…and that the hosts weren’t from outlets with an ideological bent toward Trump.
At this stage I think it will be very difficult to find someone unbiased when it comes to Trump. The best you can hope for outside an assiduous hermit, is someone who is ethically committed to fairness.
Or a non-American. Obviously not possible for the jury selection which is why that was so difficult, but perfectly possible here. (Will probably still have some opinion, but not a strong/religious one).
Which is exactly how we should hold debates. There’s absolutely no reason to allow a bunch of screaming people and candidates to interrupt each other constantly. Debates are to scrutinize candidates, not see who can get the most attention.
People acted all surprised they agreed to debates…
But I don’t know how people think they’ll manage to actually agree to the terms. Especially when there’s no neutral third party organizing it. That’s one thing they did both agree on, kicking them out of the equation.
I would add that the candidates can’t hear each other’s responses and no rebuttals. Just ask the question and let them give their answers and hopefully have a fact checker because you know trump will just spew out lie after lie after lie after lie like he does daily.
That’s not a debate. Why even have them together? These piss poor excuses for a “debate” are already: take your questions, give your talking points and go home. Let them press each other on shit, not water it down even more.
Add comment