Donald Trump Calls For No Debate Moderators

Donald Trump Calls For No Debate Moderators As Pressure Mounts To Fact-Check Him.
"Republican nominee takes another pre-emptive strike at supposedly “unfair” and “rigged” debate process."

Since NBC’s Matt Lauer received widespread criticism for failing to fact-check Donald Trump at Wednesday night’s presidential forum, members of the public and press have been urging moderators for the upcoming debates to do better.

If the GOP nominee lies about being a vocal opponent of the Iraq War, as he did Wednesday and throughout the 2016 campaign, for instance, he should be called out.

Trump responded Monday to the Lauer controversy, and growing calls for the TV journalists steering the debates to challenge Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s falsehoods, by proposing there should be no moderators at all.

The latest salvo in the war of words and positions is "let's just duke it out verbally." It's an interesting proposal because it will play to two of his strengths in a debate (blustering and talking over the other person while doing a Gish Gallop of accusations) and avoid one of his weaknesses (research and understanding of the American situation. Fact checking (of the type you can do with Google) shows him to be wrong in most of his statements.)

“I think, maybe, we should have no moderator,” Trump said on CNBC. “Let Hillary and I sit there and just debate. I think the system is being rigged so it’s going to be a very unfair debate. And I can see it happening right now. Everyone’s saying that [Lauer] was soft on Trump. Well now, the new person’s going to try and be really hard on Trump just to show the establishment what he can do. So, I think it’s very unfair what they’re doing. I think we should have a debate with no moderators, just Hillary and I sitting there talking.”
source

However, this won't give America any insights on what he would do with various social issues that we're all concerned about. Furthermore, he can ignore or wave off pointed questions tossed at him by Clinton and start name-calling and shouting at her.

But we really need to know where he stands on issues that he's apparently flip-flopped on, such as immigration and the problem of Syria and military support and taxes. While he says he can make it all "great" it's very short on detail.

Personally, I want to see the debate moderated and BOTH candidates asked about specific questions. Not scandals, not rumors - I want to hear what they have planned specifically to address the main issues (environment, rights, relations with foreign nations,etc) and not an inspirational campaign speech. Politico says that Clinton has a 9,000 word document on how to defeat Daesh (ISIL) - Trump has simply said "I can do it" with no explanation. I'd sure like someone to get him to give specifics.

While many of you might not like HuffPo, you still might be interested in the analysis of the debate and referreeing...

Trump presumably can’t really expect the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates to tear up its entire debate process and remove the moderators. But the Republican nominee’s pre-emptive complaints about “unfairness” could be an effective way of giving the moderators pause before aggressively challenging him ― also known as working the refs. Such pre-debate gripes could also be used to try to explain away a poor performance

External links in the article are interesting.

You just don't know what he 'really' meant. Don't worry someone will be by soon to explain how he didn't real mean that, just that he thinks the system is unfair.

I've always thought the moderators had their own agendas and skewed the debates. I think you may need some sort of countdown timer to prevent a candidate's long-windedness, but that could be automated. But get the damn moderators out of there. Did Lincoln and Douglas have moderators? Of course not. It's an absurd idea.

originally posted by: schuyler
I've always thought the moderators had their own agendas and skewed the debates. I think you may need some sort of countdown timer to prevent a candidate's long-windedness, but that could be automated. But get the damn moderators out of there. Did Lincoln and Douglas have moderators? Of course not. It's an absurd idea.

Firstly that was not a debate by normal standards...even at the time it was unusual...

Secondly...we would have to retrain the populations attention span..

In the format Stephen Douglas demanded, and Lincoln agreed to,
one man would speak for an hour.
Then the other would speak in rebuttal for an hour and a half,
and then the first man would have a half-hour to respond to the rebuttal.

And they were not running for President at the time.

a reply to: Byrd

Yes...Cuz Trump is searching for a bar so low that ANY moderator asking questions and stuff would be "rigged" by his standard of rhetoric.

He needs to start wearing a big rubber red nose and wig in public and drop the flimsy façade.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
You just don't know what he 'really' meant. Don't worry someone will be by soon to explain how he didn't real mean that, just that he thinks the system is unfair.

And continued by people who didn't read the article.

The Politico article referenced above has some harsh words about his debating style...

The GOP nominee is now described as “presidential” for shifting from insult-filled, ad-lib performances to insult-filled scripted speeches. And he scored points for confidence and style despite failing on substance during light questioning on the most important national-security issues of the next presidency.

Note the "light questioning." One wonders what would have happened if the moderator zeroed in on Trump's details as hard as he zeroed in on Clinton's emails.

The bias seems clear.

Such a double standard wouldn’t exist with any candidate but Trump, whose persistent mendacity and eagerness to bulldoze political norms makes him both challenging for media to hold to account and endearing to supporters who are excited to see someone taking an ax to a system they no longer trust. (emphasis mine)

“When he’s confronted with an inconsistency or contradiction in his own past, he glosses over it, denies it or jumps past it,” said Frank Sesno, a former CNN Washington bureau chief and now director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University. “We’ve not seen a candidate that’s not held accountable by the public for the kinds of things he has done.”

I think that perhaps characterizes it best -- excited to see someone going "attack dog" on a system they think has failed.

I don't know if you saw the Jim Wright article on 9/11 that was all over Facebook for the past two days, I think he nails it -- we are a far different America than we were 15 years ago. 15 years ago, we would have sneered at Trump and a more moderate Republican would have emerged. Now we seem to be entrenched in our fear and looking for the biggest bark to scare others off.

I'm of the opinion that if Marco Rubio had, after he was insulted by Trump one last time, jumped over and landed on Trump and beaten the krap out of him, he'd be the nominee now.

But yeah, by all means, let's talk seriously about what the guy who refers to himself by his own last name wants, lest he be called on his constant lies that no one can keep up with.

a reply to: Byrd

Apparently Hilary Clinton asked the same of Obama in 2008:

"I'm offering Sen. Obama a chance to debate me one-on-one, no moderators. ... Just the two of us going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions; we'll set whatever rules seem fair," she said.

"I think that it would give the people of Indiana and I assume a few Americans might tune in because nearly 11 million watched the Philadelphia debate. And I think they would love seeing that kind of debate and discussion. Remember, that's what happened during the Lincoln-Douglas debates," she added.

Clinton to Obama: Let's Debate Like Lincoln

a reply to: Sremmos80

You just don't know what he 'really' meant. Don't worry someone will be by soon to explain how he didn't real mean that, just that he thinks the system is unfair.

That's what happens when something is quote-mined out of context, and used to serve political purposes. Nonetheless, it's not a proposal nor a "call".

It's brilliant, Hilary mentally cannot handle it. She will have another episode on live TV.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Sremmos80

You just don't know what he 'really' meant. Don't worry someone will be by soon to explain how he didn't real mean that, just that he thinks the system is unfair.

That's what happens when something is quote-mined out of context, and used to serve political purposes. Nonetheless, it's not a proposal nor a "call".

Yet you won't explain how you read this into his words, though you are the only person I've seen say this.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: schuyler
I've always thought the moderators had their own agendas and skewed the debates. I think you may need some sort of countdown timer to prevent a candidate's long-windedness, but that could be automated. But get the damn moderators out of there. Did Lincoln and Douglas have moderators? Of course not. It's an absurd idea.

Firstly that was not a debate by normal standards...even at the time it was unusual...

Secondly...we would have to retrain the populations attention span..

In the format Stephen Douglas demanded, and Lincoln agreed to,
one man would speak for an hour.
Then the other would speak in rebuttal for an hour and a half,
and then the first man would have a half-hour to respond to the rebuttal.

And they were not running for President at the time.

I don't see your comments as refuting anything that I said. Lincoln and Douglas debated in a style that was not all that unusual. Just look at college debating society protocols today, and it matters not whether they were running for President. The idea behind those debates was that each man was given the opportunity to present and expand on his ideas without an annoying tweak by a clueless moderator after three minutes. It was immensely more informative than this glitzy stage crap we call "debates" today. They may as well be on Dancing with the Stars or the Muppet Show. the way we "do it" today is not a good way to highlight the candidates' stands on issues. It makes the whole thing trivial and not worth watching. I applaud the idea of "no moderators."

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yet you won't explain how you read this into his words, though you are the only person I've seen say this.

I don't understand your point here. What do I need to explain?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yet you won't explain how you read this into his words, though you are the only person I've seen say this.

I don't understand your point here. What do I need to explain?

How you are the only one who looks at his words and don't see Trump calling for a debate with no moderators, or he wasn't serious or whatever your narrative seems to be?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How you are the only one who looks at his words and don't see Trump calling for a debate with no moderators, or he wasn't serious or whatever your narrative seems to be?

He is stating what he thinks, an opinion, not "calling for a debate with no moderators". You're the one reading into it.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How you are the only one who looks at his words and don't see Trump calling for a debate with no moderators, or he wasn't serious or whatever your narrative seems to be?

He is stating what he thinks, an opinion, not "calling for a debate with no moderators". You're the one reading into it.

Really? That must be why you are the only one saying this, but anything to defend your messiah right? Well in any case you better let your fellow Trump supporters know what he really thinks because they seem to think he wants a moderatorless debate too and are already kneejerk supporting him as they always do.

a reply to: Byrd

No moderator would be a mess. I don't doubt it would get high ratings, but would anything be accomplished? It would literally be two people shouting at each other for a couple hours. Have you ever watched a serious argument between a couple that dislikes each other? That's what we would be watching... what would be accomplished?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Really? That must be why you are the only one saying this, but anything to defend your messiah right?

You could quote him calling for a debate with no moderators to defend your argument, but would just end up quoting him stating what he thinks, his opinion. The failure is on your part.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm wondering how the quote already being examined isn't saying EXACTLY that already. In FACT, it looks like you are just pretending he wasn't serious so you don't have to admit he made a stupid suggestion. I've read that quote something like 20 times now and I still don't see what you are saying. I see a man scared of being called out for his falsehoods wanting a debate without a moderator so people don't call him on his falsehoods *Ahem* I mean "media biases"*ahem*

originally posted by: thinline
It's brilliant, Hilary mentally cannot handle it. She will have another episode on live TV.

Actually, it would be the easiest format ever for Hillary. Stand there and listen to him rant for 90 minutes, maybe note a couple outrageous things he says. Then at the very end repeat them, get in a good one liner about all the ridiculous things just said, and end it telling the American people you would never stoop to that level.