CDZ How About a Debate Moderated By Rush Limbaugh ?

[protectionist]

The slanted moderating of presidential debates up to now, really calls for there to be debates moderated by conservatives. It started with Jake Tapper who instead of asking each of the Republican primary candidates to express their views, he tried to get them all to fight with one another (which could only benefit the Democratic candidate)

No we've had Lester Holt showing off his leftist bias by asking Trump to explain how he would create jobs, when Trump had already answered the question. Holt also bogged the debate down with anti-trump stuff, like talking about Obama's birth certificate, cornering Trump, instead of talking about critically important things like the ISIS Trojan Horse, and the $133 Billion/year the Us is being robbed of in remittances$$

Now the next debate (October 9) has Holt scheduled again with another liberal moderator, Anderson Cooper of CNN. How about having some conservative moderators ? How about Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Lou Dobbs, or Sean Hannity ?

And how about having another debate with THESE moderators, right after the Commission on Presidential Debates debate is concluded ? Then let's see Hillary be targeted as Trump is, and let's see Hillary coward out, when she knows they won't let her slide.

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[Indeependent]

I would only accept Michael Savage.
Limbaugh is an opportunistic Globalist.

 

[tyroneweaver]

I would have Indeependent be the moderator. But he has to bring his Avatar with him.

 

[Grandma]

It doesn't matter who moderates or what they ask, Trump can't/won't answer the questions.

*sniffle*

 

[Camp]

Moderators have traditionally been established and working journalist. Pundits like the ones you have named are not journalists and do not adhere to journalist standards. As pundits, they are not expected to adhere to the ethics a journalist is expected to follow.

 

[MarathonMike]

Journalist standards? Oh I get it, you are being sarcastic. You had me going there, good one.

 

[Pogo]

How About a Debate Moderated By Rush Limbaugh ?

How about a defensive driving course from Evel Knievel?

How about a dietary plan from Michael Moore?

How about singing lessons from WIlliam Hung?

The world's thinnest books....

 

[Pogo]

Holt also bogged the debate down with anti-trump stuff, like talking about Obama's birth certificate, cornering Trump,

Imagine. The meanie, taking Rump to task for stuff he actually did and said. It's just not fair.

Did you notice Rump never did answer the question?

 

[Pogo]

Moderators have traditionally been established and working journalist. Pundits like the ones you have named are not journalists and do not adhere to journalist standards. As pundits, they are not expected to adhere to the ethics a journalist is expected to follow.

Zackly. Not one of the talking heads the OP named has ever been within smelling distance of a journalist. He just wants to stack the deck.

 

[Toronado3800]

A debate with Rush I dunno....he's too loud and bad for America like Al Bundy and Homer Simpson are.

Now I would say a half hour "interview" of each candidate by the other or a person of the other's choice would be interesting.

No screaming theatrics. People on message boards are rude and loud and eneducated enough already. We don't wanna make Rush, Archie, Al or Homer look cool.

 

[oldsoul]

Holt also bogged the debate down with anti-trump stuff, like talking about Obama's birth certificate, cornering Trump,

Imagine. The meanie, taking Rump to task for stuff he actually did and said. It's just not fair.

Did you notice Rump never did answer the question?

Exactly how many times was Trump taken to task versus how many times Clinton was taken to task? 'Nuff said? Now, to be fair, I only could stomach about 15 minutes of the "debate" and have little further information on what happened (don't care, neither will get my vote anyway). My bet is that Trump was "taken to task" more times than Clinton. You are welcome to prove me wrong though.

 

[Pogo]

Holt also bogged the debate down with anti-trump stuff, like talking about Obama's birth certificate, cornering Trump,

Imagine. The meanie, taking Rump to task for stuff he actually did and said. It's just not fair.

Did you notice Rump never did answer the question?

Exactly how many times was Trump taken to task versus how many times Clinton was taken to task? 'Nuff said? Now, to be fair, I only could stomach about 15 minutes of the "debate" and have little further information on what happened (don't care, neither will get my vote anyway). My bet is that Trump was "taken to task" more times than Clinton. You are welcome to prove me wrong though.

Don't know, don't care, and frankly anyone who sits and composes a tally of shit like that needs a life.

I did see about two-thirds of it though, since I couldn't find a good ball game or a rerun of "F Troop". I saw Rump several times outright deny reality --- the classic example being his flip-flop on the Iraq war; when he was asked about that he just flat denied it happened, even after the whole world has already seen and heard the recorded evidence, even after Matt Lauer got taken to the woodshed specifically for NOT calling that same denial of reality out very recently when he tried the same outright-denial ploy

You can answer the question however you see fit... you can dodge the question altogether (saw a lot of that too, e.g. the Birferism question he never answered). But you can't interrupt the question denying the very premise because you regret what's already on the record and want to dictate your own do-over. Can't do it. So yeah he got taken to task for that. ANYONE who stands there and denies what's already on the record HAS TO be.

Rump seems to think when he does or says something that doesn't work or backfires, all he has to do is deny it ever happened --- even though there's already ample evidence on audio, on video, or in court. He lives entirely in a world of self-delusion. That's a YUGE problem. That's a mental illness. That alone makes him unfit to be in charge of anything.

• "I was the CEO but I wasn't in charge"....
• "I only licensed my name".....
• "I never went bankrupt, I took advantage of the laws"....
• "I was being 'sarcastic'".......
• "I wasn't mocking his disability"....
• "only Rosie O'Donnell"......
• "I never said that" (multitudinous times) .....

on and on and on. Complete inability to ever take any kind of responsibility for anything, ever.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Complete sham. Psychological development arrested around age seven. He wants to go "that didn't count because I had my fingers crossed behind my back" --- holy shit grow the fuck UP.

When you stand there and deny stuff that everybody already knows, and everybody has already seen ---- how can you NOT get called on it?

 

[oldsoul]

Holt also bogged the debate down with anti-trump stuff, like talking about Obama's birth certificate, cornering Trump,

Imagine. The meanie, taking Rump to task for stuff he actually did and said. It's just not fair.

Did you notice Rump never did answer the question?

Exactly how many times was Trump taken to task versus how many times Clinton was taken to task? 'Nuff said? Now, to be fair, I only could stomach about 15 minutes of the "debate" and have little further information on what happened (don't care, neither will get my vote anyway). My bet is that Trump was "taken to task" more times than Clinton. You are welcome to prove me wrong though.

Don't know, don't care, and frankly anyone who sits and composes a tally of shit like that needs a life.

I did see about two-thirds of it though, since I couldn't find a good ball game or a rerun of "F Troop". I saw Rump several times outright deny reality --- the classic example being his flip-flop on the Iraq war; when he was asked about that he just flat denied it happened, even after the whole world has already seen and heard the recorded evidence, even after Matt Lauer got taken to the woodshed specifically for NOT calling that same denial of reality out very recently when he tried the same outright-denial ploy

You can answer the question however you see fit... you can dodge the question altogether (saw a lot of that too, e.g. the Birferism question he never answered). But you can't interrupt the question denying the very premise because you regret what's already on the record and want to dictate your own do-over. Can't do it. So yeah he got taken to task for that. ANYONE who stands there and denies what's already on the record HAS TO be.

Rump seems to think when he does or says something that doesn't work or backfires, all he has to do is deny it ever happened --- even though there's already ample evidence on audio, on video, or in court. He lives entirely in a world of self-delusion. That's a YUGE problem. That's a mental illness. That alone makes him unfit to be in charge of anything.

• "I was the CEO but I wasn't in charge"....
• "I only licensed my name".....
• "I never went bankrupt, I took advantage of the laws"....
• "I was being 'sarcastic'".......
• "I wasn't mocking his disability"....
• "only Rosie O'Donnell"......
• "I never said that" (multitudinous times) .....

on and on and on. Complete inability to ever take any kind of responsibility for anything, ever.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Complete sham. Psychological development arrested around age seven. He wants to go "that didn't count because I had my fingers crossed behind my back" --- holy shit grow the fuck UP.

When you stand there and deny stuff that everybody already knows, and everybody has already seen ---- how can you NOT get called on it?

And yet, I doubt Clinton was called out on ANYTHING. I rest my case.

 

[Pogo]

Holt also bogged the debate down with anti-trump stuff, like talking about Obama's birth certificate, cornering Trump,

Imagine. The meanie, taking Rump to task for stuff he actually did and said. It's just not fair.

Did you notice Rump never did answer the question?

Exactly how many times was Trump taken to task versus how many times Clinton was taken to task? 'Nuff said? Now, to be fair, I only could stomach about 15 minutes of the "debate" and have little further information on what happened (don't care, neither will get my vote anyway). My bet is that Trump was "taken to task" more times than Clinton. You are welcome to prove me wrong though.

Don't know, don't care, and frankly anyone who sits and composes a tally of shit like that needs a life.

I did see about two-thirds of it though, since I couldn't find a good ball game or a rerun of "F Troop". I saw Rump several times outright deny reality --- the classic example being his flip-flop on the Iraq war; when he was asked about that he just flat denied it happened, even after the whole world has already seen and heard the recorded evidence, even after Matt Lauer got taken to the woodshed specifically for NOT calling that same denial of reality out very recently when he tried the same outright-denial ploy

You can answer the question however you see fit... you can dodge the question altogether (saw a lot of that too, e.g. the Birferism question he never answered). But you can't interrupt the question denying the very premise because you regret what's already on the record and want to dictate your own do-over. Can't do it. So yeah he got taken to task for that. ANYONE who stands there and denies what's already on the record HAS TO be.

Rump seems to think when he does or says something that doesn't work or backfires, all he has to do is deny it ever happened --- even though there's already ample evidence on audio, on video, or in court. He lives entirely in a world of self-delusion. That's a YUGE problem. That's a mental illness. That alone makes him unfit to be in charge of anything.

• "I was the CEO but I wasn't in charge"....
• "I only licensed my name".....
• "I never went bankrupt, I took advantage of the laws"....
• "I was being 'sarcastic'".......
• "I wasn't mocking his disability"....
• "only Rosie O'Donnell"......
• "I never said that" (multitudinous times) .....

on and on and on. Complete inability to ever take any kind of responsibility for anything, ever.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Complete sham. Psychological development arrested around age seven. He wants to go "that didn't count because I had my fingers crossed behind my back" --- holy shit grow the fuck UP.

When you stand there and deny stuff that everybody already knows, and everybody has already seen ---- how can you NOT get called on it?

And yet, I doubt Clinton was called out on ANYTHING. I rest my case.

Perhaps she didn't stand there and deny realities. Ya think?? Normal people don't do that. You don't walk into a busy street and go "that truck isn't going to hit me because I deny it's coming at me". Won't work.

You didn't make a "case" --- you just said you didn't watch it, and then speculated "I doubt that"..
That's not a "case". That's a "hunch".

 

[oldsoul]

Holt also bogged the debate down with anti-trump stuff, like talking about Obama's birth certificate, cornering Trump,

Imagine. The meanie, taking Rump to task for stuff he actually did and said. It's just not fair.

Did you notice Rump never did answer the question?

Exactly how many times was Trump taken to task versus how many times Clinton was taken to task? 'Nuff said? Now, to be fair, I only could stomach about 15 minutes of the "debate" and have little further information on what happened (don't care, neither will get my vote anyway). My bet is that Trump was "taken to task" more times than Clinton. You are welcome to prove me wrong though.

Don't know, don't care, and frankly anyone who sits and composes a tally of shit like that needs a life.

I did see about two-thirds of it though, since I couldn't find a good ball game or a rerun of "F Troop". I saw Rump several times outright deny reality --- the classic example being his flip-flop on the Iraq war; when he was asked about that he just flat denied it happened, even after the whole world has already seen and heard the recorded evidence, even after Matt Lauer got taken to the woodshed specifically for NOT calling that same denial of reality out very recently when he tried the same outright-denial ploy

You can answer the question however you see fit... you can dodge the question altogether (saw a lot of that too, e.g. the Birferism question he never answered). But you can't interrupt the question denying the very premise because you regret what's already on the record and want to dictate your own do-over. Can't do it. So yeah he got taken to task for that. ANYONE who stands there and denies what's already on the record HAS TO be.

Rump seems to think when he does or says something that doesn't work or backfires, all he has to do is deny it ever happened --- even though there's already ample evidence on audio, on video, or in court. He lives entirely in a world of self-delusion. That's a YUGE problem. That's a mental illness. That alone makes him unfit to be in charge of anything.

• "I was the CEO but I wasn't in charge"....
• "I only licensed my name".....
• "I never went bankrupt, I took advantage of the laws"....
• "I was being 'sarcastic'".......
• "I wasn't mocking his disability"....
• "only Rosie O'Donnell"......
• "I never said that" (multitudinous times) .....

on and on and on. Complete inability to ever take any kind of responsibility for anything, ever.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Complete sham. Psychological development arrested around age seven. He wants to go "that didn't count because I had my fingers crossed behind my back" --- holy shit grow the fuck UP.

When you stand there and deny stuff that everybody already knows, and everybody has already seen ---- how can you NOT get called on it?

And yet, I doubt Clinton was called out on ANYTHING. I rest my case.

Perhaps she didn't stand there and deny realities. Ya think?? Normal people don't do that. You don't walk into a busy street and go "that truck isn't going to hit me because I deny it's coming at me". Won't work.

You didn't make a "case" --- you just said you didn't watch it, and then speculated "I doubt that"..
That's not a "case". That's a "hunch".

Kinda like she doesn't deny the reality that her handling of oh so many scandals makes her look like she is hiding something, right? She's not hiding anything, right? That's why she's been oh so cooperative and forth coming in ALL investigations, right? Wake up, the reality here is BOTH of these two buffoons are unfit for the oval office.

 

[GaryDog]

Holt also bogged the debate down with anti-trump stuff, like talking about Obama's birth certificate, cornering Trump,

Imagine. The meanie, taking Rump to task for stuff he actually did and said. It's just not fair.

Did you notice Rump never did answer the question?

Exactly how many times was Trump taken to task versus how many times Clinton was taken to task? 'Nuff said? Now, to be fair, I only could stomach about 15 minutes of the "debate" and have little further information on what happened (don't care, neither will get my vote anyway). My bet is that Trump was "taken to task" more times than Clinton. You are welcome to prove me wrong though.

So you're jumping in with your 2 cents in regard to something you know nothing about? What else is new?

 

[GaryDog]

Imagine. The meanie, taking Rump to task for stuff he actually did and said. It's just not fair.

Did you notice Rump never did answer the question?

Exactly how many times was Trump taken to task versus how many times Clinton was taken to task? 'Nuff said? Now, to be fair, I only could stomach about 15 minutes of the "debate" and have little further information on what happened (don't care, neither will get my vote anyway). My bet is that Trump was "taken to task" more times than Clinton. You are welcome to prove me wrong though.

Don't know, don't care, and frankly anyone who sits and composes a tally of shit like that needs a life.

I did see about two-thirds of it though, since I couldn't find a good ball game or a rerun of "F Troop". I saw Rump several times outright deny reality --- the classic example being his flip-flop on the Iraq war; when he was asked about that he just flat denied it happened, even after the whole world has already seen and heard the recorded evidence, even after Matt Lauer got taken to the woodshed specifically for NOT calling that same denial of reality out very recently when he tried the same outright-denial ploy

You can answer the question however you see fit... you can dodge the question altogether (saw a lot of that too, e.g. the Birferism question he never answered). But you can't interrupt the question denying the very premise because you regret what's already on the record and want to dictate your own do-over. Can't do it. So yeah he got taken to task for that. ANYONE who stands there and denies what's already on the record HAS TO be.

Rump seems to think when he does or says something that doesn't work or backfires, all he has to do is deny it ever happened --- even though there's already ample evidence on audio, on video, or in court. He lives entirely in a world of self-delusion. That's a YUGE problem. That's a mental illness. That alone makes him unfit to be in charge of anything.

• "I was the CEO but I wasn't in charge"....
• "I only licensed my name".....
• "I never went bankrupt, I took advantage of the laws"....
• "I was being 'sarcastic'".......
• "I wasn't mocking his disability"....
• "only Rosie O'Donnell"......
• "I never said that" (multitudinous times) .....

on and on and on. Complete inability to ever take any kind of responsibility for anything, ever.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Complete sham. Psychological development arrested around age seven. He wants to go "that didn't count because I had my fingers crossed behind my back" --- holy shit grow the fuck UP.

When you stand there and deny stuff that everybody already knows, and everybody has already seen ---- how can you NOT get called on it?

And yet, I doubt Clinton was called out on ANYTHING. I rest my case.

Perhaps she didn't stand there and deny realities. Ya think?? Normal people don't do that. You don't walk into a busy street and go "that truck isn't going to hit me because I deny it's coming at me". Won't work.

You didn't make a "case" --- you just said you didn't watch it, and then speculated "I doubt that"..
That's not a "case". That's a "hunch".

Kinda like she doesn't deny the reality that her handling of oh so many scandals makes her look like she is hiding something, right? She's not hiding anything, right? That's why she's been oh so cooperative and forth coming in ALL investigations, right? Wake up, the reality here is BOTH of these two buffoons are unfit for the oval office.

False equivalency. Hillary is more or less a traditional politician with her heart in the right place, and a great resume. But she has uneasy relationship with the truth. Trump is unfit for any political leadership role, and may have a severe mental illness. He has no resume, and believes dishonesty is a virtue.

 

[protectionist]

No response. 10-4. message received.

 

[protectionist]

I would only accept Michael Savage.
Limbaugh is an opportunistic Globalist.

Source ?