Yeah, sure.
I'm sure the Democrats will somehow find
(manufacture) those "90 million" votes.
Democrats don’t want people to know their history. The Democrats don’t want voters to know anything about the issues. An educated voter is dangerous to Democrats.
These are totally unnecessary. Trump has a record and Biden has a web site...which says NEW GREEN DEAL is the plan.
Yes,
But also mute the “moderator”’s mike so they can’t keep interrupting during the speaker’s time.
Just as Rush just now reminded us, this is the way the media behaves, this is the way the media wants the untermensch to behave, so f them.
Don’t
Have
Them
They’ve been nonsense for decades.
The previous “debates” have always been about the moderators in the panel rarely the candidates. This last one was as close as I have seen to a true debate where two candidates just duke it out.
I have an idea. How bout a moderator that only asks question instead of a 5 minute diatribe and meaningless bs.
For example, Immigration and Border Security...you have 2 minutes...GO..
Moderators spend too much time inventing gotcha questions.
Muting the mike is a good approach. However, the choice of moderators should be changed. Each debate should have 2 moderators chosen by the candidates. The moderator chosen by the Republicans would ask questions of the Democrat. The one chosen by the Democrat would question the Republican. In addition The Republican candidate would be allowed to ask the Democrat two direct questions. The Democrat would be allowed to ask the Republican 2 direct questions.
As I posted on other threads related to this topic ...
Just look at one typical question below and ignore the content for the sake of this discussion:
WALLACE: "All right. I have one final question for you, Mr. Vice President. If Senate Republicans -- we were talking originally about the Supreme Court here. If Senate Republicans go ahead and confirm Justice Barrett, there has been talk about ending the filibuster or even packing the court, adding to the nine justices there. You called this a distraction by the president, but in fact it wasn't brought up by the president; it was brought up by some of your Democratic colleagues in the Congress. So my question to you, is you have refused in the past to talk about it. Are you willing to tell the American people tonight whether or not you will support either ending the filibuster, or packing the court."
Wallace lost control of that debate because both of the candidates were bored out of their minds just listening to him try to get a question out of his mouth. Half the audience didn't even remember the first part of his rambling by the time he even got to anything resembling a question.
The "question" I posted there was typical of Wallace's approach to the debate. It was downright awful -- littered with something that is best described using another Freeper's term I saw yesterday: "Chris Wallace's stupid editorializing preamble to every question he asked."
Debates should be between the two candidates. Let them pose the questions and offer the responses with moderators only time keepers.
Moderator-driven debates, where they ask the questions, let alone intercede, are not debates at all. And they are unwatchable.
It's America people. Let freedom ring.
Some of us enjoy the back and forth.
Why wait till after this election? Stop the debates right now. People would be relieved and get on with useful happenings in life.
Any problems in this debate were caused by the Moderator.
The real solution is conservative moderators.
Dispense with the “moderators’ and let the candidates duke it out on their own terms.
The only purpose of a “moderator” is to inject his own petty biases into the conversation.