Democrat Debates.Just CNN/NBC/ABC?,Will They Ask Hard Questions?,Or Just Stupid Questions?

[jc456]

With such a bias MSM, making sure they take down Trump, anyone expect a fair series of debates with the Democrats? What are they gonna ask them? What was your favorite sit-com during the 70's?,,What did you have for lunch today? Do you prefer Coke, Pepsi, or Doctor Pepper?
We all know how infuriated we will get when the boneheaded moderators will not ask any hard questions. Will these debates be a repeat of when the pansy ass press never asked/or just barley asked Obama a tough question?
And what if FOX News wants to do a debate with the final 5 candidates, hosted by 3 moderators that they know will take them down/embarrass the crap out of them within the first hour?

I don't expect the MSM will be nearly as confrontational and accusatory or focus on the 'sins' of Democrats as they do with Republicans. So we might actually be able to hear some of the positions of the candidates on actual issues instead of 90+ percent of it being focused on controversial or negative stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with how they will govern.

I don't expect the Democrats to agree to a debate hosted by Fox News.

I don't expect the MSM to be as fair or focus on actual issues important to the country with the Republicans any more than they did last time.

The MSM was perfectly fair to the 16 candidates running for president on the Republican ticket! The problem was there were too many of them--no one had time to answer any of those questions with more than a sound byte. I think the Democrats already have too many candidates and before the debates, I hope it's down to no more than half a dozen.

If you go back and carefully listen to those debates, almost all of the questions asked the Republicans had a 'gotcha' component to them. They did NOT do that to the Democrats.

Even Fox News, via Megyn Kelly, did that first rattle out of the box with President Trump and she and Bret Baird did more 'gotcha questions' or encouraged confrontation between the candidates than they encouraged the candidates to actually express their opinions about real issues. The Democrats refused to accept a debate hosted by Fox News so we don't know how they would have addressed that debate.

I do remember Kelly's 'gotcha question' to Trump--no question there.
I don't remember ANY others to the other candidates, though.
I heard lots of opinions about "real issues" but yeah, with sixteen candidates, some are going to disagree and there was actually quite a bit of mud slinging amongst them, so the arguing, while annoying, was certainly understandable.

If the hosts had focused on asking real questions on real issues without inserting a poison pill into those questions, the candidates would not have been goaded into going after each other instead of stating their positions. These debates are designed and geared to create food fights and they accomplish little else.

and all they are. useless.

 

[Billy_Bob]

MSM will tailor questions for the democrat agenda.

Past history....might even get leaked to the democrats prior to the debate.

Might Get Leaked? That is an assured outcome.. Just as they will select the one they want, fake the vote, and dog pile anyone who gets in their way.... Like they did to Bernie Sanders...

 

[S.J.]

I wonder if they'll ask one of them to say something bad about one of the other ones like they did in one of the Republican debates.

 

[Foxfyre]

With such a bias MSM, making sure they take down Trump, anyone expect a fair series of debates with the Democrats? What are they gonna ask them? What was your favorite sit-com during the 70's?,,What did you have for lunch today? Do you prefer Coke, Pepsi, or Doctor Pepper?
We all know how infuriated we will get when the boneheaded moderators will not ask any hard questions. Will these debates be a repeat of when the pansy ass press never asked/or just barley asked Obama a tough question?
And what if FOX News wants to do a debate with the final 5 candidates, hosted by 3 moderators that they know will take them down/embarrass the crap out of them within the first hour?

I don't expect the MSM will be nearly as confrontational and accusatory or focus on the 'sins' of Democrats as they do with Republicans. So we might actually be able to hear some of the positions of the candidates on actual issues instead of 90+ percent of it being focused on controversial or negative stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with how they will govern.

I don't expect the Democrats to agree to a debate hosted by Fox News.

I don't expect the MSM to be as fair or focus on actual issues important to the country with the Republicans any more than they did last time.

The MSM was perfectly fair to the 16 candidates running for president on the Republican ticket! The problem was there were too many of them--no one had time to answer any of those questions with more than a sound byte. I think the Democrats already have too many candidates and before the debates, I hope it's down to no more than half a dozen.

If you go back and carefully listen to those debates, almost all of the questions asked the Republicans had a 'gotcha' component to them. They did NOT do that to the Democrats.

Even Fox News, via Megyn Kelly, did that first rattle out of the box with President Trump and she and Bret Baird did more 'gotcha questions' or encouraged confrontation between the candidates than they encouraged the candidates to actually express their opinions about real issues. The Democrats refused to accept a debate hosted by Fox News so we don't know how they would have addressed that debate.

I do remember Kelly's 'gotcha question' to Trump--no question there.
I don't remember ANY others to the other candidates, though.
I heard lots of opinions about "real issues" but yeah, with sixteen candidates, some are going to disagree and there was actually quite a bit of mud slinging amongst them, so the arguing, while annoying, was certainly understandable.

so basically, debates on tv do nothing to promote a candidate ever. what a waste of time if no one asking really gives a fk.

You got it. When the debate is designed to make a particular candidate look good, that candidate won't be challenged on much of anything. You won't learn a damn thing about what he/she really believes or intends about anything specific.

Otherwise they are all designed and calculated to create Jerry Springer type food fights that the MSM thinks is good television and boosts their ratings, and they don't give a damn who gets unfairly hurt or whether nobody learns anything they need to know to choose a candidate. Sometimes the one who looks best on television and/or is the most likable might benefit a bit, but that does nothing to improve the caliber of leadership that we vote into office.

President Trump's rallies, all attended by tens of thousands, are far more informative most especially when he does state specifics and has demonstrated reliable follow through on those specifics to the best of his ability. He is the first person elected to high office in a very long time that actually intends to do what he says he will do without any ulterior self-serving motives or hidden agenda. Whatever anybody thinks about the man personally, I find that very refreshing and reassuring.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

NBC asked Obama what his favorite color was while Palin got asked if she supported the Bush Doctrine.

Did Ears answer with "butthole brown"?

 

[OldLady]

With such a bias MSM, making sure they take down Trump, anyone expect a fair series of debates with the Democrats? What are they gonna ask them? What was your favorite sit-com during the 70's?,,What did you have for lunch today? Do you prefer Coke, Pepsi, or Doctor Pepper?
We all know how infuriated we will get when the boneheaded moderators will not ask any hard questions. Will these debates be a repeat of when the pansy ass press never asked/or just barley asked Obama a tough question?
And what if FOX News wants to do a debate with the final 5 candidates, hosted by 3 moderators that they know will take them down/embarrass the crap out of them within the first hour?

I don't expect the MSM will be nearly as confrontational and accusatory or focus on the 'sins' of Democrats as they do with Republicans. So we might actually be able to hear some of the positions of the candidates on actual issues instead of 90+ percent of it being focused on controversial or negative stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with how they will govern.

I don't expect the Democrats to agree to a debate hosted by Fox News.

I don't expect the MSM to be as fair or focus on actual issues important to the country with the Republicans any more than they did last time.

The MSM was perfectly fair to the 16 candidates running for president on the Republican ticket! The problem was there were too many of them--no one had time to answer any of those questions with more than a sound byte. I think the Democrats already have too many candidates and before the debates, I hope it's down to no more than half a dozen.

If you go back and carefully listen to those debates, almost all of the questions asked the Republicans had a 'gotcha' component to them. They did NOT do that to the Democrats.

Even Fox News, via Megyn Kelly, did that first rattle out of the box with President Trump and she and Bret Baird did more 'gotcha questions' or encouraged confrontation between the candidates than they encouraged the candidates to actually express their opinions about real issues. The Democrats refused to accept a debate hosted by Fox News so we don't know how they would have addressed that debate.

I do remember Kelly's 'gotcha question' to Trump--no question there.
I don't remember ANY others to the other candidates, though.
I heard lots of opinions about "real issues" but yeah, with sixteen candidates, some are going to disagree and there was actually quite a bit of mud slinging amongst them, so the arguing, while annoying, was certainly understandable.

so basically, debates on tv do nothing to promote a candidate ever. what a waste of time if no one asking really gives a fk.

I watched them all and found them helpful in figuring out who they all were and what their stances were--in a limited way. Then the ones that impressed me, I looked up on line and learned more.
I think they're helpful. I don't know why you're so pessimistic about them.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't expect the MSM will be nearly as confrontational and accusatory or focus on the 'sins' of Democrats as they do with Republicans. So we might actually be able to hear some of the positions of the candidates on actual issues instead of 90+ percent of it being focused on controversial or negative stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with how they will govern.

I don't expect the Democrats to agree to a debate hosted by Fox News.

I don't expect the MSM to be as fair or focus on actual issues important to the country with the Republicans any more than they did last time.

The MSM was perfectly fair to the 16 candidates running for president on the Republican ticket! The problem was there were too many of them--no one had time to answer any of those questions with more than a sound byte. I think the Democrats already have too many candidates and before the debates, I hope it's down to no more than half a dozen.

If you go back and carefully listen to those debates, almost all of the questions asked the Republicans had a 'gotcha' component to them. They did NOT do that to the Democrats.

Even Fox News, via Megyn Kelly, did that first rattle out of the box with President Trump and she and Bret Baird did more 'gotcha questions' or encouraged confrontation between the candidates than they encouraged the candidates to actually express their opinions about real issues. The Democrats refused to accept a debate hosted by Fox News so we don't know how they would have addressed that debate.

I do remember Kelly's 'gotcha question' to Trump--no question there.
I don't remember ANY others to the other candidates, though.
I heard lots of opinions about "real issues" but yeah, with sixteen candidates, some are going to disagree and there was actually quite a bit of mud slinging amongst them, so the arguing, while annoying, was certainly understandable.

so basically, debates on tv do nothing to promote a candidate ever. what a waste of time if no one asking really gives a fk.

I watched them all and found them helpful in figuring out who they all were and what their stances were--in a limited way. Then the ones that impressed me, I looked up on line and learned more.
I think they're helpful. I don't know why you're so pessimistic about them.

It is the journalist in me I guess because I know how useful they could be, and how the media too often squanders the opportunity to make them that way. These are in no way debates. They are Q&A's more often intended to exact a 'television moment' sound bite that can be used again and again rather than they are intended to be informative.

Good for you that you learn something. I don't believe I have been much informed in anything I didn't already know about the candidates.

 

[jc456]

I don't expect the MSM will be nearly as confrontational and accusatory or focus on the 'sins' of Democrats as they do with Republicans. So we might actually be able to hear some of the positions of the candidates on actual issues instead of 90+ percent of it being focused on controversial or negative stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with how they will govern.

I don't expect the Democrats to agree to a debate hosted by Fox News.

I don't expect the MSM to be as fair or focus on actual issues important to the country with the Republicans any more than they did last time.

The MSM was perfectly fair to the 16 candidates running for president on the Republican ticket! The problem was there were too many of them--no one had time to answer any of those questions with more than a sound byte. I think the Democrats already have too many candidates and before the debates, I hope it's down to no more than half a dozen.

If you go back and carefully listen to those debates, almost all of the questions asked the Republicans had a 'gotcha' component to them. They did NOT do that to the Democrats.

Even Fox News, via Megyn Kelly, did that first rattle out of the box with President Trump and she and Bret Baird did more 'gotcha questions' or encouraged confrontation between the candidates than they encouraged the candidates to actually express their opinions about real issues. The Democrats refused to accept a debate hosted by Fox News so we don't know how they would have addressed that debate.

I do remember Kelly's 'gotcha question' to Trump--no question there.
I don't remember ANY others to the other candidates, though.
I heard lots of opinions about "real issues" but yeah, with sixteen candidates, some are going to disagree and there was actually quite a bit of mud slinging amongst them, so the arguing, while annoying, was certainly understandable.

so basically, debates on tv do nothing to promote a candidate ever. what a waste of time if no one asking really gives a fk.

You got it. When the debate is designed to make a particular candidate look good, that candidate won't be challenged on much of anything. You won't learn a damn thing about what he/she really believes or intends about anything specific.

Otherwise they are all designed and calculated to create Jerry Springer type food fights that the MSM thinks is good television and boosts their ratings, and they don't give a damn who gets unfairly hurt or whether nobody learns anything they need to know to choose a candidate. Sometimes the one who looks best on television and/or is the most likable might benefit a bit, but that does nothing to improve the caliber of leadership that we vote into office.

President Trump's rallies, all attended by tens of thousands, are far more informative most especially when he does state specifics and has demonstrated reliable follow through on those specifics to the best of his ability. He is the first person elected to high office in a very long time that actually intends to do what he says he will do without any ulterior self-serving motives or hidden agenda. Whatever anybody thinks about the man personally, I find that very refreshing and reassuring.

there you go, that is the solution. no debate, each candidate appears alone for one hour and fields questions from each of the opposition candidates. Let's hear what they really want to say. to limit answers to one minute is stupid and insulting.

 

[BlindBoo]

What? No CBS or PBS? Shocking!

 

[jc456]

What? No CBS or PBS? Shocking!

they couldn't afford to pay off all of the stations.

 

[jc456]

The MSM was perfectly fair to the 16 candidates running for president on the Republican ticket! The problem was there were too many of them--no one had time to answer any of those questions with more than a sound byte. I think the Democrats already have too many candidates and before the debates, I hope it's down to no more than half a dozen.

If you go back and carefully listen to those debates, almost all of the questions asked the Republicans had a 'gotcha' component to them. They did NOT do that to the Democrats.

Even Fox News, via Megyn Kelly, did that first rattle out of the box with President Trump and she and Bret Baird did more 'gotcha questions' or encouraged confrontation between the candidates than they encouraged the candidates to actually express their opinions about real issues. The Democrats refused to accept a debate hosted by Fox News so we don't know how they would have addressed that debate.

I do remember Kelly's 'gotcha question' to Trump--no question there.
I don't remember ANY others to the other candidates, though.
I heard lots of opinions about "real issues" but yeah, with sixteen candidates, some are going to disagree and there was actually quite a bit of mud slinging amongst them, so the arguing, while annoying, was certainly understandable.

so basically, debates on tv do nothing to promote a candidate ever. what a waste of time if no one asking really gives a fk.

I watched them all and found them helpful in figuring out who they all were and what their stances were--in a limited way. Then the ones that impressed me, I looked up on line and learned more.
I think they're helpful. I don't know why you're so pessimistic about them.

It is the journalist in me I guess because I know how useful they could be, and how the media too often squanders the opportunity to make them that way. These are in no way debates. They are Q&A's more often intended to exact a 'television moment' sound bite that can be used again and again rather than they are intended to be informative.

Good for you that you learn something. I don't believe I have been much informed in anything I didn't already know about the candidates.

if she actually learns something from one minute of blah, blah, blah, she is a blah!!!

 

[LeeOnLido]

I heard Rawlings is shipping softballs to each station.

when Cortez runs, i think she will be given the chance to change her diaper if she got the runs.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The 2019 Democrat candidate debates will be the biggest televised freak-show since the Paul Wellstone Memorial.

 

[Foxfyre]

The MSM was perfectly fair to the 16 candidates running for president on the Republican ticket! The problem was there were too many of them--no one had time to answer any of those questions with more than a sound byte. I think the Democrats already have too many candidates and before the debates, I hope it's down to no more than half a dozen.

If you go back and carefully listen to those debates, almost all of the questions asked the Republicans had a 'gotcha' component to them. They did NOT do that to the Democrats.

Even Fox News, via Megyn Kelly, did that first rattle out of the box with President Trump and she and Bret Baird did more 'gotcha questions' or encouraged confrontation between the candidates than they encouraged the candidates to actually express their opinions about real issues. The Democrats refused to accept a debate hosted by Fox News so we don't know how they would have addressed that debate.

I do remember Kelly's 'gotcha question' to Trump--no question there.
I don't remember ANY others to the other candidates, though.
I heard lots of opinions about "real issues" but yeah, with sixteen candidates, some are going to disagree and there was actually quite a bit of mud slinging amongst them, so the arguing, while annoying, was certainly understandable.

so basically, debates on tv do nothing to promote a candidate ever. what a waste of time if no one asking really gives a fk.

You got it. When the debate is designed to make a particular candidate look good, that candidate won't be challenged on much of anything. You won't learn a damn thing about what he/she really believes or intends about anything specific.

Otherwise they are all designed and calculated to create Jerry Springer type food fights that the MSM thinks is good television and boosts their ratings, and they don't give a damn who gets unfairly hurt or whether nobody learns anything they need to know to choose a candidate. Sometimes the one who looks best on television and/or is the most likable might benefit a bit, but that does nothing to improve the caliber of leadership that we vote into office.

President Trump's rallies, all attended by tens of thousands, are far more informative most especially when he does state specifics and has demonstrated reliable follow through on those specifics to the best of his ability. He is the first person elected to high office in a very long time that actually intends to do what he says he will do without any ulterior self-serving motives or hidden agenda. Whatever anybody thinks about the man personally, I find that very refreshing and reassuring.

there you go, that is the solution. no debate, each candidate appears alone for one hour and fields questions from each of the opposition candidates. Let's hear what they really want to say. to limit answers to one minute is stupid and insulting.

Yes the Q&A format usually intended to get a good sound bite for later or encourage a food fight is not useful in helping us to know the candidates or their full position on much of anything.

I don't want the other candidates to question somebody though because that is too easy to dissolve into an insult fest or have a candidate so on the defensive he/she has no time to promote his/her ideas for how to govern and work for the country.

I say ask every candidate the same question in the exact same way without any editorializing from the questioner with a three minute limit for each response to prevent filibustering. The candidates would have the list in advance so as to be able to prepare and get as much information into the allotted time as they could. If there are a lot of candidates, they might have to have more than one session to get them all in.

1. Are you for lower or higher taxes or keeping them the same and please explain why and how. What would you specifically do differently, if anything, with the economy.

Follow up: Do you favor a free market captalist system as much as possible or do you favor more regulation or a more socialist approach?

3. Are you for increasing border security, keeping it the same, or reducing it and please explain why and how.

Follow up: Are you for or against a southern border fence/barrier where it makes sense and is this consistent with your former positions on this?

4. What is your position on immigration reform? Leave it as it is? Or please provide a short list of what would make it better.

5. What is your position on Palestine and Israel an please explain if you do or do not support a two-state solution.

6. What should be the U.S. position on arms control and addressing nuclear capabilities in North Korea and Iran or otherwise being involved in international conflicts and having overseas military presence?

6. What is your position on foreign trade. Would you keep or amend or do away with existing trade agreements? What if anything would you do differently?

7. What is your position on gun control? Do you support existing laws, would you eliminate any existing laws, add to existing laws?

8. What should the federal government's position be on abortion? None at all? Limited due to extreme circumstances? First trimester? Second trimester? Late term/full term?

9. What is your position on healthcare? Medicare for all? Privatize? Regulate? Deregulate? Tort reform? Or something in between?

10. What do you most hope to accomplish as President of the United States?

Later on the media could follow up any given answer with how the candidate contradicted himself/herself based on other statement he/she has made or point that that this has been the candidate's consistent position or whatever. At any rate, we would hear the candidate's position worded as he/she chooses to word it in his/her own words.

 

[Rambunctious]

The MSM has died....they will never garner the respect they once had...when people have to go outside of our borders to get the truth its bad.....fire all of them and start all over again....new blood in Americas newsrooms is a must....

 

[iceberg]

The debates in 2016 for the Dems and the Republicans were reasonable, I thought.
You guys still sore that no one asked Hillary why she murdered Seth Rich?

not at all. but i do think it's bullshit she got the questions ahead of time.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't expect the MSM will be nearly as confrontational and accusatory or focus on the 'sins' of Democrats as they do with Republicans. So we might actually be able to hear some of the positions of the candidates on actual issues instead of 90+ percent of it being focused on controversial or negative stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with how they will govern.

I don't expect the Democrats to agree to a debate hosted by Fox News.

I don't expect the MSM to be as fair or focus on actual issues important to the country with the Republicans any more than they did last time.

there is but one question and it is never answered. where does the funding come from?

Well they do answer it sometimes. And the answer is always more taxes on carbon, the rich, corporations, etc.

then the follow up should be, that hasn't worked in the past why will it work for you?

In my opinion, being that vague makes it a poison pill question. The correct question would be that corporations expanded and increased hiring, salaries, and benefits, and put capital back into the economy when taxes and regulation were reduced for them in 2017. The rich have returned their capital to the USA which has helped the economy prosper. Why wouldn't your plan to increase have an adverse affect on that?

well that is what I meant without all of that extra wording. Under obammy 2% growth, under trump 3% growth, why do you think your changes will improve trump's number? or do you wish 2% growth? I don't know too many questions that no one is asking. All the MSM wants to do is

Understood and we're pretty close to being on the same page here I think. But I think even bringing President Obama and/or President Trump into it is just begging for mud slinging.

 

[LeeOnLido]

Mr Blooker, when you fart, does it make a sound?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Mr Blooker, when you fart, does it make a sound?