskalas, is this an example of what you're referring to?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/politics/fact-check-crowley-critics-debate/

If so, was Obama in the wrong to act for a transcript (proving him right)? Was that OK, but perhaps the moderator in the wrong for complying? There's a difference between a moderator spontaneously speaking up to fact check (unless done very consistently, perhaps after every single question period), and a moderator being explicitly asked to provide a fact check by one of two candidates in light of another one lying. To me it looks like Romney instigated that whole thing and ended up with egg on his face.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,350
7,427
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.

And when the moderator lies by fact checking the wrong context, to such an extent that they later retract their statement?
Candy cutting down Romney was heard loud and clear, but the fact that she was wrong fell on deaf ears. Only thing people got out of that situation was that the moderator took down the candidate. You don't recover from from a front page smear with a 6th page fine print.

(P.S. I know moderators are necessary)
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,061
1,459
126
No, moderators are not fact checkers. They are moderators, they need to moderate the discussion, not interject their opinion or fact check. Leave that up to the public and other places to do with more time. The moderator can't be "fact checking" on the fly. That's recipe for disaster.
Especially because who wants a 6 hours debate where every 5 words Trump speaks the moderator has to stop him to prove him wrong only for him to make up a lie to cover his lie only for the moderator to again have to prove him wrong. I mean, sure, Hillary is going to say some untrue things, but she's going to be more truth than lies. Trump is physically incapable of being honest if the campaign so far is any indication. Romney lied in 2012, a whole fucking lot, but my goodness is Trump setting a new precedence.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
45,993
8,595
136
They are moderators, they need to moderate the discussion, not interject their opinion or fact check. .

No, they are not there to "interject their opinion" but that's a completely different thing from fact checking. You may disagree, but part of "moderating" the discussion would seem to me to be to call out blatant lies, factual errors, and deliberate misinformation. Arrant bullshitting is "immoderate." It needs to be addressed, to be . . . moderated.

I do agree, though, that being an on-the-fly fact checker is a tremendously difficult job, hence my proposal.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
No, moderators are not fact checkers. They are moderators, they need to moderate the discussion, not interject their opinion or fact check. Leave that up to the public and other places to do with more time. The moderator can't be "fact checking" on the fly. That's recipe for disaster.

Why am I not surprised that a Trump supporter would be totally against moderators calling out blatant lies spewed in the debates, and by blatant lies I mean Trump saying he was always against the Iraq war, or saying the unemployment rate is 40%? It's so plainly obvious why you would say this, because you are terrified that Trump is finally going to be held to account for the unchallenged lies he has been spewing for the last year. Leaving the fact checking up to the public, as you well know, would leave segments of the audience scurrying back to their media safe places where they would never have to learn about all the bullshit they just heard. Lifting the veil of ignorance from the segment of voters who make their home in the right wing media sphere is understandably a frightening thing for many on the right, which is why most of the Republican party is so reluctant to leave the cozy confines of Fox News.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,112
318
126
Crowley: "Romney was right".
Castrating him when it mattered, admitting the mistake when no one was looking. You cannot correct and take back those moments. When the candidate is weak and vulnerable in the public eye, they lose respect, they lose votes.

She said he was right about the brunt of the question/concern, but with respect to the specifics of the exact phrase he claimed Obama did not use, he was wrong, and it was Obama who asked her to provide a transcript, not a moderator jumping in on their own accord.
 
Last edited:

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,856
4,973
126
Does anybody watch "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN?

At the end of the show they do a quick "Errors" segment where they quickly fix any errors they commitment during the rest of the show - this is usually facts and figures. I'd just like to see something like that -- and the end of the debate, with both candidates on the stage sill (mics turned off), the moderator being fed from an off-camera fact checker, runs down the "errors" each candidate had during the debate and then the curtain closes.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,481
29,051
146
Does anybody watch "Pardon the Interruption" on ESPN?

At the end of the show they do a quick "Errors" segment where they quickly fix any errors they commitment during the rest of the show - this is usually facts and figures. I'd just like to see something like that -- and the end of the debate, with both candidates on the stage sill (mics turned off), the moderator being fed from an off-camera fact checker, runs down the "errors" each candidate had during the debate and then the curtain closes.

I'd just like to meld an earlier suggestion in this thread with the common practice of having a moderator to keep things going and on-topic (no moderator-initiated fact checking).

Behind each candidate, we have an LCD panel with a big alert light over the panel. Something like IBM Watson does real time fact-checking as each candidate speaks, and as soon as a lie pops up, the information is blasted on the screen--citation, dates, relevant contradictory information and comments from the candidate--and the red flashing light goes berzerk.
 

Homerboy

Lifer
Mar 1, 2000
30,856
4,973
126
I'd just like to meld an earlier suggestion in this thread with the common practice of having a moderator to keep things going and on-topic (no moderator-initiated fact checking).

Behind each candidate, we have an LCD panel with a big alert light over the panel. Something like IBM Watson does real time fact-checking as each candidate speaks, and as soon as a lie pops up, the information is blasted on the screen--citation, dates, relevant contradictory information and comments from the candidate--and the red flashing light goes berzerk.

I'd be up for that as well. Though I'd prefer for the candidate not to know. I'd rather have them keep talking and either further their lie or climb out of it. Just let them talk and let the audience know what is true and what is not.
 

sm625

Diamond Member
May 6, 2011
8,172
137
106
Moderators dont hardly fact check anything at the debates. All they do is tell the candidates that their time is up. That can easily be done without a moderator. Just cut their mic automatically when the buzzer rings.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
She said he was right about the brunt of the question/concern, but with respect to the specifics of the exact phrase he claimed Obama did not use, he was wrong, and it was Obama who asked her to provide a transcript, not a moderator jumping in on their own accord.

Well, yeh, but that doesn't matter to the perpetual victims. She merely confirmed that Obama did, in fact, refer to the Benghazi attack as an act of terror in his Rose Garden speech contrary to Mitt's assertion.

When factual information damages your cause, it means that your bullshit didn't fly.
 

BurnItDwn

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
26,065
1,550
126
media without fact checking is purely propaganda or tabloid. These debates will be 100% entertainment 0% useful/news/informative.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,782
6,186
126
Nice thing is that Trump will be fact checked, and the expectations for Hillary have been lowered so much that if she has a pulse during the debate, she will have won.
 

leper84

Senior member
Dec 29, 2011
989
29
86
Man I really agree with everyone, Trump is such a jackass for wanting to debate without moderators. I'm sure he doesn't want fact checking and he just wants to be aggressive and bully Hillary without any rules. Pretty weak and cowardly of Trump to try and change the rules, he should just bail out of the debates. SMH.

Oh hey guise, btw, remember back in 2008 when Hillary challenged President Obama to a debate without moderators?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-we-dont-need-moderators/
But that's different be cause its Hillary, and she is almost certainly a woman. #Sheswithered... I mean #Imwithher.
 

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
7,755
1,483
126
Man I really agree with everyone, Trump is such a jackass for wanting to debate without moderators. I'm sure he doesn't want fact checking and he just wants to be aggressive and bully Hillary without any rules. Pretty weak and cowardly of Trump to try and change the rules, he should just bail out of the debates. SMH.

Oh hey guise, btw, remember back in 2008 when Hillary challenged President Obama to a debate without moderators?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-we-dont-need-moderators/
But that's different be cause its Hillary, and she is almost certainly a woman. #Sheswithered... I mean #Imwithher.

What exactly do you think your link proves? Honestly it would help if you actually read the links you posted. Clinton never suggested they change the designated debates, but add more to accommodate what she felt was Obama's concern. In fact she would have taken more debates with moderators.

Trailing in delegates and the popular vote, Clinton has been stepping up the pressure on Obama for more debates in advance of primaries in nine days in Indiana and North Carolina.

Question? Is the inability to process basic information a prerequisite for being a Trump supporter?
 
Last edited: