Posted on 01/26/2020 11:26:27 AM PST by central_va
Ingraham definitely. The was on the tip of my tongue when I wrote that, but couldn’t come up with the name.
Savage...ugh. I would turn it off.
This is pretty laughable
I’d love to see any kind of Republican opposition to Donald J Trump
The bottom line is he’s a good communicator - and he’ll be happy to listen to your ideas.
Fortunately being a conservative is very easy - you don’t really have to do anything different day to day
1. Rush draws an audience, so big ratings! 2. Rush has an unattainable accuracy record that no other anchor comes close, with a accuracy record of being right 99.98% of the time. 3. All Trump has to do is mention Donna Brazil's giving Hillary answers during the last debate. She was on CNN and now she is on Fox, so neither networks can be trusted for fairness. 4. CBS,ABC,& NBC and the overall media for the last 3 years has had a consistent 95% negative reporting on Trump and they are fake media, so why give them the time of day when all they do 24/7 is plot how to destroy you!
So it's either Rush or Jim Learer hosts..pick Jim and start digging!
That’s great historical perspective and analysis. Thanks for pointing those things out.
This time round there is no “Democrat” candidate. They are all “CPUSA” candidates.
Love your idea, but even better would be that the moderator only announces the subject. The candidates each get to ask each other up to 3 questions about the subject (of their own choosing). The candidates have to agree to the subjects, and they need to be broad like “Foreign Policy” not specific like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders having to ask each other about Sanders supposed comments. Had Fauxahontas been forced to confront the Communist on stage about it, I doubt she would have. It is the media getting the ability to frame questions that is the problem.
The Dem candidate is going to need the debate more than Trump, and Trump knows this. He has the leverage he needs to insist on a fair moderator, and I suspect he’ll use it.
Lou dobbs
The whole notion that it MUST be a “news anchor” is preposterous to begin with. Most all of them are just photogenic news readers and none of them are especially smart people. We need somebody learned about freedom, liberty, the Constitution, self-governance, and the wonders of markets as well as the horrors of socialism, communism, despotism and totalitarianism leading the discussion.
Frankly, I think “news anchor” should be automatic disqualification.
Plus, Rush is a THINKER, can think on his feet, and always has good insights. He is almost unique in that regard.
And then there was Hillary giving signals to the moderator like a third base coach.
Exactly, plus I don’t think he will handle liberal bullshit. He will hit them with facts. Unless a dem is prepared, they are to retarded to know what day it is. What Bernie or Joe go into a Hummina Hummina stammer would be priceless!
-PJ
I've said in the past that we need a modernized version of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.President Trump should offer to appear at three one-on-one debates with no moderators. Each debate will focus on a primary theme, but the candidates will be free to wander if they wish. Topics would likely be 1) the economy/trade, 2) foreign policy/immigration, 3) health care/race relations. Side topics would likely be 1) taxes/climate change, 2) government corruption/drain the swamp, 3) gun control/crime.
Each candidate is given 60 minutes of time to use as they wish. Think of a giant chess clock, where the candidate presses a button when they finish and the clock automatically starts for the opponent. When a person's time is up, they are finished and the other person gets to use their remaining time un-rebutted.
When nobody has any time left, the debate is over.
The first debate would be a free-for-all as the candidates would likely forget about time-management and be all over the place. Disputes might arise, candidates would interrupt and talk over the other, one might just press the button to start the other's clock out of frustration. The bottom line is that the candidates will learn to police themselves during the debate.
The second debate would be better, but probably over-compensated in time management, resulting in sound-bites with no elaboration.
The third debate would be the clincher, where the most savvy candidate would have gotten their act together and figured out how to pull off the total package.
President Trump has already been perfecting this with his helicopter press conferences. He's been willing to meet with an adversarial press frequently and already knows how to think on his feet, as opposed to his predecessors who preferred the controlled optics environment where everything was scripted in advance.
If Trump does debate, I think he should ignore any questions directed at him, and just give his own talking points. Trump should also ask his opponent questions that the media is afraid Democrats.
Sometimes I feel that Trump forgets that he is in control. He can control these debates if he wants to.
“Debates are intended to be between rational people with specific rules. There is no reason for President Trump to partake in a rigged lopsided soviet-style interrogation and coordinated attack masquerading as a ‘debate’. None.”
I agree with this comment! Please email the President and affirm this sentiment if you agree.
Trump should agree to two debates. The first hosted by OAN and the second by one of the mainstream networks. But they have to do OAN first so that the Democrats can’t back out. Democrats should be faced with questions from a conservative point of view. Trump can hold his own against liberals.
The media ARE democrats.
He should propose a new venue, new format and no CNN or NBC
No Martha Raddatz!
No CNN!
No MSNBC!
NO moderators
Feed to any channel that wants to carry the debate
Lincoln-Douglas style debate
Subject alternates betw PDJT and whomever.
Three words max to declare the Subject title
*mitigates Title being a speech
Each Debater gets 5 minutes on current Subject
Each Debater gets 2 minutes for rebuttal
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.