Posted on 08/11/2015 7:39:52 AM PDT by Kaslin
#19 Number 4 for future debate:
Hillary Clinton: How many scandals and criminal and treasonous acts have you been involved in?
Moderator: We can give you more then 1 minute as we know it is an extensive list.
Thanks.
Excellent point. Same here. Toss juvenile questions back at them. “Why are you asking such snide questions about a person’s faith? Do have a question respectful of the candidates and the American people watching? We expect more from you than such snotty and disrespectful questions. The candidates and the American people are giving you their time, try not to waste it.”
Apparently there was no time for substantive questions either.
Megyn had to have opposition research go back and screen all the stupid Apprentice shows to find the zingers that she called good reporting, and that shows premeditation. We gained nothing of value from her questions.
It was a set of individualized personal attacks, better suited to opponent adds.
A debate allows participants to present their views on a given subject.
Who was stopping them?
If an experienced politician gets asked an annoying question, it shouldn't be that hard to pivot to something worth talking about (and make the moderator feel foolish for asking such questions).
The eventual nominee is going to have to work hard to be heard over the other side's propaganda, and a debate like this one (whatever its value in other ways) was practice for the general election debates.
They weren’t just tough questions.
They were personal attacks.
In Ted’s case, it was an attack on his faith.
This wasn’t supposed to be an interview.
It was to be a debate, preferably about policy positions.
Ted is the only candidate I’ve contributed to.
Yes. They were.
They were personal attacks.
Your opinion only. My opinion differs.
In Ted’s case, it was an attack on his faith.
No. It wasn't. As quoted, it was a question from a Facebook post that was asked of everyone. Not just Ted.
And yes, Ted is my favorite so far as well.
I don’t know if the so-called debate was unfair, but Donald Drumpf and Rand Paul were (and still are) unbalanced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.