The debate "The announcers in the 2nd debate were extremely biased" was started by
October 11, 2016, 2:07 pm.
13 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 15 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
neveralone posted 8 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 25 arguments, neveralone posted 9 arguments to the disagreers part.
neveralone, fadi, TheTrueScotsman, Yanksxx21, QueenSleepy and 8 visitors agree.
Brady, razzy00, maxip, Nemiroff, historybuff and 10 visitors disagree.
and she had nothing to do with Iran deal!!!
she was part of the sanctions that brought them to the table, not the deal that was reached because of the sanctions!!!
stop repeating nonsense said by that moron you nominated and actually verify information.
Iran deal was a success.
and your right. Hillary is flawed. the emails need to be a top issue.... but Trump is the dumbest thing we can do. if you guys had gotten rid of him, we would be grilling Hillary and possible dropping her too...
but Trump is like handing the US to a toddler. as long as he is in the race, the #1 priority is keeping him away. we could have avoided both if your candidate wasn't the political nuclear option.
what do you know of Trump's past?
so you can't hire someone because of the color of their skin, but you can discriminate against them based on the color of their skin? your priorities are really screwed up.
I oppose the party of slavery, jim crow, and the ghetto. Im against affirmative action and hiring based on the color of your skin, not the content of character.
clearly you aren't against racism, sexism, tax evasion, or corporate greed.
Im saying she is the epitomical representation of what I am against
what do you know about his past?
Hilary is a career politician. that includes some lies and double dealing. but she isn't any worse than most politicians. I have no idea how you can possibly compare her to the devil. your biases are so deep you are losing track of reality.
We know his past. Hillary is just the epitome of horrors. Trump could be good or bad. But I am playing hope against Satan himself--which is logical from the right. But what do I know, Im a backwards catholic preaching Thomism to sound smart.
Trump isnt my favorite so to speak. But the hypocrisy coming from the left is embarassing and frankly unbearable. Did you read those wikileaks emails about the iram deal beong awful? Those are those around her. And she can stand on stage, look people on the eyes and say it was marvelous. But hey, she did do that to grieving mothers.
maybe you on the right are so adamantly standing by trump in order to show us how much we should question Hillary... and maybe your right...
but questioning Hillary is really freaking hard to do when you are pushing a moron like Trump!
that is as much of a debate strategy as punching someone in the balls is a boxing strategy. hey, it wins. WINNING :D
it's the same strategy scientology is known for. that we scientology and Trump can avoid actually answering any questions in detail. you guys dissect every word Hillary says, but you don't even look at trumps past. how many times does trump have to insult you before you understand that he's playing you?
Trump answered nearly all of his questions, except for one. He answered about the video from 2005 and then he pivoted to policy and Bil Clinton to be on the offensive. That is a debate strategy, nothing more and nothing less. Trump and the moderators did fine, escept for Raddatz at one time. She was totally out of place at times.
and every question about policy was met with a response about isis... which is nice, but they were talking about other things.
wouldn't you ask again and pressure for a private answer here too?
if you ask someone a question about economics and they reply that black Lives Matter or something about abortion repeatedly, wouldn't you think they are idiots?
his statements were lies or redirections. every question about his actions were met with a response about bill Clinton who isn't even running. if someone doesn't answer the question, wouldn't you ask again and apply pressure,
They werent fact checking. She was crossing his policy amd statements.
he did that only on 2 subjects. Hilary as I said before u can't get a straight answer from her. on most of it my class couldn't even tell what she was saying.
but if someone is just lying repeatedly and citing debunked nonsense, are you supposed to not push them on it?
Trump just says whatever he wants. he deflects, he talks about irrelevant subjects. you HAVE TO press someone who acts like that. that not bias, that's their job.
Because is was highly unprofessional. Not to mention, she was crossing him on other poinys.
So you expect the moderators to not have human emotion? He made a surprising statement, why is her surprise so troubling to you?
That isnt her job to be shocked. He gave an answer fully aware of his statement.
I was referring to that point in time. The questions continued further. When hebsaid he disagreed, her tone was nearly condescending. Nearly a statement of "you really disagree with your vp huh." She easnt asking him to clarify--she was trying to ridicule him. The disagreement was already established.
Have you actually read the transcript of the exchange? He said (of Pence) "He and I haven't spoken, and I disagree." She asked him if he disagrees with his running mate, which seems a reasonable and gives him a chance to explain. Why do you feel that is a problem?
She was trying to catch him in a series of advancing questions. He said they disagree, and that should have been that.
she was shocked. the president and the vp are usually on the same page. I remember that. she asked him to repeat it. is that what you are talking about?
Where she pressured him on disagreeing on Pence.
no I mean a whole class agreed and all have diff. ideas.
by "we all" you must mean you and rogueamerican, who I assume are the 2 agree votes for this debate. I may be the only person arguing the disagree side, but it is the side with the more votes....
and I guess we will have to go back and take a count or look for a source that already did. Hillary did ask to get an extra response once or twice, but Donald did it at every question... if he went over his time 5 to 10 times, why wouldn't the moderators let Hillary get a chance at equal talking time? which she eventually did get, just a minute less than Trump did.
the extra time they willingly gave to Hillary was still just catch up to Trump's interruptions.
they both get it fairly but sometimes Trump didnt
she did demand and she got it. this happened a lot. Trump should be corrected when correction is due but it was sometimes unjustly done. again u have thrown away that my whole class has said. answer me this. how is it that we all agree it was unfair but u seem to see it as fair .
just cause Hillary understands the rules of civilized debate and did not demand to talk again after each of trumps statements, therefore did not need to be asked to stop, does not mean she got special treatment. she was following the rules of the debate, trump doesn't understand the concept of rules and needed to be corrected.
your holding the fact that she did not constantly demand to talk outside of her time against her while holding trump to a completely different standard. that is wrong.
is Hillary forbidden from ever getting the last word in cause trump is the only one entitled to a last defense?
when Hillary spoke first, trump got to defend himself. when Trump went first, Hillary got to defend herself.
but after hillary's defense, trump wanted to defend against that too.... if it would go on like that, they would never get off the first question... no? doesn't that seem wrong?
how many questions was Hillary able to talk last without trump at least trying to talk again?
also my whole class agrees on this and we all have diff. views on how gov. should be run but we all agree it wasn't fair
no. they each get a chance to defend themselves and when Trump would try they would try to move it to the next subject while they would let Hilary do it all the time.
because of the clapping? that is too minor of an issue, and not something I even noticed to argue about.
they got equal time, and Trump was interrupted cause he was constantly interrupting and insisting on getting the last word on every question.... I don't see that as being unfair, that was their job.
the only thing that seems slightly unfair was the clapping. which I can't argue cause I don't remember that at all.
idk I'm not for him or Hillary. u will have to talk to someone for Trump. I'm saying it wasn't fair
either way, trump dodged, minimized, and deflected all the accusations. while also not answering most of the questions. how will he fix race relations? by bombing isis. how does the tone of these campaigns affect children? bomb isis. wtf?
before she got the issue Trump accused her.
she only apologized.
it is important. a)they can't concentrate if u got a bunch of people clapping and b) it is part of being fair
not sure about whether she answered trump or them. it's very likely he was interrupting her in the middle of her answer and she was getting to it anyway. either way, she answered the question.
the moderators said no clapping in general at the beginning. I wasn't really paying attention to clapping. don't believe it was that important.
she did that when Trump accused her and only really said she apologized. not when they asked her. also they told the audience to be quiet when they clapped for Trump which is right but when Hilary had people applaud they let them
I gave a pretty good reenactment of he answer to the emails... that's not avoiding the question, whether you consider her defense truthful or not.
right after Trump accused her about those emails when the moderators asked her about that because it just happened to be the next topic she avoided it. she said nothing about it.
I agree Trump shouldn't be talking like that in 2005. it isn't right and should be investigated. I think he is right though to hire someone to check out the emails instead of someone in gov.
isis is a problem, but you can't use it to avoid completely unrelated questions. if you can pull up the questions Hillary dodged I'll take a look.
as to those 2 controversies, I think I can explain. Hillary addressed the emails... she said it was a careless mistake, she said she deleted only personal ones, and she said it was ready investigated. it may not be the answer you were looking for but there are no follow ups for the moderators, maybe investigators.
Trump was asked about why he talked about sexually assaulting women, and he denied it... which often leads to follow ups. his defense that it was locker room talk doesn't mean it wasn't criminal behavior. one can talk "locker room talk" regarding detailed sexual exploits with one's girlfriend or spouse, but if you are doing locker room talk saying how you did it to unwilling women who gave no consent or that you can get away with it because of your position of power, it is still locker room talk... about sexually assaulting women. the 2 are not mutually exclusive.
Trump denied it, of course they had to follow up... if Hillary had said "I never deleted any emails" that would deserve a follow up as well. but she didnt.
I can't pull it up where I am but just watch it from the beginning. it won't take long till it starts happening.
he avoided the questions twice. Hilary did somewhere around 4 times. he seemed to give decent answers when I watched it. isis is a problem and they should be looked at. sure he's using it as a rallying cry but I think he would take out isis a lot better than Hilary unless he nukes them which wouldn't hurt my feelings if it wasn't that nukes destroy the land. Hilary would just stand there trying to hide under scientific words so that a)she doesn't have to answer and b) to make Trump look stupid.
I don't know where u got this idea I and a class full of diverse amount of people heard him and Hilary and all Democratic and Republican say that it was biased. none said they didn't understand Trump. though a lot said they didn't understand Hilary or where she was going half the time.
the Trump video was the hot topic. it just blew up all over and was the hottest subject of the entire campaign. it even made many Republicans completely abandon the Trump ship.
Hillary's emails are old news and have already been investigated. she was careless but nothing criminal.
wouldn't you think that the hot issue that was just released would be of more interest than the repeated question?
can you please use more specifics? which of Trump's plans? what unrelated issues?
it seemed to me that trumps answers were completely off. he was asked how people are having issues with the tone of the debates, especially for their kids. his answer, isis. how will he heal race relations, but attacking isis.
he barely gave any legitimate or legible answers!!!
it does have it. u just aren't seeing it. they demanded that Trump answer the question on the video. but didn't say anything about Hilary when she completely dodged the question about the emails.
Radish pressured Trump on his plan and was digging into him on unrelated issues.
"I don't know if it's because u r bias or honestly missed it but it was turned in Hilary's favor."
you make that claim without a shred of argument. did trump insist on having the last word on every question? literally yes. he had to be stopped. did he interrupt Hillary during her time? yes, constantly.
what exactly were the moderators supposed to do to hillary? she wasn't doing anything.
cnn clocked their talking time, they were almost even, with Trump having a tiny bit more talking time. if they weren't stopping clinton, maybe it's because they had to allow her to catch up to trumps talking points.
I'm giving actual points here. if your response is going to be "your just bias and clearly wrong" with nothing to support it, your response is invalid.
true. I don't like either of candidate but it still should be fair
Radish was hilariously pathetic. She was biased, but Cooper was somewhat better.
I don't know if it's because u r bias or honestly missed it but it was turned in Hilary's favor.
it's simple. when Trump was supposed to have the last word, she let him. they didn't have to stop her. in most of the presidential debates I've seen they have rarely had to stop anyone to this extent.
however, when it was Hillarys turn to speak last, everytime, he demanded a chance to respond again.
if Trump would try to defend himself AFTER Hilary was done they would say that it's time to go to the next one. then if Hilary did the same thing they would let her therefore it makes sense.
announcers was from the thread title.
her laughing at the rape victim in her lawyer days. that was ridiculous.
announcers? you mean moderators. what conspiracy theories did he say.
"Hilary would get the last word on things if she tried though."
this makes no sense. if they both want the last word wouldn't it just turn into a shouting match that won't get past the first question?
"Trump would try to defend himself even if he's wrong and they would instantly jump on him."
the point of moderators is to keep everything flowing and fair. if he "defends himself" during her time, THEY ARE SUPPOSED to stop him. if he defends himself when he's wrong or lying, THEY ARE SUPPOSED to correct him. it's why they are there.
can it be helped the Trump just makes shit and brings up disproven conspiracy theories in a presidential debate trying to appeal to the dumbest people in the country? they have to correct this lunatic!
Hilary would get the last word on things if she tried though. Trump would try to defend himself even if he's wrong and they would instantly jump on him.
if u had somone who hasn't form there opinion on who should be president could see this.
I think even if Trump said he was racesist right out and Hilary said she had been talking to the enemy most who have already have their vote in mind won't care. this is wrong and should be changed.i don't like either so I can see both sides.
well Hillary wasn't demanding the last word on every question. nor was she interrupting Trump constantly during his time.
you guys are jumping on the actions of the moderators without considering why they had to keep stopping trump.
do you think Trump was entitled to the last word on every question or should they take turns?
in an official setting should constant interruptions be even tolerated?
u just pointed out how they did nothing to Hilary but always jumped on trump.
she never answered half the questions. especially the email one and I demand an answer.
they had equal amounts of time, and Trump repeatedly pressed for more. he was literally trying to get the last word on every single question and interrupted her constantly every time she spoke.
as I said, they had about the same amount of time with Trump having a little more, but Trump was constantly demanding more time. had they not interrupted him it would not have been fair at all.
They were not biased in a sense, but they did not really do a good job. The point of the debate was a town hall, and only 2 out of 40 people got called on.
Hillary went way over her alloted time and she barely ever got called out for it and when Trump did the same, it was completely different. I am glad he asserted that point in the debate.
The emails were brought up and alot of other things were on Hillary that other moderators failed to do. It was a pretty fair debate in my opinion.