Trump Is Now Openly Begging Debate Moderators Not To Fact Check Him

Trump Is Now Openly Begging Debate Moderators Not To Fact Check Him


…Donald Trump is openly begging debate moderators to allow him to lie at will because fact checking would be "unfair."…


Donald Trump is openly begging debate moderators to allow him to lie at will because fact checking would be “unfair.”


Trump says Well, I think he has to be a moderator. You’re debating somebody, and if she makes a mistake, or if I make a mistake, we’ll take each other on. But I certainly don’t think you want Candy Crowley again.

I really don’t think you want that. That was a very pivotal moment in that debate. And it really threw the debate off. And it was unfair. So I don’t think you want that. No, I think you have to have somebody that just lets ’em argue it out………..
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/22/trump-openly-begging-debate-moderators-fact-check.html

SEE:
https://youtu.be/aHEqvgHwcP4

Ya just can’t make this stuff up………….

…Trump knows that the only chance he has against Hillary Clinton is to turn the debate into a circus of lies and half-truths….

If the debate is a tightly focused on what the two candidates know………..

Donald Trump will get blown out of the water……….

Heaven forbid that the moderator throws the debate off by pointing out that one of the two candidates on stage is intentionally not telling the truth…………

Donald Trump is begging for special treatment, and if he doesn’t get it, there will be a tantrum of epic proportions
Because he is entitled to be held to a lower standard at the first presidential debate and those to follow……..

That's if The Donald doesn’t “bug-out” of the next 2 debates that is……..

 

I am concerned about Lester Holt moderating. He's meek, and soft spoken. I'm afraid he will be railroaded, or even worse, will pull a "Matt Lauer" and let the candidates say anything without stopping them and forcing their hands on the subjects they are being less than truthful on. Well, let me rephrase that. Matt Lauer didn't stop everybody from their bull(*)(*)(*)(*) answers. Maybe Lester will do a better job.

 

I would love to watch a debate with a moderator or group of moderators that called out each candidate every time they tried to tell us some bullcrap.

We might get to hear Hillary talk a little bit, but Trump would just have to be silent the entire time. I'm not sure if the man even knows how to tell the truth or if he even understands the concept of truth. But then again, neither do his supporters so I suppose it's a good match.

And yes, Hillary sucks and is a liar as well.

But no matter how many times you remind us of that, and no matter how much it might be true, Trump does not become even a fraction of a better person and candidate for president because of it. You righties are voting for complete (*)(*)(*)(*) when you cast a vote for him, but very few of you are willing to admit it. To be fair, I've seen a few folks who've said they'll vote for him who are willing to admit he's completely terrible. I might be able to fault them for voting for terrible, but I can't fault them for constructing an elaborate facade to fool themselves into thinking otherwise.

Gosh, I don't miss facades. It's kind of liberating to be able to admit that both candidates suck and be unwilling to cast a vote for either of the main two candidates when you don't like either of them. It's interesting to me how many people complain about that kind of stuff and yet still go to the polls and do it and get on the internet to try and convince others to as well. It must be a radical thing in the 21st century to refuse to vote for complete crap. You should try it folks. Better than the first poo after Thanksgiving dinner.

 

If I thought







Hillary was crap, I would do that too

 

We need a complete (*)(*)(*)(*) that will not be too nicey-nice to put his foot down regarding all sorts of carp the globalist Marxists passing themselves off as liberals have been getting away with.

 

IMO...debates should be totally real time fact-checked.

 

I think it's absurd that not doing this if you can should even be an option and I can't see how anyone could trust anyone who opposes it. It's like saying you should be able to blatantly defraud your customers and get away with it.

 

That is how low the standard has become. The technology is readily available and yet the circus clown/carnival barker atmosphere is preferable over getting the intellectual integrity of a candidate on the table during a debate or making certain that facts rule the day. And the dumbing-down continues....sad.

 

The debate is a total media creation. You people are the suckers...One born every minute. Am I going to watch? Welcome fellow suckers.

 

By the viewers. Take responsibility for your own ignorance.

 

It's which corrupt candidate would I choose. I really, REALLY don't want Hillary Clinton but I cannot(and have not) lied about Trump. Instead, I tried to focus the conversation on Trump's policies(the very few of them he has). It's not a winning argument.

 

So the moderator who is getting paid very well and the networks that are cleaning up need not take any responsibility in how the debates plays out? What influence does an individual viewer checking facts have upon the real time substance, pace, direction and orchestration of the debates? Seriously!

 

The problem is who's facts are the fact checkers using?
http://youtu.be/athcyCTnTTs
It's not hard to see how facts are twisted for political advantage. Take this entire OP for instance.

 

You give me a way to "fact check" which doesn't involve the prejudice of the fact checker. The moderator should present fair questions and determine who gets to speak at any given time. Picking a side is not part of the job description.

 

Hopefully the broadcasters will provide real time fact checking instead of that rediculous studio audience tracking nonsense.

Having the moderator do the checking would lead to charges of moderator bias.

 

The problem is that neither the Hillary or Trump supporters are unbiased enough to fact check their own preferred candidate. This forum has proved that fact repeatedly.

 

Calling a candidate on a lie is not picking a side.

 

It's a tough call.

Example A- Trump says the Syrian civil war started in April 2011, but most say it started in March with the protests in Damascus. I don't think a Moderator should call him on it, Clinton should.


Example B- Trump says Syria is east of Jordan. A Moderator could say "Did you mean 'west', Mr Trump?" Trump could take the "hint" and say "Yes, I meant north of Israel, west of Jordan."


Example C- Trump says Syria is "a land-locked country". A Moderator should say "Actually, it has a large coast-line on the Mediterranean, Mr. Trump."


Example D- Trump says Syria is "a peaceful democracy who promotes civil rights and peace in the Middle East, that has been attacked by Iran and maybe Mexicans and Chinese." The Moderator should say "Mr. Trump, you're bats*** crazy...you know that, right?"

 

What is a lie? By whose estimation? That you can keep your doctor? That Iraq had WMDs? This is politics, there are no settled facts. Everything is fair game.

And candidates should be free to argue their case without some inept moderator expressing his opinion. If either candidate lies openly then let it be all over the news, but the moderator must remain impartial.

 

And some journalist with his own biases and preconceptions is?

There is no impartial position. This is politics. To the extent that the moderator inserts his own views of the facts into the debate, the debate is prejudiced in favor of that moderators views. We have seen it time and time again.

Consider if Romney had said "you won't be able to keep your doctor". How do you fact check that? It's a politically charged "fact". The same applies to all such contentious issues.

No to moderator bias.

 

The moderator only needs to deliver the fact checking result, not actually check the facts themselves. But of course the mod should be responsible in calling out the candidate and steering the debate in the next logical direction if the facts do not prove out on a particular question.

 

That doesn't wash. Facts are facts and are very easy to check. You are confusing opinions and future prognostications with facts.

 

Trump- "The Moon is made of green cheese. When I'm President, I'll build rockets that will go there and mine the cheese and America will make trillions selling it. And I'll make the Moon People pay for it."

Lester Holt- "Uh, Mr. Trump...the Moon is NOT made of green cheese. Also, there are no Moon People."


Trump- "See? See? That's what I predicted. The Moderators are being totally unfair to me. Totally unfair. Everybody can see that, right? Believe me."

 

Trump may have remebered back during the 2012 Obama - Romney Presidential debates when CNN (Clinton Nesw Network) moderator Candy Crowley fact checked Mitt Romney and got it wrong. She wouldn't retract the fact checking until 15 minutes after the debate when millions who watched the debate had already changed the channel to watch the "Apprentice."

So Romney was right, Obama refused to call the Benghazi terrorist attack a terrorist attack and would conduct a cover up for two weeks blaming the attack on a Youtube video.

So who's going to fact check the fact checkers during a live broadcast of the debates ?

CNN's Crowley Admits Obama Didn't Call Benghazi a Terror Attack -> http://www.breitbart.com/big-journa...s-obama-didn-t-call-benghazi-a-terror-attack/

 

baloney.............