Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How about a time keeper? One person could steamroll the other and monopolize the entire time. Just like Trump did with the 16 other candidates in the primary. They hardly had a chance to speak. He just jumped in like the one who talks the loudest wins the fight.
I really wish they would. I can understand finishing up a few words but to keep going and going like the energizer bunny gets super annoying.
Because moderators aren't the be all and end all of facts. Even the best-intentioned fact-checking moderator will miss some and be wrong about others. With all the other real time and post-debate fact-checking, the moderator shouldn't do more than moderate.
PolitiFact is kinda proven to be biased trash, since they try to "fact-check" conservatives 3-4 times as much as democrats, so I really don't care what they have to say. I like to call them PolitiFake.
And at least Trump hasn't ever lied under oath. At least Trump hasn't tried to hide his past with BleachBit, or smashing cell phones that were ALREADY SUBPOENAED BY THE FBI, Trump's not the one deleting tens of THOUSANDS of emails, and Trump's not the one pleading the fifth and whining about not remembering dozens and dozens of times. And I mean really, if her tens of thousands of emails were just about yoga, and weddings, and messages with Bill (even though he doesn't email), then why go as far as using BleachBit and smashing phones?
How about a time keeper? One person could steamroll the other and monopolize the entire time. Just like Trump did with the 16 other candidates in the primary. They hardly had a chance to speak. He just jumped in like the one who talks the loudest wins the fight.
They DO have timekeepers on the big debates, don't they? I seem to recall that they did keep time.
Because it is not the job of the moderator. The candidates can fact check each other. I would prefer no moderator at all. Just let the two candidates talk to each other and debate the issues.
Even the most knowledgable person doesn't know every facet of an issue, let alone off the top of their head without spending hours or days doing research. Plus many issues can have many correct answer on both sides of an issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty
No, it's NOT the job of a debate moderator to..."fact check." Especially if they do that the way they moderate.
It's simply another way for the MNM to try to exercise the biased control over the electorate that they've lost. Voters have that responsibility, and they don't need to be distracted by what the Liberal media shills think are important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinGuitar
Remember the last debate when the moderater woman interupted Romney and "fact checked" him regardijg weather or not Obama called benghazi terrorism in the rose garden? She argued her point with Romney in front of millions of people. Then after the debate she sent out a little tweet saying "oops I sas wrong"
I'm sick and tired of the media telling me what to think! Present both sides and allow me to form my own opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
Because moderators aren't the be all and end all of facts. Even the best-intentioned fact-checking moderator will miss some and be wrong about others. With all the other real time and post-debate fact-checking, the moderator shouldn't do more than moderate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentlebee
Recently there was proof of fact checker that was leaning left and had it wrong.
Folks, the idea of the moderators fact checking was not proposed by me in this thread. The debates have rules agreed to by participants. A separate fact checking source could also be in the rules agreement. The lies in politics are way out of hand. Sure mistakes would be made, always will be, but at least as a people we’d be seeking truth. I guess it should not shock me conservatives don’t get it...
conservative |kənˈsərvədiv|
adjective
holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
they're trying to get as many votes as possible, facts, opinions, lies, falsehoods, exaggerations, etc none of this matters, you're not going to 'eliminate' one candidate from consideration because of an 'opinion' or a lie or a faleshood or an exaggeration.
they're trying to get as many votes as possible, facts, opinions, lies, falsehoods, exaggerations, etc none of this matters, you're not going to 'eliminate' one candidate from consideration because of an 'opinion' or a lie or a faleshood or an exaggeration.
At least not you apparently.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
by what the Liberal media shills think are important.