Chris Wallace: "I don’t view my role as truth-squading" during the debate

[mudwhistle]

Moderator has 2 jobs.

ask the questions, remind candidates of the time.

It is NOT their job to take sides

A computer could literally do that.

Those backing a liar of a candidate will want a moderator who lets lies slip by. Hence, all Trump fans want that.

 

[dannyboys]

Moderator has 2 jobs.

ask the questions, remind candidates of the time.

It is NOT their job to take sides

A computer could literally do that.

Those backing a liar of a candidate will want a moderator who lets lies slip by. Hence, all Trump fans want that.

Those backing an honest candidate will want a moderator who fact checks. Hence, all Clinton fans want that.

Moderators need to be impartial in regards to the truth, not in regards to the candidates. Letting lies pass unopposed is, in effect, giving aid and comfort to the liar, and is not being impartial to the truth.

How you have the nerve to use the words "liar" and "Clinton" in the same post is hilarious.
Not even the most zombie Hillary ass lickers are trying to defend Hillary anymore.

 

[hadit]

Moderator has 2 jobs.

ask the questions, remind candidates of the time.

It is NOT their job to take sides

A computer could literally do that.

Those backing a liar of a candidate will want a moderator who lets lies slip by. Hence, all Trump fans want that.

Those backing an honest candidate will want a moderator who fact checks. Hence, all Clinton fans want that.

Moderators need to be impartial in regards to the truth, not in regards to the candidates. Letting lies pass unopposed is, in effect, giving aid and comfort to the liar, and is not being impartial to the truth.

If that ever happened, Hillary wouldn't get more than two sentences out before the fact checkers would have to interrupt her.

 

[mudwhistle]

Democrats have issues with dishonesty and they prove it by supporting people like Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. None of them would be considered honest by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[martybegan]

Moderator has 2 jobs.

ask the questions, remind candidates of the time.

It is NOT their job to take sides

A computer could literally do that.

Those backing a liar of a candidate will want a moderator who lets lies slip by. Hence, all Trump fans want that.

Those backing an honest candidate will want a moderator who fact checks. Hence, all Clinton fans want that.

Moderators need to be impartial in regards to the truth, not in regards to the candidates. Letting lies pass unopposed is, in effect, giving aid and comfort to the liar, and is not being impartial to the truth.

What about the opposing candidate? Is your trust in Hillary that shallow that she will need rescuing from the Moderators?

 

[martybegan]

Very telling, how proud all the Trump fans are to announce their "Lying is great!" view of things.

The two sides are very different in how they rate honesty. Liberals consider honesty to be important, conservatives consider it to be a liability.

 

[mudwhistle]

Moderator has 2 jobs.

ask the questions, remind candidates of the time.

It is NOT their job to take sides

A computer could literally do that.

Those backing a liar of a candidate will want a moderator who lets lies slip by. Hence, all Trump fans want that.

Those backing an honest candidate will want a moderator who fact checks. Hence, all Clinton fans want that.

Moderators need to be impartial in regards to the truth, not in regards to the candidates. Letting lies pass unopposed is, in effect, giving aid and comfort to the liar, and is not being impartial to the truth.

If that ever happened, Hillary wouldn't get more than two sentences out before the fact checkers would have to interrupt her.

I think during the debate Trump and Hillary should be hooked up to lie detection devices that shock them when they say something that is obviously false. Hillary would be twitching like Michael J. Fox.

 

[mamooth]

What about the opposing candidate? Is your trust in Hillary that shallow that she will need rescuing from the Moderators?

Nice deflection. If I had been caught running cover for dishonest behavior, I'd try to deflect too. But then, you don't find liberals doing that.

Again, the two sides are nothing alike. As this thread has demonstrated so conclusively, conservatives defend dishonesty, while liberals condemn it.

It boils down to the one fundamental conservative "principle", which is "The ends always justify the means for my own side". Lying helps advance the conservative agenda, hence conservatives endorse lying. Conservatives don't possess a single moral that isn't relative, and they hate us liberals for our rejection of their moral relativism. The pure shining light of our absolute truth causes pain to them, much like sunlight burning a vampire, so they lash out at the source of that pain.

 

[mudwhistle]

What about the opposing candidate? Is your trust in Hillary that shallow that she will need rescuing from the Moderators?

Nice deflection. If I had been caught running cover for dishonest behavior, I'd try to deflect too. But then, you don't find liberals doing that.

Again, the two sides are nothing alike. As this thread has demonstrated so conclusively, conservatives defend dishonesty, while liberals condemn it.

It boils down to the one fundamental conservative "principle", which is "The ends always justify the means for my own side". Lying helps advance the conservative agenda, hence conservatives endorse lying. Conservatives don't possess a single moral that isn't relative, and they hate us liberals for our rejection of their moral relativism. The pure shining light of our absolute truth causes pain to them, much like sunlight burning a vampire, so they lash out at the source of that pain.

The difference is we get rid of our liars. You guys defend your's for decades....even reward them for getting away with it.

Thus you support Hillary.

 

[martybegan]

What about the opposing candidate? Is your trust in Hillary that shallow that she will need rescuing from the Moderators?

Nice deflection. If I had been caught running cover for dishonest behavior, I'd try to deflect too. But then, you don't find liberals doing that.

Again, the two sides are nothing alike. As this thread has demonstrated so conclusively, conservatives defend dishonesty, while liberals condemn it.

It boils down to the one fundamental conservative "principle", which is "The ends always justify the means for my own side". Lying helps advance the conservative agenda, hence conservatives endorse lying. Conservatives don't possess a single moral that isn't relative, and they hate us liberals for our rejection of their moral relativism. The pure shining light of our absolute truth causes pain to them, much like sunlight burning a vampire, so they lash out at the source of that pain.

What deflection? If Trump lies, Hillary should be able to call him out on it.

And progressives (you people are not Liberals in the classical sense) are the ones trying to shut down any form of opposing speech, and justify any tactic to get their own way. One just has to look at the glee being seen from gun control advocates over getting a 5/9 majority on the SC so they can nullify the 2nd amendment. That alone makes your entire statement utter and complete bullshit, and your posting it shows you for the worthless gutless hack you are.

Stop projecting your own sides vices on us. It doesn't work anymore.

 

[martybegan]

What about the opposing candidate? Is your trust in Hillary that shallow that she will need rescuing from the Moderators?

Nice deflection. If I had been caught running cover for dishonest behavior, I'd try to deflect too. But then, you don't find liberals doing that.

Again, the two sides are nothing alike. As this thread has demonstrated so conclusively, conservatives defend dishonesty, while liberals condemn it.

It boils down to the one fundamental conservative "principle", which is "The ends always justify the means for my own side". Lying helps advance the conservative agenda, hence conservatives endorse lying. Conservatives don't possess a single moral that isn't relative, and they hate us liberals for our rejection of their moral relativism. The pure shining light of our absolute truth causes pain to them, much like sunlight burning a vampire, so they lash out at the source of that pain.

The difference is we get rid of our liars. You guys defend your's for decades....even reward them for getting away with it.

Thus you support Hillary.

Mamooth is either the stupidest oxygen thief on this board since SHE WHO MUST NOT BE NAMED, or so versed in progressive doublethink that they actually believe the tripe that was just posted.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Could we get the hillary hooked up to a lie detector for this debate? Assuming she can even talk without the continuous cough hacking.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Very telling, how proud all the Trump fans are to announce their "Lying is great!" view of things.

The two sides are very different in how they rate honesty. Liberals consider honesty to be important, conservatives consider it to be a liability.

 

[TNHarley]

.

Fox News’ Chris Wallace has no intention of fact checking Trump’s lies during the debates

Sarah K. Burris
04 Sep 2016

If you hoped that debate moderators would have the scruples to hold the candidates in check during the upcoming forums, Fox News host Chris Wallace has already said he won’t be doing it.

<snip>

Wallace said that he hopes the event will become more of a debate between the candidates and not a debate between the candidate and moderators armed with facts.

“Frankly… these two just plain don’t like each other,” Wallace said, unleashing his keen observations. “I suspect I’m not going to have any problem getting them to engage with each other, but I don’t view my role as truth-squading and I think that is a step too far. If people want to do it after the debate, fine, it’s not my role.”


IOW's the whole great big FOX fact-check squad in the backroom, behind of the debate stage will have nothing to do - FOX does have a fact-check squad...don't they?

.

You are blasting him for being impartial and actually doing his job?
Idiot

 

[Yousaidwhat]

What about the opposing candidate? Is your trust in Hillary that shallow that she will need rescuing from the Moderators?

Nice deflection. If I had been caught running cover for dishonest behavior, I'd try to deflect too. But then, you don't find liberals doing that.

Again, the two sides are nothing alike. As this thread has demonstrated so conclusively, conservatives defend dishonesty, while liberals condemn it.

It boils down to the one fundamental conservative "principle", which is "The ends always justify the means for my own side". Lying helps advance the conservative agenda, hence conservatives endorse lying. Conservatives don't possess a single moral that isn't relative, and they hate us liberals for our rejection of their moral relativism. The pure shining light of our absolute truth causes pain to them, much like sunlight burning a vampire, so they lash out at the source of that pain.

Your halo is cracked and tarnished.

 

[mamooth]

The difference is we get rid of our liars.

No, you promote liars To a Republican, lying is literally a resume-builder. Look at all of 'em heaping praise on Trump's lies.

In contrast, we Democrats have very honest candidates like Obama or Clinton. Sure, rightie cult liars claim they're not honest, but rightie cult liars lie about everything. That's the point, that the right lies more readily than normal humans breathe. That's why they make threads like this one, declaring that it's totally unfair to point out their lies.

We see why you're crying. You corrupt liars of the right know how bad you look when compared to liberals. You've taken your lying to such extremes, even your pet crazy conservative media can't cover for you any more. You'll keep demanding that debate moderators and every other media figure cover for you, but it's not enough. If Trump won, you'd be trying to send the government after me, because I don't toe your PC line.

And that's why the Trump movement has to be squashed, for the sake of human decency, and to demonstrate that there is a price to pay for spending decades betraying your own country.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Dramatic aren't we?

 

[martybegan]

The difference is we get rid of our liars.

No, you promote liars To a Republican, lying is literally a resume-builder. Look at all of 'em heaping praise on Trump's lies.

In contrast, we Democrats have very honest candidates like Obama or Clinton. Sure, rightie cult liars claim they're not honest, but rightie cult liars lie about everything. That's the point, that the right lies more readily than normal humans breathe. That's why they make threads like this one, declaring that it's totally unfair to point out their lies.

We see why you're crying. You corrupt liars of the right know how bad you look when compared to liberals. You've taken your lying to such extremes, even your pet crazy conservative media can't cover for you any more. You'll keep demanding that debate moderators and every other media figure cover for you, but it's not enough. If Trump won, you'd be trying to send the government after me, because I don't toe your PC line.

And that's why the Trump movement has to be squashed, for the sake of human decency, and to demonstrate that there is a price to pay for spending decades betraying your own country.

1st: Learn to use the quote function properly.

2nd: You are officially a kool-aid drinker.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

.

Fox News’ Chris Wallace has no intention of fact checking Trump’s lies during the debates

Sarah K. Burris
04 Sep 2016

If you hoped that debate moderators would have the scruples to hold the candidates in check during the upcoming forums, Fox News host Chris Wallace has already said he won’t be doing it.

<snip>

Wallace said that he hopes the event will become more of a debate between the candidates and not a debate between the candidate and moderators armed with facts.

“Frankly… these two just plain don’t like each other,” Wallace said, unleashing his keen observations. “I suspect I’m not going to have any problem getting them to engage with each other, but I don’t view my role as truth-squading and I think that is a step too far. If people want to do it after the debate, fine, it’s not my role.”


IOW's the whole great big FOX fact-check squad in the backroom, behind of the debate stage will have nothing to do - FOX does have a fact-check squad...don't they?

.

His "job" is to facilitate discussion between the candidates not become part of that discussion.

You lefties are so used to a corrupt system you've forgotten how it's supposed to work.

 

[mudwhistle]

The difference is we get rid of our liars.

No, you promote liars To a Republican, lying is literally a resume-builder. Look at all of 'em heaping praise on Trump's lies.

In contrast, we Democrats have very honest candidates like Obama or Clinton. Sure, rightie cult liars claim they're not honest, but rightie cult liars lie about everything. That's the point, that the right lies more readily than normal humans breathe. That's why they make threads like this one, declaring that it's totally unfair to point out their lies.

We see why you're crying. You corrupt liars of the right know how bad you look when compared to liberals. You've taken your lying to such extremes, even your pet crazy conservative media can't cover for you any more. You'll keep demanding that debate moderators and every other media figure cover for you, but it's not enough. If Trump won, you'd be trying to send the government after me, because I don't toe your PC line.

And that's why the Trump movement has to be squashed, for the sake of human decency, and to demonstrate that there is a price to pay for spending decades betraying your own country.

If you think Hillary and Obama are honest there's really no hope for you.