I don't know what was wrong with Joe Biden. It's hard to imagine that they ever would have asked for a debate if this was the way he is normally. We've seen him recently holding press conferences and giving speeches and he seemed to be fine. They said he had a cold so maybe he really was on drugs — Nyquil or Mucinex or something that made him seem so shaky and frail. Whatever it was, it was a terrible debate for him and if he does stay in the race (which is almost certain in my opinion) the campaign is going to have a lot of work to do to dig out of the hole that was dug last night. The media smells blood and they are circling like a bunch of starved piranhas.
. . . For some odd reason, moderator Jake Tapper told Trump in the beginning that he didn't need to answer the questions and that he could use the time however he wanted. Trump ran with that, essentially giving a rally speech whenever he had the floor and was unresponsive to the vast majority of the questions. He made faces and insulted Biden to his face, at one point calling him a criminal and a Manchurian candidate. If anyone had said 10 years ago that this would happen at a presidential debate they would have been laughed out of the room.
After the debate when most of the country had turned off cable news or gone to bed, CNN aired its fact check. And it's a doozy:
It sure would have been good if even some of that epic litany of lies could have been checked while people were still watching. The decision to have the moderators sit like a couple of potted plants woodenly asking questions about child care while Trump responded with irrelevant lies was inexplicable. Why did they even bother to ask questions at all? They could have just run the timer and let the candidates talk for two minutes each about anything they wanted. It probably would have been more enlightening.
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I've never seen a debate where the moderators did a fact check. You'll see candidates call each other out sometimes, but moderators don't actually moderate. Timing answers to be ridiculously short so nothing of substance can be said is also a perennial feature.
If all debates for like that one. I would not miss a single debate. He cut through the b******* and got straight to the answers or not answers as the case may be. Which is what a debate moderator should do. A debate moderator is not intended to be a personified a cue card. The Talking Heads at CNN failed even harder than I ever thought they could with their moderation.
Lol last night before the debate started, I sent a message to my friends asking if it was too late to get Kyle Clark to moderate. The guy is amazing.
During the one Obama Romney debate I remember Obama asking for a live fact check of some sort and getting it. So it's happened before.
Yes, Obama had to ask for it. The moderator wasn't about to say Romney was a lying sack of shit on their own. That's my point.
In general, the "debates" have always been a nationally televised pissing contest for as long as I've watched them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_debates#Format_and_debate
I'm sorry, but what universe are you living in? You don't remember this exchange?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW1lY5jFNcQ?t=1h13m25s
Those all happened afterwards. During the debate nobody has ever been told they lied about a particular thing by a moderator.
I hope you appreciate this, because I had to watch those two argue more:
https://youtu.be/pjW6WKpSCeQ?si=kwPHhz6XQd4EcVN-&t=1780
Am I supposed to be seeing a fact check during the debate? Because it seems more like "I want to move on to another subject" and "well anyways" the first few times the moderator speaks.