Trump tells Lester Holt: Don’t fact-check debates

[jwoodie]

When you revert to partisanshithead crap like "left wing fascist", you clearly have no desire for an open discussion.

How else would you describe those who try to prevent others from speaking (e.g., at college campuses)? Do they/you have a desire for open discussion?

 

[Uncensored2008]

if a moderator know that an obvious lie has been said, then he or she should call the candidate out on it. period. if they can't do that, then they should at the very least ask follow up questions 9which they do already) & have the candidate 'expand' on the lie, so they can dig an even deeper hole.

Yet Candy Crowley openly and outrageously lied on behalf of Obama, throwing the debate.

Moderators need to stay out of the debate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who objects to fact checking in the debate is not a person to listen to about integrity.

Make the participants toe the line, period.

If either blows up and walks out, that person will lose the election.

They will have to take it and like it.

 

[Fenton Lum]

When you revert to partisanshithead crap like "left wing fascist", you clearly have no desire for an open discussion.

How else would you describe those who try to prevent others from speaking (e.g., at college campuses)? Do they/you have a desire for open discussion?

You think it's all on "one" side bub, that's my issue with you.

 

[Fenton Lum]

if a moderator know that an obvious lie has been said, then he or she should call the candidate out on it. period. if they can't do that, then they should at the very least ask follow up questions 9which they do already) & have the candidate 'expand' on the lie, so they can dig an even deeper hole.

Yet Candy Crowley openly and outrageously lied on behalf of Obama, throwing the debate.

Moderators need to stay out of the debate.

Then clearly she was outted, right? Everyone knows? Right?

 

[jwoodie]

Unacceptable responses get a follow-up question

"Unacceptable" to whom? Hillary-supporting "journalists?"

 

[Uncensored2008]

if a moderator know that an obvious lie has been said, then he or she should call the candidate out on it. period. if they can't do that, then they should at the very least ask follow up questions 9which they do already) & have the candidate 'expand' on the lie, so they can dig an even deeper hole.

Yet Candy Crowley openly and outrageously lied on behalf of Obama, throwing the debate.

Moderators need to stay out of the debate.

Then clearly she was outted, right? Everyone knows? Right?

It won't stop the left. With Hillary trailing Trump, they are desperate at this point.

 

[JoeMoma]

Follow up questions are fine, but don't turn the follow up question into an "are you still beating your wife" question? Let the fact checkers do so after the debate. Just make sure there is someone fact checking the fact checkers.

 

[Fenton Lum]

if a moderator know that an obvious lie has been said, then he or she should call the candidate out on it. period. if they can't do that, then they should at the very least ask follow up questions 9which they do already) & have the candidate 'expand' on the lie, so they can dig an even deeper hole.

Yet Candy Crowley openly and outrageously lied on behalf of Obama, throwing the debate.

Moderators need to stay out of the debate.

Then clearly she was outted, right? Everyone knows? Right?

It won't stop the left. With Hillary trailing Trump, they are desperate at this point.

The point is the american public given all the daylight possible can decide. I don't subscribe to your partisanshit.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The debaters should call each other out on any lies. Prove the liar wrong.

 

[jwoodie]

You think it's all on "one" side bub, that's my issue with you.

The vast majority of these actions come from the Left, and you know it. So why pretend otherwise?

 

[Fenton Lum]

Follow up questions are fine, but don't turn the follow up question into an "are you still beating your wife" question? Let the fact checkers do so after the debate. Just make sure there is someone fact checking the fact checkers.

And then we can all have our own "fact checkers" camp. We got that already, that's a big part of the problem.

 

[JoeMoma]

The debaters should call each other out on any lies. Prove the liar wrong.

I think I might take up rock climbing.

 

[Fenton Lum]

You think it's all on "one" side bub, that's my issue with you.

The vast majority of these actions come from the Left, and you know it. So why pretend otherwise?

Like I said, I just can't get sucked into your disease, pass.

 

[Leah]

if a moderator know that an obvious lie has been said, then he or she should call the candidate out on it. period. if they can't do that, then they should at the very least ask follow up questions 9which they do already) & have the candidate 'expand' on the lie, so they can dig an even deeper hole.

Followup questions are appropriate for clarification, but moderators should not contradict a candidate with their own opinions or beliefs, which may themselves be factually inaccurate. Did you see the recent episode of Jeopardy! where the guest MSM talking heads couldn't answer simple questions about politics and government? Candy Crowley isn't the only self-assured idiot "journalist" out there.

The moderator asks a question and listens to the response

Unacceptable responses get a follow-up question. Responses that avoid the question or contain distortions or outright lies deserve a follow-up

If a response is off-topic or unclear, a follow-up is helpful.
If a response contains distortion or falsehood, I believe it is the opponent's responsibility to point that out for the audience, not the moderator's.
Fact-check and/or commentary AFTER the debate is fine.

 

[jwoodie]

Make the participants toe the line, period.

Who should do this? Candy Crowley or some other partisan dimwit?

 

[OldLady]

Unacceptable responses get a follow-up question

"Unacceptable" to whom? Hillary-supporting "journalists?"

A lie, or if you prefer, an inaccurate statement, is not acceptable to anyone. To whine that Trump is spouting "inaccuracies" 70% of the time is not due to political leanings. It's because he doesn't know or care that he's not telling the truth!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Unacceptable responses get a follow-up question

"Unacceptable" to whom? Hillary-supporting "journalists?"

A lie, or if you prefer, an inaccurate statement, is not acceptable to anyone. To whine that Trump is spouting "inaccuracies" 70% of the time is not due to political leanings. It's because he doesn't know or care that he's not telling the truth!

Lester will call either of them out.

Both campaigns have been notified.

If Donald backs out, you know why.

 

[jwoodie]

Unacceptable responses get a follow-up question

"Unacceptable" to whom? Hillary-supporting "journalists?"

A lie, or if you prefer, an inaccurate statement, is not acceptable to anyone. To whine that Trump is spouting "inaccuracies" 70% of the time is not due to political leanings. It's because he doesn't know or care that he's not telling the truth!

Hillary spouts "inaccuracies" 100% of the time, but that doesn't seem to bother you. Why is that?

 

[Fenton Lum]

Make the participants toe the line, period.

Who should do this? Candy Crowley or some other partisan dimwit?

Not everyone is a partisan dimwit like you are.