Breaking: NBC Anchor Lester Holt Just Announced The Topics For First Presidential Debate

[Spare_change]

I was hoping for additional topics like “medical records and personal health”


NBC anchor Lester Holt just announced the topics for the first presidential debate

1. Why we love Hillary
2. Why Hillary is so great
3. Why Hillary is qualified to be president
4. Why Hillary is the only chance for the nation
5. Why email doesn't matter

Well, at least they're less biased than in 2012....

6. Why Hillary did the right thing wit Benghazi.
7. Why Hillary should be allowed to sell access to Clinton Foundation donors
8. Why Hillary represents the modern woman when she takes money from dictatorships that subjugate women.
9. Why Hillary's approach to gun control will make us safer.
10. Why Hillary should be commended for allowing potential terrorists into our country without vetting.


.... notice we let her off the hook on Whitewater, Travelgate, and all the other stuff.

 

[occupied]

The questions are going to be far less general than the subjects, I hope. The problem occurs when a candidate lacks the knowledge to answer and diverts to personal attacks and name calling. This is where the moderator should step in. If he doesn't, then the other candidate's rebuttal will follow suit and it will continue through the debate.

I disagree ... if the candidate wants to diverge ... let her.

The people will decide.

It's not the moderator's job to dictate the information they want fed to the American people. Give the moderator a stopwatch and a pointer - and tell him to shut up.

It actually is the moderator's job to keep things on topic, perhaps you are not familiar with the time honored format of a formal political debate. The rules of order are there for the sake of the audience/voters, not the candidates. Any well reasoned position can be successfully argued in a debate format, unfortunately for Trump the rules of debate quickly show when someone is not arguing a well reasoned position.

As a matter of fact, I AM familiar with the "time honored format of a formal political debate".

For instance, I am familiar with the fact that presidential debates were NOT moderated until 1960 - hardly a "time honored" approach.

The "rules" for debate allow the moderator to decide when something the candidate says is out of bounds. Of course, this can, and is, regularly abused. (See Candy Crowley's disgraceful actions - or, perhaps, Becky Quick, Carl Quintanilla, or Matt Lauer). It's as simple as tilting the wording of a particular question (ask Quintanilla) or injecting your own opinion into the discussion (ask Candy Crowley) or making false accusations in the form of a question (ask Quick), or simple incompetence (ask Lauer).

The real "time honored" format is to allow each candidate to make an opening statement, and then allow candidates to ask their opposition questions. It worked for Lincoln-Douglass - Clinton really shouldn't need to be fed softball questions by the liberal press.

Well then all Trump has to do is refuse to participate if he does not like the rules. Why the hell should we change how things have been done for a while now because we have one candidate who is unable to stand the heat of defending his policies on their merits?

And just exactly where did you see Trump refusing to participate??

The question was about what I prefer - not what he prefers

The only reason this topic exists is that Trump is already laying the groundwork to wimp out of the debates. I predict he will participate in exactly one and then cancel all the rest and bitch about them not being fair because he cannot just attack Clinton full time instead of giving substantive answers about his policies. Trump simply refuses to go on the defensive because he knows he sucks at it.

 

[Spare_change]

I disagree ... if the candidate wants to diverge ... let her.

The people will decide.

It's not the moderator's job to dictate the information they want fed to the American people. Give the moderator a stopwatch and a pointer - and tell him to shut up.

It actually is the moderator's job to keep things on topic, perhaps you are not familiar with the time honored format of a formal political debate. The rules of order are there for the sake of the audience/voters, not the candidates. Any well reasoned position can be successfully argued in a debate format, unfortunately for Trump the rules of debate quickly show when someone is not arguing a well reasoned position.

As a matter of fact, I AM familiar with the "time honored format of a formal political debate".

For instance, I am familiar with the fact that presidential debates were NOT moderated until 1960 - hardly a "time honored" approach.

The "rules" for debate allow the moderator to decide when something the candidate says is out of bounds. Of course, this can, and is, regularly abused. (See Candy Crowley's disgraceful actions - or, perhaps, Becky Quick, Carl Quintanilla, or Matt Lauer). It's as simple as tilting the wording of a particular question (ask Quintanilla) or injecting your own opinion into the discussion (ask Candy Crowley) or making false accusations in the form of a question (ask Quick), or simple incompetence (ask Lauer).

The real "time honored" format is to allow each candidate to make an opening statement, and then allow candidates to ask their opposition questions. It worked for Lincoln-Douglass - Clinton really shouldn't need to be fed softball questions by the liberal press.

Well then all Trump has to do is refuse to participate if he does not like the rules. Why the hell should we change how things have been done for a while now because we have one candidate who is unable to stand the heat of defending his policies on their merits?

And just exactly where did you see Trump refusing to participate??

The question was about what I prefer - not what he prefers

The only reason this topic exists is that Trump is already laying the groundwork to wimp out of the debates. I predict he will participate in exactly one and then cancel all the rest and bitch about them not being fair because he cannot just attack Clinton full time instead of giving substantive answers about his policies. Trump simply refuses to go on the defensive because he knows he sucks at it.

So, already you're making excuses for Hillary's meltdown??? The big bad wolf attacked her ....

Just let it play out and we'll see where the chips fall.

 

[occupied]

It actually is the moderator's job to keep things on topic, perhaps you are not familiar with the time honored format of a formal political debate. The rules of order are there for the sake of the audience/voters, not the candidates. Any well reasoned position can be successfully argued in a debate format, unfortunately for Trump the rules of debate quickly show when someone is not arguing a well reasoned position.

As a matter of fact, I AM familiar with the "time honored format of a formal political debate".

For instance, I am familiar with the fact that presidential debates were NOT moderated until 1960 - hardly a "time honored" approach.

The "rules" for debate allow the moderator to decide when something the candidate says is out of bounds. Of course, this can, and is, regularly abused. (See Candy Crowley's disgraceful actions - or, perhaps, Becky Quick, Carl Quintanilla, or Matt Lauer). It's as simple as tilting the wording of a particular question (ask Quintanilla) or injecting your own opinion into the discussion (ask Candy Crowley) or making false accusations in the form of a question (ask Quick), or simple incompetence (ask Lauer).

The real "time honored" format is to allow each candidate to make an opening statement, and then allow candidates to ask their opposition questions. It worked for Lincoln-Douglass - Clinton really shouldn't need to be fed softball questions by the liberal press.

Well then all Trump has to do is refuse to participate if he does not like the rules. Why the hell should we change how things have been done for a while now because we have one candidate who is unable to stand the heat of defending his policies on their merits?

And just exactly where did you see Trump refusing to participate??

The question was about what I prefer - not what he prefers

The only reason this topic exists is that Trump is already laying the groundwork to wimp out of the debates. I predict he will participate in exactly one and then cancel all the rest and bitch about them not being fair because he cannot just attack Clinton full time instead of giving substantive answers about his policies. Trump simply refuses to go on the defensive because he knows he sucks at it.

So, already you're making excuses for Hillary's meltdown??? The big bad wolf attacked her ....

Just let it play out and we'll see where the chips fall.

Clinton is actually quite good in a moderated debate format, Trump knows this too. Her grasp of policy is as good as I have ever seen in anyone. Not necessarily a big fan of those policies but she is pretty good at presenting them because she knows them forward and backwards. Trump's policies are whatever falls out of his mouth in reaction to something and he has no idea how to actually make them happen or if they would even be within his power.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Wonder if it's going to be the young Hillary or the old one?
Some facial recognition software might come in handy....

 

[Uncensored2008]

The only reason this topic exists is that Trump is already laying the groundwork to wimp out of the debates. I predict he will participate in exactly one and then cancel all the rest and bitch about them not being fair because he cannot just attack Clinton full time instead of giving substantive answers about his policies. Trump simply refuses to go on the defensive because he knows he sucks at it.

You know he is going to tear her to shreds over what she has done to American security.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Clinton is actually quite good in a moderated debate format, Trump knows this too. Her grasp of policy is as good as I have ever seen in anyone. Not necessarily a big fan of those policies but she is pretty good at presenting them because she knows them forward and backwards. Trump's policies are whatever falls out of his mouth in reaction to something and he has no idea how to actually make them happen or if they would even be within his power.

Trump ain't Bernie Sanders and won't be fawning over the Deplorable Crook.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Donald loves those topics.

Why don't you be the first to tell us how Trump did in the debate?

Start now.

 

[HenryBHough]

"America's Direction," "Achieving Prosperity," and "Securing America," per a release from the Commission on Presidential Debates.

The debate format calls for six 15-minute time segments, and each of the topics will take up two of the six time slots. The debate will start at 9 p.m. next Monday and will run for 90 minutes without any commercial interruption.

No commercial breaks?

Jeez, Jammie-boi, no potty runs? Remember, that's a catheter tube - not a drinking straw!

 

[Flopper]

Trump is going to find something to bitch about these rather generic topics.

Generic? Are you serious?

Those "generic" subjects are what this election is all about ....

The questions are going to be far less general than the subjects, I hope. The problem occurs when a candidate lacks the knowledge to answer and diverts to personal attacks and name calling. This is where the moderator should step in. If he doesn't, then the other candidate's rebuttal will follow suit and it will continue through the debate.

I disagree ... if the candidate wants to diverge ... let her.

The people will decide.

It's not the moderator's job to dictate the information they want fed to the American people. Give the moderator a stopwatch and a pointer - and tell him to shut up.

I prefer something closer to a real debate, not a side show where the candidates call each names and launch personal attacks against each other, their spouses, and family. I watched some of the Republican primary debates. IMHO as a debate, they were disgraceful. As a farce, they were pretty entertaining.

 

[oreo]

I was hoping for additional topics like “medical records and personal health”


NBC anchor Lester Holt just announced the topics for the first presidential debate

Where you expecting someone to put a treadmill on the stage and the fat man on it to see if he could make a quarter mile--LOL

 

[oreo]

Trump is going to find something to bitch about these rather generic topics.

Generic? Are you serious?

Those "generic" subjects are what this election is all about ....

The questions are going to be far less general than the subjects, I hope. The problem occurs when a candidate lacks the knowledge to answer and diverts to personal attacks and name calling. This is where the moderator should step in. If he doesn't, then the other candidate's rebuttal will follow suit and it will continue through the debate.

I disagree ... if the candidate wants to diverge ... let her.

The people will decide.

It's not the moderator's job to dictate the information they want fed to the American people. Give the moderator a stopwatch and a pointer - and tell him to shut up.

I prefer something closer to a real debate, not a side show where the candidates call each names and launch personal attacks against each other, their spouses, and family. I watched some of the Republican primary debates. IMHO as a debate, they were disgraceful. As a farce, they were pretty entertaining.

You're not going to get that from Trump--LOL. She's going to run him threw a paper shredder. He got away with it in the debates, because there were 16 other candidates he could insult to divert attention. The moderators will be asking him very specific questions, and he'll be expected to give specific answers to those questions. If he does his typical platitude speak, they'll be right back on his ass demanding an answer and when he does, she'll have a minute and 30 seconds to show what a dumbass he really is.

 

[Spare_change]

Trump is going to find something to bitch about these rather generic topics.

Generic? Are you serious?

Those "generic" subjects are what this election is all about ....

The questions are going to be far less general than the subjects, I hope. The problem occurs when a candidate lacks the knowledge to answer and diverts to personal attacks and name calling. This is where the moderator should step in. If he doesn't, then the other candidate's rebuttal will follow suit and it will continue through the debate.

I disagree ... if the candidate wants to diverge ... let her.

The people will decide.

It's not the moderator's job to dictate the information they want fed to the American people. Give the moderator a stopwatch and a pointer - and tell him to shut up.

I prefer something closer to a real debate, not a side show where the candidates call each names and launch personal attacks against each other, their spouses, and family. I watched some of the Republican primary debates. IMHO as a debate, they were disgraceful. As a farce, they were pretty entertaining.

In other words, you want your information sanitized and fed to you like pablum.

They ARE disgraceful - nobody learns anything from them. But, that's because they are structured as "gotcha" exercises, not as a free exchange of ideas. Of course, you would never admit that the Dem debates weren't debates at all, but rather, coronation exercises for the next queen.

 

[Contumacious]

I was hoping for additional topics like “medical records and personal health”


NBC anchor Lester Holt just announced the topics for the first presidential debate

http://www.dailywire.com/news/8866/debate-moderators-released-they-all-lean-left-ben-shapiro#
Lester Holt, a left winger

That’s to be expected, since the media heavily support Hillary. Lester Holt is perceived as more objective than most, but he still leans left in his coverage. During the Democratic National Convention, he described President Obama’s speech thusly: “The roar is deafening here in this arena. President Obama delivering a speech, a powerful arc embracing hope and optimism, a passionate endorsement of Hillary Rodham Clinton and at times an artful takedown of Donald Trump, a call for Americans to participate in democracy.” And here was Holt’s description of Hillary’s big moment in the spotlight at the DNC: “Tonight from Philadelphia, history in the birth place of American democracy.” Holt has also been rather tough in his questioning of Trump during Trump’s attacks on Hillary, and supremely soft on Hillary (question to Hillary months ago: “How will you move the needle on race relations? Is there a moon-shot type strategy?”).

 

[Flopper]

Trump is going to find something to bitch about these rather generic topics.

Generic? Are you serious?

Those "generic" subjects are what this election is all about ....

The questions are going to be far less general than the subjects, I hope. The problem occurs when a candidate lacks the knowledge to answer and diverts to personal attacks and name calling. This is where the moderator should step in. If he doesn't, then the other candidate's rebuttal will follow suit and it will continue through the debate.

I disagree ... if the candidate wants to diverge ... let her.

The people will decide.

It's not the moderator's job to dictate the information they want fed to the American people. Give the moderator a stopwatch and a pointer - and tell him to shut up.

I prefer something closer to a real debate, not a side show where the candidates call each names and launch personal attacks against each other, their spouses, and family. I watched some of the Republican primary debates. IMHO as a debate, they were disgraceful. As a farce, they were pretty entertaining.

You're not going to get that from Trump--LOL. She's going to run him threw a paper shredder. He got away with it in the debates, because there were 16 other candidates he could insult to divert attention. The moderators will be asking him very specific questions, and he'll be expected to give specific answers to those questions. If he does his typical platitude speak, they'll be right back on his ass demanding an answer and when he does, she'll have a minute and 30 seconds to show what a dumbass he really is.

Hopefully, that will occur. I wouldn't count on it. A political debate is probably the only one in the world where the candidates get set the ground rules.

 

[Flopper]

Trump is going to find something to bitch about these rather generic topics.

Generic? Are you serious?

Those "generic" subjects are what this election is all about ....

The questions are going to be far less general than the subjects, I hope. The problem occurs when a candidate lacks the knowledge to answer and diverts to personal attacks and name calling. This is where the moderator should step in. If he doesn't, then the other candidate's rebuttal will follow suit and it will continue through the debate.

I disagree ... if the candidate wants to diverge ... let her.

The people will decide.

It's not the moderator's job to dictate the information they want fed to the American people. Give the moderator a stopwatch and a pointer - and tell him to shut up.

I prefer something closer to a real debate, not a side show where the candidates call each names and launch personal attacks against each other, their spouses, and family. I watched some of the Republican primary debates. IMHO as a debate, they were disgraceful. As a farce, they were pretty entertaining.

In other words, you want your information sanitized and fed to you like pablum.

They ARE disgraceful - nobody learns anything from them. But, that's because they are structured as "gotcha" exercises, not as a free exchange of ideas. Of course, you would never admit that the Dem debates weren't debates at all, but rather, coronation exercises for the next queen.

I just want to hear the candidates explain there position on polices and answer questions without personal attacks and diversions. I see nothing wrong with the moderator chastising the candidates for personal attacks. One of the ground rules should be you can not answer a question or explain your position with insulting remarks directed at the other candidates. The purpose of the debate should be to hear the candidates explain their position and answer questions about their position. We don't need to hear any more of Liar, Liar, Crooked Hillary from Trump or Hillary calling Trump a sexist and racist. We've had plenty of that.

 

[imawhosure]

As a matter of fact, I AM familiar with the "time honored format of a formal political debate".

For instance, I am familiar with the fact that presidential debates were NOT moderated until 1960 - hardly a "time honored" approach.

The "rules" for debate allow the moderator to decide when something the candidate says is out of bounds. Of course, this can, and is, regularly abused. (See Candy Crowley's disgraceful actions - or, perhaps, Becky Quick, Carl Quintanilla, or Matt Lauer). It's as simple as tilting the wording of a particular question (ask Quintanilla) or injecting your own opinion into the discussion (ask Candy Crowley) or making false accusations in the form of a question (ask Quick), or simple incompetence (ask Lauer).

The real "time honored" format is to allow each candidate to make an opening statement, and then allow candidates to ask their opposition questions. It worked for Lincoln-Douglass - Clinton really shouldn't need to be fed softball questions by the liberal press.

Well then all Trump has to do is refuse to participate if he does not like the rules. Why the hell should we change how things have been done for a while now because we have one candidate who is unable to stand the heat of defending his policies on their merits?

And just exactly where did you see Trump refusing to participate??

The question was about what I prefer - not what he prefers

The only reason this topic exists is that Trump is already laying the groundwork to wimp out of the debates. I predict he will participate in exactly one and then cancel all the rest and bitch about them not being fair because he cannot just attack Clinton full time instead of giving substantive answers about his policies. Trump simply refuses to go on the defensive because he knows he sucks at it.

So, already you're making excuses for Hillary's meltdown??? The big bad wolf attacked her ....

Just let it play out and we'll see where the chips fall.

Clinton is actually quite good in a moderated debate format, Trump knows this too. Her grasp of policy is as good as I have ever seen in anyone. Not necessarily a big fan of those policies but she is pretty good at presenting them because she knows them forward and backwards. Trump's policies are whatever falls out of his mouth in reaction to something and he has no idea how to actually make them happen or if they would even be within his power.

Wonder if it's going to be the young Hillary or the old one?
Some facial recognition software might come in handy....

See, I find what Occupied said kinda bassackwards. Here we have a woman with knowledge as he states; and what did she so with that knowledge? Screw everything up, according to almost every poll taken mind you.

If you HAVE the knowledge, then total failure is either because nobody could win it, or because even with the knowledge, you made the wrong decisions. That is all Trump has to point out. A surgeon who continuously goes about operations in a failing manner, is no surgeon that anyone would want to hire, no matter how much knowledge they had. And when the operation is over and a FAILURE, the surgeon lies about the cause of the failure to either the patient, or his/her family. That is EXACTLY a parallel here.

No, here knowledge will not save her, because either she knows these things and screwed them up; or........she purposely wanted some of these outcomes, and now must back track as her superiors (us) don't like what she did. Trump will do fine, because Hillary has little or nothing to point to where she executed the peoples will.

 

[Flopper]

Well then all Trump has to do is refuse to participate if he does not like the rules. Why the hell should we change how things have been done for a while now because we have one candidate who is unable to stand the heat of defending his policies on their merits?

And just exactly where did you see Trump refusing to participate??

The question was about what I prefer - not what he prefers

The only reason this topic exists is that Trump is already laying the groundwork to wimp out of the debates. I predict he will participate in exactly one and then cancel all the rest and bitch about them not being fair because he cannot just attack Clinton full time instead of giving substantive answers about his policies. Trump simply refuses to go on the defensive because he knows he sucks at it.

So, already you're making excuses for Hillary's meltdown??? The big bad wolf attacked her ....

Just let it play out and we'll see where the chips fall.

Clinton is actually quite good in a moderated debate format, Trump knows this too. Her grasp of policy is as good as I have ever seen in anyone. Not necessarily a big fan of those policies but she is pretty good at presenting them because she knows them forward and backwards. Trump's policies are whatever falls out of his mouth in reaction to something and he has no idea how to actually make them happen or if they would even be within his power.

Wonder if it's going to be the young Hillary or the old one?
Some facial recognition software might come in handy....

See, I find what Occupied said kinda bassackwards. Here we have a woman with knowledge as he states; and what did she so with that knowledge? Screw everything up, according to almost every poll taken mind you.

If you HAVE the knowledge, then total failure is either because nobody could win it, or because even with the knowledge, you made the wrong decisions. That is all Trump has to point out. A surgeon who continuously goes about operations in a failing manner, is no surgeon that anyone would want to hire, no matter how much knowledge they had. And when the operation is over and a FAILURE, the surgeon lies about the cause of the failure to either the patient, or his/her family. That is EXACTLY a parallel here.

No, here knowledge will not save her, because either she knows these things and screwed them up; or........she purposely wanted some of these outcomes, and now must back track as her superiors (us) don't like what she did. Trump will do fine, because Hillary has little or nothing to point to where she executed the peoples will.

So you're saying we have a choice between a surgeon that's made mistakes or one that's never been in med school or an operating room. I think I'll chose the one with the education and experience and take my chances.

 

[rdean]

The Donald loves those topics.

Because he knows nothing about them.

 

[Spare_change]

Generic? Are you serious?

Those "generic" subjects are what this election is all about ....

The questions are going to be far less general than the subjects, I hope. The problem occurs when a candidate lacks the knowledge to answer and diverts to personal attacks and name calling. This is where the moderator should step in. If he doesn't, then the other candidate's rebuttal will follow suit and it will continue through the debate.

I disagree ... if the candidate wants to diverge ... let her.

The people will decide.

It's not the moderator's job to dictate the information they want fed to the American people. Give the moderator a stopwatch and a pointer - and tell him to shut up.

I prefer something closer to a real debate, not a side show where the candidates call each names and launch personal attacks against each other, their spouses, and family. I watched some of the Republican primary debates. IMHO as a debate, they were disgraceful. As a farce, they were pretty entertaining.

In other words, you want your information sanitized and fed to you like pablum.

They ARE disgraceful - nobody learns anything from them. But, that's because they are structured as "gotcha" exercises, not as a free exchange of ideas. Of course, you would never admit that the Dem debates weren't debates at all, but rather, coronation exercises for the next queen.

I just want to hear the candidates explain there position on polices and answer questions without personal attacks and diversions. I see nothing wrong with the moderator chastising the candidates for personal attacks. One of the ground rules should be you can not answer a question or explain your position with insulting remarks directed at the other candidates. The purpose of the debate should be to hear the candidates explain their position and answer questions about their position. We don't need to hear any more of Liar, Liar, Crooked Hillary from Trump or Hillary calling Trump a sexist and racist. We've had plenty of that.

How do you propose to differentiate between "personal attacks" and the truth? To point out Hillary as a liar is a truth, not an attack. To point out that Trump is a hothead is a truth, not an attack. The public has a right to know.

Who gets to decide, and based on what criteria?