Trump: I don't want moderator for debate

[mystery-ak]

September 12, 2016, 09:23 am
Trump: I don't want moderator for debate

By Jesse Byrnes

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump on Monday called for a debate with Democrat Hillary Clinton without a moderator.

He said a debate with a moderator could be "rigged" and would be unfair.

"I think maybe we should have no moderator. Let Hillary and I sit there and just debate, because I think the system is being rigged so it's going to be a very unfair debate," Trump said on CNBC's "Squawk Box."
"I think we should have a debate with no moderator, just Hillary and I sitting there talking," he said.
 
Trump cited last week's "Commander-in-Chief Forum" on NBC moderated by Matt Lauer, whose performance was panned, including by The New York Times and Clinton's campaign.
 
"The system is being gamed," Trump declared Monday. "They all said I won and that Matt Lauer was easy on me. Well, he wasn't. I thought he was very professional, I have to be honest. I think he's been treated very unfairly. "
 
"What they're doing is they're gaming the system so that when I go into the debate, I'm going to be treated very, very unfairly by the moderators," Trump said.
 
He argued that the perception that Lauer was "soft on Trump" was being promoted so the next Clinton-Trump moderator will try to be "really hard on Trump."
 
The comments from Trump come as he and Clinton battle the media for favorable coverage.
 
Clinton surrogates said the Lauer interview highlights a pattern in coverage in which Trump gets softer questions than Clinton, who was grilled by the NBC host over her private email server.
 
Trump and his supporters argue the media is firmly on Clinton's side, as evidenced most recently in criticism of questions raised by conservatives about Clinton's health.
 
Trump has feuded with past debate moderators, most notably Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly in the first GOP debate.
 
Trump on Monday likened what he said he sees happening with the debates to how famed Indiana college basketball coach Bobby Knight, a backer of Trump, used to handle referees.
 
"Bobby would do numbers on the referee and toward the end of the game they would just sort of subconsciously give him the call," Trump said. "They're doing the same thing now."
 
The first of three presidential debates is scheduled for Sept. 26 in New York. It will be the first time Trump and Clinton appear on stage together, after their consecutive appearances at the forum last week.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/295390-trump-i-dont-want-moderator-for-debate

[mystery-ak]

[guitar4jesus]

Heh, good one.

[bolobaby]

Yeah, a little too late Trump. Your awezsum negotiating skillz already netted this fine group of moderators:

NBC's Lester Holt
ABC's Martha Raddatz
CNN's Anderson Cooper
Fox News' Chris Wallace
CBS' Elaine Quijano

You really showed them, Trump!

[cato potatoe]

Dishonest press won't let me turn another debate into a shouting match.  Sad!

[sinkspur]

Dishonest press won't let me turn another debate into a shouting match.  Sad!

Exactly.  Trump knows how ignorant he is so, instead of attempting to learn some things, he just wants to bluster his way through the debates.   And he doesn't want anyone stopping him.

[Chosen Daughter]

OH, FOR PETE’S SAKE: Trump Says Debates Will be Unfair to Him, Wants No Moderator

Posted at 8:00 pm on September 12, 2016 by Susan Wright


I’m not even sure where to begin with this.

This has already been the most bizarre and nonsensical election season of my life, but it continues to hit new heights of absurdity, thanks to His Royal Orangeness.

Donald Trump is in full whine-mode, and is suggesting that the upcoming debates be conducted without moderators.

http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/09/12/oh-petes-sake-trump-says-debates-will-unfair-wants-moderator/

Can't say I am surprised.  He did this in the primaries too.  He really is a whiner.

[Frank Cannon]

When you are an incompetent loser, all you got is to complain that life's unfair and it's all rigged against.

[Vulcan]

The mumbling jackass is looking for a reason to back out.   

[Chosen Daughter]

The mumbling jackass is looking for a reason to back out.   

Yep.  The candidate God is supposedly raising up scared to debate Clinton.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

You don't demand the KING be moderated.  The KING is chosen by God.  Why should Trump have to explain himself to his subjects?  They will get all the answers they deserve in lead, when they are marched in front of the wall.  Trump will decide who speaks and when they speak.  Sit down and shut up until you are called upon to testify to his greatness.  Putin would never have put up with this crap.  Heil Trump!!!

[LMAO]

This is an example of the 9 year old little boy trapped in the body of a 70 year old man.

[DCPatriot]

You don't demand the KING be moderated.  The KING is chosen by God.  Why should Trump have to explain himself to his subjects?  They will get all the answers they deserve in lead, when they are marched in front of the wall.  Trump will decide who speaks and when they speak.  Sit down and shut up until you are called upon to testify to his greatness.  Putin would never have put up with this crap.  Heil Trump!!!

You know, Once-Ler....he's speaking about "gotcha" questions and the fact, Hillary gets the questions in advance...or wears an earpiece and cheats.

All he wants is a truly NEUTRAL moderator.

I'd like a format where Rush Limbaugh gets to ask Hillary Clinton questions and [fill-in-the-blank] does the same to Donald Trump.

Don't you agree?   

[Cripplecreek]

The mumbling jackass is looking for a reason to back out.   

You just don't understand heroic cowardice.

[Mod1]

Two threads on same topic merged.

[bolobaby]

You know, Once-Ler....he's speaking about "gotcha" questions and the fact, Hillary gets the questions in advance...or wears an earpiece and cheats.

All he wants is a truly NEUTRAL moderator.

I'd like a format where Rush Limbaugh gets to ask Hillary Clinton questions and [fill-in-the-blank] does the same to Donald Trump.

Don't you agree?   

@DCPatriot

Sure. I agree. Why didn't Mr. Make America Win Again then negotiate some solidly conservative moderators in the debate line-up?

Oh, that's right... because he's all hot air. He can't even make his campaign win in the negotiation about debates, and yet we are supposed to believe he's going to make America win on the international stage.

At *every* turn Trump shows that he is full of sh!t. He changes his positions or otherwise fails to deliver on promises. Somehow, though, the Trumpettes are never disappointed in his performance.

[Longmire]

You don't demand the KING be moderated.  The KING is chosen by God.  Why should Trump have to explain himself to his subjects?  They will get all the answers they deserve in lead, when they are marched in front of the wall.  Trump will decide who speaks and when they speak.  Sit down and shut up until you are called upon to testify to his greatness.  Putin would never have put up with this crap.  Heil Trump!!!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I seem to recall most Republicans/conservatives generally agreeing with the idea that the moderators in these debates tend to lean Democrat.  Anyone else remember Gwen Ifill single-handedly changing the momentum of the debates?

Yet when Trump makes the exact same point so many have made in the past, he becomes a "whiner", "King" etc.... And in terms of the criticism of Lauer, Trump is exactly right.  The criticism of Lauer from the left is essentially that he didn't do what Ifill did, and insert himself into the discussion and being arguing with the candidate.  So I think it is perfectly reasonable for Trump (or anyone else who cares about a balanced debate) to be concerned about what is going to happen next.

I just don't get this.  I understand that a lot of folks don't like Trump, and to be honest, they've got a lot of good reasons for feeling that way.  But that shouldn't mean Trump should be reflexively attacked for everything he says/does, just because it is him saying it.

[Rivergirl]

When you do nothing but hurl insults no moderator is necessary.  right???

[bolobaby]

I seem to recall most Republicans/conservatives generally agreeing with the idea that the moderators in these debates tend to lean Democrat.  Anyone else remember Gwen Ifill single-handedly changing the momentum of the debates?

Yet when Trump makes the exact same point so many have made in the past, he becomes a "whiner", "King" etc.... And in terms of the criticism of Lauer, Trump is exactly right.  The criticism of Lauer from the left is essentially that he didn't do what Ifill did, and insert himself into the discussion and being arguing with the candidate.  So I think it is perfectly reasonable for Trump (or anyone else who cares about a balanced debate) to be concerned about what is going to happen next.

I just don't get this.  I understand that a lot of folks don't like Trump, and to be honest, they've got a lot of good reasons for feeling that way.  But that shouldn't mean Trump should be reflexively attacked for everything he says/does, just because it is him saying it.

@Maj. Bill Martin

You miss the point.

We ALL know this has been the case for... ever.

Trump - Mr. Art of the Deal - who always gets the bestest deals, is soooo smart that his hands were made bigger by God himself just so his body would have a place to put the extra brains he has, supposedly knew this, too. It was TALKED about during the primary debates - the moderators' bias.

And here we are. A typical lineup of moderators being selected.

IT'S TOO LATE TO BRING IT UP. He should have brought it up during moderator debate negotiations.

If he can't even get a good deal on moderators for the debates, what makes you think he will get any good deals on behalf of our country?

He won't. He doesn't get great deals. He STIFFS people. He signs them up for work, then uses flim-flam tactics to make sure they don't get paid. There are multiple stories of him stiffing contractors out there now. When stiffing individuals doesn't work, he stiffs everybody by declaring bankruptcy.

Newsflash: the next group of people he is going to stiff is the Trumpettes who supported him. He's already started on immigration. More to come!

Enjoy your snake-oil salesman.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@bolobaby

@

You miss the point.

Your point (which I'll get to in a bit) is not the same as the point made in the posts to which I was responding.  Calling him a "King" for making these objections is not a criticism that has anything to do with the timing of when he objected.  It is mocking him for objecting at all.

IT'S TOO LATE TO BRING IT UP.

No it isn't.  The Democrats brought it up immediately after the forum with Lauer, so why can't Trump?  Seems to me his concern is the outcry over what Lauer did, and the fear that it will affect the performance of the moderators in the next debate who will not want to be accused of going easy on Trump.  It's a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" argument, and if he is silent when the Democrats complain about a (relatively) fairly-moderated forum, he's a fool.  He's right to raise concerns about the effect of the Democrat complains.  And obviously, he couldn't raise a concern about the comments over the first forum until after the comments were made.

He should have brought it up during moderator debate negotiations.

He is/was not involved in those negotiations.  Those are done within the Commission on Presidential Debates that is controlled by the parties, not the candidates.  What he's doing now is setting the stage for the next debates.  He's pushing back against the claim that the Lauer forum was unfair, and setting up the possibility that he'll pull out if the next debate is moderated unfairly.  He's better off doing it this way then just saying "I don't like the moderators and won't participate" when the moderators were announced initially.

Newsflash: the next group of people he is going to stiff is the Trumpettes who supported him.

"Trumpettes?"  Is that kind of thing really necessary?

[bolobaby]

@Maj. Bill Martin

Your point (which I'll get to in a bit) is not the same as the point made in the posts to which I was responding.  Calling him a "King" for making these objections is not a criticism that has anything to do with the timing of when he objected.  It is mocking him for objecting at all.

He's acting like a petulant King NOW because he didn't get a good deal in negotiations. (More on that below.)

No it isn't.  The Democrats brought it up immediately after the forum with Lauer, so why can't Trump?  Seems to me his concern is the outcry over what Lauer did, and the fear that it will affect the performance of the moderators in the next debate who will not want to be accused of going easy on Trump.  It's a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" argument, and if he is silent when the Democrats complain about a (relatively) fairly-moderated forum, he's a fool.  He's right to raise concerns about the effect of the Democrat complains.  And obviously, he couldn't raise a concern about the comments over the first forum until after the comments were made.

Please. He failed so miserably to get one favorable moderator, he thinks complaining NOW will help him? It's way too late and just shows him to be an amateur at these things.

Give me ONE example from the past of where complaining at this point brought about any change. He won't get a change in moderators. He's just showing off his imperious nature by making demands like a king that won't be met. Some negotiator.

He is/was not involved in those negotiations.  Those are done within the Commission on Presidential Debates that is controlled by the parties, not the candidates.  What he's doing now is setting the stage for the next debates.  He's pushing back against the claim that the Lauer forum was unfair, and setting up the possibility that he'll pull out if the next debate is moderated unfairly.  He's better off doing it this way then just saying "I don't like the moderators and won't participate" when the moderators were announced initially.

Bzzzt. The nominating process has long been understood as making the candidate the "head" of the party during the election cycle. If you think Team Trump didn't have representation during those negotiations, you are smoking crack. If you think Team Trump didn't have veto authority over the selection of moderators, you are smoking crack. If Trump didn't like it, all he had to do was say, "No deal. I won't show for such a biased group of moderators. Go back and try again. By the way - here are some suggestions on a group of moderators of which I would approve."

Trump has failed - directly and through his proxies - to secure a good deal. If you think the president is involved in all negotiations for the U.S., you're wrong. He isn't. But he instructs his proxies on what to get and can tell them to pull a deal back if he doesn't like it.

Trying to place blame on anyone else but Trump just shows how willing you are to make excuses for him.

"Trumpettes?"  Is that kind of thing really necessary?

Yep. Trumpettes allowed an intellectual lightweight to take the nomination for the Right.

If someone called me a Cruzer, I would be proud of it. I would own up to it. You could even call me a "Crazy Cruzer" and I would say, "Yep - crazy like a fox and proud of the support I gave him - the one man in Washington left with principles, it seems."

The problem is that Trumpettes know their man is an embarrassment, so any title that ties them to the man is an insult.

You reap what you sow.