Harris wants debate mic ON for Trump

[ssslyboy 3,273]

3 hours ago, Morphine Prince said:

There is no agreed to debate with Fox. 

If and when there is, is what I meant.  A debate is between two people, not two people plus a "fact checker."  If Trump is the blatant liar people say he is and Kamala is great at debating, she should have no problem refuting any of those lies during the debate.  It's her job to do that.  That is the whole point of a debate.

[Illuminati 15,966]

This can be a double edged sword, sure you don't want him to just lie unchecked but he might also use it as an opportunity to interrupt Kamala Harris more often than she does

[skaxboy 6,975]

Can we please have this man moderate it?

 

If anyone should have a convincing concrete answer to a hard hitting question, it should be candidates for president. Their responses should be well thought out and acknowledge mistakes and talk about their plans and ways they will achieve those plans. I think there’s only one person that can do this. 
 

Can there be a way she just mutes him out so she doesn’t hear him so he can’t distract her or interrupt her statements?

[Morphine Prince 109,712]

1 hour ago, ssslyboy said:

If and when there is, is what I meant.  A debate is between two people, not two people plus a "fact checker."  If Trump is the blatant liar people say he is and Kamala is great at debating, she should have no problem refuting any of those lies during the debate.  It's her job to do that.  That is the whole point of a debate.

This would work if you had a normal candidate from the Republicans. 

With Trump I feel it is essential to have a fact checker as he lies most of the time. It doesn’t matter how good of a debater the other candidate is. He spews constant misinformation and lies where it’s impossible to refute every point. 

These “debates” aren’t really debates. They are shouting matches with lies to sway independents. Fact checking would be helpful to sort through the noise. 

[ssslyboy 3,273]

14 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

This would work if you had a normal candidate from the Republicans. 

With Trump I feel it is essential to have a fact checker as he lies most of the time. It doesn’t matter how good of a debater the other candidate is. He spews constant misinformation and lies where it’s impossible to refute every point. 

These “debates” aren’t really debates. They are shouting matches with lies to sway independents. Fact checking would be helpful to sort through the noise. 

k.  like i said, as long as you're ok with Fox News doing fact check if/when they host one.

[PartySick 172,975]

Fact checking is kinda pointless at these debates. They rarely change anyone's mind, people who find Trump to be a viable candidate already knows he's a liar and it's not a deal breaker for them.

What the debates need is a moderator that'll force them to answer the question asked. Give the moderator the ability to mute the mic when needed and allow them to mute the mic when a candidate is trying to deflect.

Kind of like the interview JD Vance did on NBC:

There are questions here that he tried to deflect from 3+ times but she kept doubling down and demanding answers to what she asked.

The MAGAts call this "hostile media" and if MAGA don't like you then you're doing something right.

[Morphine Prince 109,712]

5 minutes ago, ssslyboy said:

k.  like i said, as long as you're ok with Fox News doing fact check if/when they host one.

Nowhere in my post did I indicate fact checking should be exclusive to one network. Obviously every debate should have fact checking in my opinion. 

Why you quoted me with this wanna be “gotcha” moment is beyond me. 

[ssslyboy 3,273]

2 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Nowhere in my post did I indicate fact checking should be exclusive to one network. Obviously every debate should have fact checking in my opinion. 

Why you quoted me with this wanna be “gotcha” moment is beyond me. 

I quoted you because fact checkers are not traditionally part of debates and it would set a standard for future debates on various networks and you may not always like "fact checking."   Not a "gotcha" moment.  I'm disagreeing with you because I have a different opinion and this is a forum, isn't it?

[tomsches 17,551]

The panel should be all women so he’s the only man on stage. We know that he has a problem being his „true self“ when he’s surrounded by strong women just remember that black journalist event 

[Bronco 25,917]

5 hours ago, ssslyboy said:

If and when there is, is what I meant.  A debate is between two people, not two people plus a "fact checker."  If Trump is the blatant liar people say he is and Kamala is great at debating, she should have no problem refuting any of those lies during the debate.  It's her job to do that.  That is the whole point of a debate.

While I agree with the principle, the reality is that this would be impossible for anyone. 
You've got no way of fully preparing for a shitstain like Trump. He won't stick to topic, he won't stick to logic and the lies he spouts off won't neccessarily be related to anything up for discussion that day. So you just can't prep in the moment rebuttals as there's essentially infinite possibilities of what each lie he tells will be. 

[OMF 3,673]

9 hours ago, PopMusicForever said:

Politics in US are a circus show. I’m always surprised how they are the superpower of this world. 

Are they still THE superpower? No one takes the US seriously anymore. At least if Kamala wins they will gain back some respect

[Morphine Prince 109,712]

6 hours ago, ssslyboy said:

I quoted you because fact checkers are not traditionally part of debates and it would set a standard for future debates on various networks and you may not always like "fact checking."   Not a "gotcha" moment.  I'm disagreeing with you because I have a different opinion and this is a forum, isn't it?

Why would someone not always like fact checking? It's supposed to be about checking FACTS. 

Some of us actually want transparency and would like to be aware when we're being lied to our faces. The public doesn't always know when something isn't true especially with confirmation bias. Not everyone sticks around on the networks to follow their analysis when they list lies. In my opinion, it is incredibly irresponsible to permit live unchecked lying. 

I interpreted your comment as a gotcha moment because of the way you worded it. It was bordering being a Trump apologist, but I hope that isn't the case. 

[HelloHangoverz 17,452]

3 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Why would someone not always like fact checking? It's supposed to be about checking FACTS. 

Some of us actually want transparency and would like to be aware when we're being lied to our faces. The public doesn't always know when something isn't true especially with confirmation bias. Not everyone sticks around on the networks to follow their analysis when they list lies. In my opinion, it is incredibly irresponsible to permit live unchecked lying. 

I interpreted your comment as a gotcha moment because of the way you worded it. It was bordering being a Trump apologist, but I hope that isn't the case. 

politics should be a science and not an art. periodt.