Presidential Debates Discussion Thread

TGHusker said:
Remember Moderator Candy Crowley (wasn't that her name) who came to Obama's defense and corrected Romney in the 2nd debate. As I recall, she was wrong.
Click to expand...
That's a situation I remember and, even if she is somewhat correct, I can see the debate discussion becoming more about the moderator and not about the candidates.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NM11046 said:
BigRedBuster said:
NM11046 said:
You have got to be effing' kidding me. Consider my mind blown. WTH are we doing America?

http://www.spin.com/2016/09/trump-who-lied-87-times-last-week-fights-to-keep-fact-checking-out-of-debate/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=timeline
Click to expand...
This is a very touchy subject. My first and quick reaction is....hell yeah.....we need the moderators to fact check these bastards.

Well.....then.....I start thinking about it. There isn't anybody moderating that is going to know every single fact a candidate might throw out there. So....what happens when the moderator corrects a fact from one candidate while not correcting a false fact from another simply because they didn't know it was false??? OR.....What happens when the moderator is actually wrong???
Click to expand...
Agreed, but remember he's got that earpiece in, so somebody in the booth is in his ear with facts before he ever opens his mouth. Even if he didn't catch all, there will be flagrant misinformation shared, and zombies in the audience that will latch onto it and recite it tomorrow like it's fact. I'd like for some of that to at least be contested. Otherwise we risk the name calling and grandstanding as a distraction instead of an actual debate of issues.
Click to expand...
Actually, I read earlier that Holt's only got one person in his ear, and they're only allowed to tell him time in order to keep the pace in check and wrap up at the proper time. So the line of questioning, outside of the 3 broad categories, is completely at his discretion.

That's pretty much what it boils down to: discretion. It's pretty much up to Holt if he wants to fact-check or not, and he'll have to decide if a lie is egregious enough to interject. He's been studying up for this debate, too.

Anyway, I feel like more fact-checking obviously benefits Clinton, because A) she lies less than he does and B) people view her as untrustworthy anyway, so pushback from a moderator probably carries more weight than her trying to do it and them thinking she's just being dishonest.

 
Has the feeling of a Super Bowl. About to get the popcorn and snacks ready.

gettyimages-589473806-clinton-and-trump.jpg


 
Back
Top