BDKJMU wrote:Gennifer Flowers ‘agrees’ to sit front row at first debate
http://nypost.com/2016/09/24/gennifer-f ... st-debate/
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gennifer-flo ... tml?ref=gs"Gennifer Flowers will not be attending the debate tomorrow night," Pence told Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace.
Morons like you will be keeping score without applying weight to any misspeaks.JohnStOnge wrote:Well, it looks like the Clinton campaign is indeed trying to make sure Trump is fact checked real time during the debate. Here's an article headlined "Presidential campaigns clash on whether debate moderator should point out when candidates lie:"
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html
Can you guess which campaign thinks moderators should not point out when candidates lie? Gee. Which one do you think it is?
The moderators shouldn't fact check either person due to the simple fact that they can't possibly remember all the small facts and tidbits in mind and calling them out would make a 1 hour debate last 6.93% longer.JohnStOnge wrote:Well, it looks like the Clinton campaign is indeed trying to make sure Trump is fact checked real time during the debate. Here's an article headlined "Presidential campaigns clash on whether debate moderator should point out when candidates lie:"
http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/ ... story.html
Can you guess which campaign thinks moderators should not point out when candidates lie? Gee. Which one do you think it is?
Then make it 6.93% longer....Ibanez wrote: The moderators shouldn't fact check either person due to the simple fact that they can't possibly remember all the small facts and tidbits in mind and calling them out would make a 1 hour debate last 6.93% longer.
The debate commission is establishment to the core. They want platitudes and unchallenged proclamations.Skjellyfetti wrote:Then make it 6.93% longer....Ibanez wrote: The moderators shouldn't fact check either person due to the simple fact that they can't possibly remember all the small facts and tidbits in mind and calling them out would make a 1 hour debate last 6.93% longer.
We're really against follow up questions and fact checking of presidential candidates now?
We lost Tim Russert and got Matt Lauer.
kalm wrote:The debate commission is establishment to the core. They want platitudes and unchallenged proclamations.Skjellyfetti wrote:
Then make it 6.93% longer....
We're really against follow up questions and fact checking of presidential candidates now?
We lost Tim Russert and got Matt Lauer.
In a perfect world you'd get John Stewart out of retirement to moderate on of these.
Follow up questions are ok. But to sit there and correct every lie or false statement by Clinton and Trump would take all night. Holt's job is to ask questions and keep the flow going. He's not supposed to sit there and act as Google. Let the candidates fact check each other. Otherwise, it's going to get very tedious very quickly.Skjellyfetti wrote:Then make it 6.93% longer....Ibanez wrote: The moderators shouldn't fact check either person due to the simple fact that they can't possibly remember all the small facts and tidbits in mind and calling them out would make a 1 hour debate last 6.93% longer.
We're really against follow up questions and fact checking of presidential candidates now?
We lost Tim Russert and got Matt Lauer.
I don't think it should be:Skjellyfetti wrote:I agree completely.
But, people arguing that debates shouldn't be fact checked is just baffling.
Follow up questions are how journalists (are supposed) to fact check.Ibanez wrote:Follow up questions are ok. But to sit there and call out every lie or false statement by Clinton and Trump would take all night.Skjellyfetti wrote:
Then make it 6.93% longer....
We're really against follow up questions and fact checking of presidential candidates now?
We lost Tim Russert and got Matt Lauer.
Jon Leibowitz.kalm wrote:The debate commission is establishment to the core. They want platitudes and unchallenged proclamations.Skjellyfetti wrote:
Then make it 6.93% longer....
We're really against follow up questions and fact checking of presidential candidates now?
We lost Tim Russert and got Matt Lauer.
In a perfect world you'd get John Stewart out of retirement to moderate on of these.
Tough cross-examiners. 
I think we are using the term differently. Follow up questions aren't just about fact checking. It's meant to expand on a subject or provide clarification.Skjellyfetti wrote:Follow up questions are how journalists (are supposed) to fact check.Ibanez wrote: Follow up questions are ok. But to sit there and call out every lie or false statement by Clinton and Trump would take all night.
Hillary: "There were no classified emails on my server."
Lester Holt: "Bullshit. Please address the Comey's statements to the contrary."
etc.
You don't want this? You'd rather Hillary or Trump answer however... lie or not... and then the moderator just move on...
He's quite good at and tough when he wants to be. (See the Jim Cramer interview or the taking down of Crossfire).CAA Flagship wrote:kalm wrote:
The debate commission is establishment to the core. They want platitudes and unchallenged proclamations.
In a perfect world you'd get John Stewart out of retirement to moderate on of these.
No fact checking.Ibanez wrote:http://drudgereport.com/flashny.htmIf presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton slips into a coughing fit or any other medical crisis during Monday's high-stakes debate, she will have to power through, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned!
"There are no commercial breaks," a commission source explains. "Period."
Debate moderator Lester Holt does not have the authority to cut away from the stage during the epic 90-minute showdown. And microphone audio for either of the candidates is not to be manipulated.
Clinton has experienced severe coughing episodes throughout the election year. During a Labor Day campaign stop she suffered a 4-minute choking marathon.
Monday's throwdown could top out at 100 million viewers, making it the biggest political event in history.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The presidential debate commission settled an early flashpoint when Clinton demanded a step-stool at the podium to add height to her 5'4" frame. Campaign Chairman John Podesta expressed concern that Hillary would be dwarfed by 6'2" Trump. The request was quickly rejected. The commission is allowing for a custom-made podium, which will accommodate the difference in stature.
No commercials. No step stool. No mercy!
A comedian? I'd rather bring out Bonnie Bernstein.kalm wrote:The debate commission is establishment to the core. They want platitudes and unchallenged proclamations.Skjellyfetti wrote:
Then make it 6.93% longer....
We're really against follow up questions and fact checking of presidential candidates now?
We lost Tim Russert and got Matt Lauer.
In a perfect world you'd get John Stewart out of retirement to moderate on of these.
kalm wrote:He's quite good at and tough when he wants to be. (See the Jim Cramer interview or the taking down of Crossfire).CAA Flagship wrote:
You should have paid better attention when he was on. We wouldn't have to keep explaining things to you if you had.
Sure, but if you're on his side, he fucking genius!Baldy wrote:kalm wrote:
He's quite good at and tough when he wants to be. (See the Jim Cramer interview or the taking down of Crossfire).
You should have paid better attention when he was on. We wouldn't have to keep explaining things to you if you had.
He's a partisan hack comedian with an agenda. Nothing more.
Big, bad, assertive libwuls huuurt conk feewings...make conk angwy and confewsed...andy7171 wrote:Sure, but if you're on his side, he fucking genius!Baldy wrote:
He's a partisan hack comedian with an agenda. Nothing more.
Sorry. I thought we were having a discussion on even sided debates.kalm wrote:Big, bad, assertive libwuls huuurt conk feewings...make conk angwy and confewsed...andy7171 wrote: Sure, but if you're on his side, he fucking genius!
