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

[Spare_change]

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.

That's interesting ---- your "doctor" has killed every patient she's set her hands on ... not sure that's a smart choice.

 

[Flopper]

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?

Why allow any kind of attack at the debate? There is no need for it. We get plenty of that everyday. Why not just a few hours where each candidate explains and defends their policies, answer questions about their background and statements they have made? In other forums and debates, moderators certain know when someone crosses the line and the presidential debate should be no different. The purpose of the debate is not see who can launch the most vile attach on the opposition.

 

[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.

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?

Why allow any kind of attack at the debate? There is no need for it. We get plenty of that everyday. Why not just a few hours where each candidate explains and defends their policies, answer questions about their background and statements they have made? In other forums and debates, moderators certain know when someone crosses the line and the presidential debate should be no different. The purpose of the debate is not see who can launch the most vile attach on the opposition.

Why do you perceive telling the truth to be an attack? The purpose of a debate is to gain an understanding of the people running for the office, their positions on particular issues, and the quality of their character. If you don't want to allow one candidate to talk about the other, why don't you just quit wasting time and have somebody read their position papers from their respective websites?

If you allow one candidate to question the other, you will get to the essence of the individual, as well as recognize the weaknesses in their positions.

A moderator isn't a referee --- they shouldn't, but do, allow their particular political biases to influence the quality of the questions, as well as their response, both verbally and non-verbally, to the responses.

Send them home.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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

and trump is bringing his friends to the debate all in a basketView attachment 90284

The black KKK too?

That picture is hilariously ironic.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[billyerock1991]

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

and trump is bringing his friends to the debate all in a basketView attachment 90284

The black KKK too?

That picture is hilariously ironic.

trump supporters all in one basket Hillary was right

 

[Flopper]

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?

Why allow any kind of attack at the debate? There is no need for it. We get plenty of that everyday. Why not just a few hours where each candidate explains and defends their policies, answer questions about their background and statements they have made? In other forums and debates, moderators certain know when someone crosses the line and the presidential debate should be no different. The purpose of the debate is not see who can launch the most vile attach on the opposition.

Why do you perceive telling the truth to be an attack? The purpose of a debate is to gain an understanding of the people running for the office, their positions on particular issues, and the quality of their character. If you don't want to allow one candidate to talk about the other, why don't you just quit wasting time and have somebody read their position papers from their respective websites?

If you allow one candidate to question the other, you will get to the essence of the individual, as well as recognize the weaknesses in their positions.

A moderator isn't a referee --- they shouldn't, but do, allow their particular political biases to influence the quality of the questions, as well as their response, both verbally and non-verbally, to the responses.

Send them home.

When debating a subject, you should attack and defend principals, actions, and proposals. For example, it the moderator ask Hillary a question about her use of email when Secretary of State, Donald should certainly be able to offer a rebuttal to what she says, as long as the rebuttal is civil with no name calling. If the moderator ask Trump to explain how his background in real estate is applicable to the office of the presidency, Hillary should be able offer a rebuttal to his statements. However, no candidate should be allowed to use fowl language or attack family members.

The only thing you learn about candidates in debates today is how well they trade insults and deflect. We need to get back to the intended purposes of the debates. Take a look at earlier debates, Kennedy vs. Nixon, Johnson vs. Goldwater. You were actually able to determine what candidates knew about the subjects, how they planed to fix problems, and the how practical their plans were. Today, all voters seem to get out of debates is who scored the most punches.