Skip to comments.Trump slams debate commission, raising questions about his participation
Posted on 12/16/2019 7:59:49 AM PST by yesthatjallen
President Trump on Monday hammered the Commission on Presidential Debates, raising questions about his participation in debates next year with the eventual Democratic presidential nominee.
The president, in a trio of tweets, said he looked forward to debating "whoever the lucky person is who stumbles across the finish line" in the Democratic primary.
But he chastised the nonprofit commission responsible for organizing the presidential debates and suggested he might avoid them. That group has scheduled three general election debates next year.
"As President, the debates are up to me, and there are many options, including doing them directly & avoiding the nasty politics of this very biased Commission," Trump tweeted. "I will make a decision at an appropriate time but in the meantime, the Commission on Presidential Debates is NOT authorized to speak for me (or Rs)!"
The president claimed that the commission, which describes itself as nonpartisan, is "stacked with Trump Haters & Never Trumpers." Trump pointed to an incident in a 2016 presidential debate in which the commission acknowledged technical issues with his microphone.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Throw out a question, 'How are you going to stop illegal immigration' and let them argue each topic face to face.
Rigged debates are rigged elections.
Let each campaign nominate a list of moderators and like 2 teams of lawyers selecting a jury, eliminate names until there is some agreement.
“Let each campaign nominate a list of moderators and like 2 teams of lawyers selecting a jury, eliminate names until there is some agreement.”
Sounds like a plan.
Would love to know who compreises this so call “non-partisan” debate commission.
These “debates” stopped being useful since the rigged Nixon v Kennedy debate in the 1960.
With technology there is no longer a reason for these debates to exist. Let the candidate speak directly to the voters through their social media pages.
Give each a microphone, linked to a timer and the other microphone. Anybody can interrupt the other microphone, but when the limit for each person’s seconds are up, the microphone stays off.
Only ONE microphone works at a time.
Its actually a blessing in disguise as it will free up thee time of the biased liberal hacks who would have been recruited to be moderators.
I’ve been told that the “League of Women Voters” is also “non-partisan”.
League of Women Voters
A Legacy of Liberal Issues and Causes
By John Gizzi, Organization Trends, November 2015 (PDF here)
Summary: The 95-year-old League of Women Voters isnt quite what it seems. It has long enjoyed an enviable reputation as a nonideological, nonpartisan, good-government group, but contrary to popular belief, it supports Democratic candidates for public office and left-wing policies. The liberal nonprofit favors the pro-choice side of the abortion debate, a clampdown on how much can be donated to political campaigns, and imposing stronger, economy-damaging environmental regulations. (The League was previously profiled in the March 2000 issue of Organization Trends.)...
Place each candidate in a sound proof room with a TV feed.
Ask them EXACTLY the same questions
Give them 3 minutes to answer.
If they go ver time cut them off
Don’t let them hear what the other says
Who will the Moderators be during these debates? last time I checked virtually the entire Fake News Media Pushed and Lied about the entire Russia Collusion/Steele dossier, thereby DISQUALIFYING All of them.
YOu must mean the league of Demorat women votes. Years ago I cancelled a local debate hosted by the LDW because out of 24 women on the board, all 24 were registered democrats.
I think he should say he'll do a FOX debate if Hannity, Levin and RUSH moderate and ask question.
That'll ensure both parties get asked tough questions.
Still doesn’t really solve the problem of the questions themselves being biased. For example, if the immigration questions focus solely on “children in cages” and “separating families” rather than “illegal immigrants depressing wages for Americans”, and “illegal immigrants being a net drain on the economy”, it’s unfair even if both sides get asked about children in cages.
Considering the Leftist bias of past debates going back several elections, this rumor that Trump may just tell them to stick it brings a smile to my face.
Still, with Trump you can’t be sure whether he’s just trolling the CommieRATs and their media enablers.
It would be a truly bold move for him to boycott the debates entirely — and one that I believe would be much appreciated by Trumpsters everywhere.
Heck, with the time saved he could hold more Trump rallies. Those never get old!
Fox Business did the best job at the debates last year. But the Dems would never let them participate.
Remember in 2008 when Barack Obama refused to appear at a Democrat Primary debate because Fox was the host?
Amd even in 2020 the DNC refused to participate in any Fox debates of Democrat primary contenders.
Hold the debate as part of a Trump rally.
CNN rigged their town hall in 2016 giving the Clinton campaign the questions in advance but not the challenger Bernie Sanders.
How could Donald Trump possibly be treated to a fair debate at CNN with that prior stunt and the leaked conference where CNN’s biased against Trump was laid bare?
I’ve seen that sort of debate already.
“Ive been told that the League of Women Voters is also ‘non-partisan’.”
Yeah; they’re not. I was in charge of elections in our city back in the ‘80s. Even then they were vile liberal hags. I cringed every time I handed a ballot to one of them to be taken to a shut-in. I never REALLY knew who filled out the ballot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.