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.
