Posted on 01/29/2016 3:20:35 AM PST by Biggirl
The media consensus after the first GOP debate in August was that the Fox News moderators had done a good job. The idea that they had done poorly was a minority view, outside of the fervent gallery of Donald Trump supporters.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Wallace is part of the Hegelian Dialectic.
They control what the ignorant masses “think”. Did you see the Drudge poll? 10 publishers are responsible for OVER 50% of all internet traffic......those 10 are all controlled and owned by evil sodomite satanists to destroy this nation and hyper-sexualized (seduce and corrupt) the majority of our children-—those who consume porn daily. The “God is Dead” atheists/Marxists are winning as Whittaker Chambers announced in the 50s.
When are people going to come out of Plato’s Cave? MOST of these guys-—ALL on FOX are bought and paid for -—AND CONTROLLED by the sodomite satanists to “frame and control opinions (feelings)”. Yahoo News is great at that-—and that is read by majority of children. They promote sodomy and evil vile uses of people and their immoral celebrities 24/7. Vice breeds vice and will collapse civil society. People who consume trash-—have a trashy mind..
Sorry for my rant—it is not directed at you-—but these evil godless people, INCLUDING WALLACE,are destroying this nation ON PURPOSE-—and it may be too late to save it with the corruption and programming of our children and their totalitarian control of the narrative, “the News—ha ha”.
The hosts getting into arguments with the candidates is a reason I could never stand there. Frankly, I'd be likely to leave the podium and punch one of them in the mouth for some of the rhetoric that is made to disguise a TV promo as a debate subject. To me a “debate” is you ask a question to each as a jump ball and let them banter a few minutes each without interference from the moderator except when they go off subject. For example: what is you income tax plan? How will your foreign policy be different or the same as now? Do you support a balanced budget amendment and if so why or why not..... Not let me show you this video wherein you said in 1978 you were in favor of such and such and now you say something different, why is that. These clowns seem intent on doing a forced interrogation. I would never submit to anything like that if I were the GOP head. No one is consistent forever and worse when you have a parliamentary system, what someone does in the senate may not be exactly what they mean.
Was and is a total jerk, along with Megyn Kelly. Harris Faulkner seems to be fair. Lately I’ve been thinking Fox should change their name to 2MSNBC. Fair and balanced in their dreams!
I agree if they’d attack them all equally.
Right. Fox had their headline written before the show started. Luntz ‘focus group’ was a farce.
You are not alone and its up to all of us to educate the young ones as to whats happening to the country that,one day maybe,they will inherit.
The rules are going to change in future debates. They are a thing of the past anyway. There are far better ways to get your message out and last night showed how. He had Ailes begging him 20 mins before it started and he said contribute 5 million or no.
Pray America wakes
I just finished sending Chris Wallace telling him that he is just like his father who was totally lacking in humility and that means they are both worse the Rachel MadCOW and Fox News is lower on the integrity scale than PMSNBC.
Rubio lost points because his rhetoric was full of lies.
Fox had gone over to the dark side of the lame stream media. The media has proven time over time they can’t host legitimate debates without putting themselves center stage. And the political party leadership is in bed with them. Until it is held by neutral non-media hype moderators, they will continue to be a farce. I suggest a select few non political debate coaches or judges be the moderators.
Nonsense. The Presidential debates are negotiated between the campaigns. The Campaign will have a say in who moderates. Unlike previous GOP morons campaigns, I doubt either Trump or Cruz is going to let the Dems pick the moderator this time around.
Cruz would have been better off joining Donald.
This is their line of thinking when their preferred candidates are not in the lead. You can bet this would not be their line of thinking if Bush or to a lesser extent, Kasich or Christie were leading.
And the MSM thinks moderators should make out with the selected Democrat candidate.
Fox News did the job the establishment wanted them to do. Marginalize the ideologue, promote the establishment candidate without the front runner there to steal all the oxygen.
The word was Trump had a big night, but Veterans groups told him to stuff his donation. The race has now changed despite the polls. The populist is now running against the establishment and the ideologue is done. Just like in 2008 and 2012. Which means the ideologues will now stay home.
And it is the ideologues that win elections, not the establishment, although a bunch of people, even on FR think that is not the case despite history. Sorry guys, Trump is done. He can win the Republican nomination with 80% of the polls saying so. Won’t change a thing. In the national, the Dems will vote for their candidate, the hardcore but not ideological Republicans will vote for their candidate, the ideologues will stay home and the Rat will win the election.
Mark Steyn or Rush should moderate the debates.
Rush as already said that can’t happen because coclear implants.
We don’t need moderators at all. I repeat, there is no need for debate moderators. Having the media control what things are fit to discuss and act was never in the Constitution and these media heads, bought and paid for by people with agendas sometimes counter to the needs of the American people, who are supposed to own their government, not the other way around.
Decide how many people may be in presidential debates, say, at the beginning of the election season, maybe a max of 10, depending on an aggregate of polls, then slowly winding down the number as the season progresses.
Have those 10 candidates pick 5 topics each that they would like to discuss. Ask an open ended question to the American people, what subjects would you like to see at the debate, and weed down to the most popular ones. Have the candidates then go ver all the choices, give them X number of topics to finally include for a 2.5 hour debate with x mins on each topic.
Have a mild host who needn’t be famous or political, who only deals with time per topic and gross disobedience of the rules by a candidate. Start off every topic, say, Russia, with 3 minutes to each candidate on that topic. At the end of each statement, there should be an open forum for candidates to press a button to take a minute each to rebut. Any candidate can press his (silent) button which will turn on his mike at the next opportunity. So no one talks over anyone.
Say that Christie has pressed his first for the rebuttal time on Russia. He says his bit, and while he is speaking, both Paul and Bush press theirs, in that order. Immediately after Christie, Paul would speak. Then Bush. Then the next person who presses. The candidates would have to fit their thoughts attacks whatever into the format. If people were sneaky and took that last minute to slam another candidate who couldn’t then rebut, everyone would see that as a sneaky bad manner. But everyone could get s rebuttal because there would be time, however, if a candidate couldn’t quickly think of fresh, love things to rebut with, he wouldn’t buzz in, and he would appear to be a very canned candidate who could not think for himself.
Whoever wins is going to have to cope with whatever liberal moderators the Dems and their media buddies give us.
Which is when Trump, faced with a hostile, gotcha moderator, will have to turn to the camera, talk to directly to the American people, and say, “You all see what they’re trying to do here, don’t you? This has been American election politics for a long, long time. I know you all do not want this. I know you all want fair, intelligent debates between candidates. This is not that.” And shake his head, sigh, and give the moderator some version of a response.
I honour Trump for pushing back against the false, toxic game that political debates have become.
Me too. I’ve been dreaming of this since Bush 43 was running. It really makes me happy. I’m so surprised some FReepers find it cowardice.
I agree.
I don't much care for each candidate being asked unique questions. There is a place for that, but we hardly ever get to see all candidates answering the same question. If you want to compare each candidate it only makes sense to ask them the same questions rather than comparing how Cruz answered an immigration question to how Rubio answered a civil rights question. Apples and oranges that seem to be designed to corner specific candidates rather than determine which one has the best answers to common questions.
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.