I am almost always disappointed with the formats of Presidential debates, which seem more like a showcase for journalists "gotcha" questions than a forum for discussing issues relevant to the Presidency. For example, the question about supporting the eventual GOP nominee was disingenuously designed to imply that Trump might run as a third party candidate. If this was a legitimate question, none of the candidate should have taken the pledge: Would they really support David Duke if he were nominated?
Another bogus questions regarded abortions to save the life of the mother: Aside from the extreme rarity of this situation (akin to separating conjoined twins), it is not within a President's power to make this determination. Instead, this question was merely a pretense for promoting Megyn Kelly's personal views (a la Cindy Crowley). In addition, her feigned offendedness at Trump's alleged disrespect towards women clearly indicates her bias against Trump. Whether or not he is a serious candidate should not have been colored by her personal views.
Does anyone have a suggestion for a better format which minimizes journalistic interference? I don't want to just hear prepared questions and answers, but perhaps answers to specific questions could be solicited beforehand, with the debate focused on followup questions and more detailed explanations. Otherwise, these "debates" are little more than sound bite generators to be seized upon by journalists and spin merchants.
Another bogus questions regarded abortions to save the life of the mother: Aside from the extreme rarity of this situation (akin to separating conjoined twins), it is not within a President's power to make this determination. Instead, this question was merely a pretense for promoting Megyn Kelly's personal views (a la Cindy Crowley). In addition, her feigned offendedness at Trump's alleged disrespect towards women clearly indicates her bias against Trump. Whether or not he is a serious candidate should not have been colored by her personal views.
Does anyone have a suggestion for a better format which minimizes journalistic interference? I don't want to just hear prepared questions and answers, but perhaps answers to specific questions could be solicited beforehand, with the debate focused on followup questions and more detailed explanations. Otherwise, these "debates" are little more than sound bite generators to be seized upon by journalists and spin merchants.
Last edited: