Posted on 01/27/2016 8:03:59 AM PST by Enlightened1
I agree that a skilled candidate could finesse any such question.
But, the damage is already done, regardless of how skillfully they answer.
The moderators LIE (like Candy crowley) and purport to be stating facts and then start to argue with the the candidates. Millions of people are watching and the moderator controls the cutoffs.
The moderators have incredible power to either ask you some question to make you look stupid that no one knows the answer too, state some fact that is a lie as if it’s the truth, accuse the candidate of lying when in fact they are telling the truth, cut them off before they can finish, or not ask them questions to begin with, ect.
The point is we dont need hostile moderators at our primary debates who sole intent is to destroy our best candidates.
We should have conservative icons asking the questions.
Now the general election debates should be completely different. I think there should be two moderators at those one picked by each side. At that is the point when each will have to answer hard and loaded questions from the other side. Which will be just fine, because then it will be obvious what is happening.
But this whole game of the press pretending to be neutral while actually actively trying to destroy our candidates because they are really all far left activists is annoying.
I wonder why the Maalox truck showed up at fox news this morning?
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.