The Biden Presidency 2023

Quote: Mission146

Did an audience member, who was not a deliberate plant, ask that question? If so, that would be relevant. I agree that audience members, who are not plants, should be allowed to ask whatever they wish. However, if a reporter asked that question, then they are neither a reporter or journalist...or weren't acting as such, in a respectable way, in that moment. If a debate moderator asked a question like that, then the moderator's bias is immediate, apparent and they should be disqualified from continued moderation of that debate.

Politicians have to be able to think on their feet. They have to deal with real crisis. They should shrug this off. bad press is part of the job as well as good press.

Opposing parties are going to plant people to make them look bad. Not news. Or not likely news. Pretty sure it happens.

Quote: rxwine

Politicians have to be able to think on their feet. They have to deal with real crisis. They should shrug this off. bad press is part of the job as well as good press.

Opposing parties are going to plant people to make them look bad. Not news. Or not likely news. Pretty sure it happens.

There are definitely going to be plants. I don't know who is going to be responsible for them every time, but that's of no consequence. People can either assume the audience member is a plant, or not; I tend to assume they are all planted by somebody.

My point is, though my perception of this is somewhat decreasing, that a question coming from a reporter or moderator lends to that question a certain perceived degree of credibility. At least, I would see it that way if I didn't think of all MSM reporters, on both sides, as total toadies who have no concern for, or interest in, the truth or attempts at objectivity.

Even the way I phrased the question in my earlier post isn't objective. I'm still finding a way to link Trump to white supremacy; I'm just doing it in a way that's not blatantly calculated or obvious even to someone of low intelligence.

Quote: Mission146

Did an audience member, who was not a deliberate plant, ask that question? If so, that would be relevant. I agree that audience members, who are not plants, should be allowed to ask whatever they wish. However, if a reporter asked that question, then they are neither a reporter or journalist...or weren't acting as such, in a respectable way, in that moment. If a debate moderator asked a question like that, then the moderator's bias is immediate, apparent and they should be disqualified from continued moderation of that debate.

In the "three mistakes" question the questions were screened by the moderator then asked. The point is that a debate is not a place for gotcha questions. Nor is it the media's job to put out said questions. Probing questions should be asked.

For example. "President Biden, you have called for banning gas stoves. What do you say to people who prefer a gas stove?" Nothing gotcha as this is about a policy his administration is openly pushing. Conversely, he should not be asked something like "President Biden, the racist group BLM openly supports you. Do you accept the support of such a group given their tendency to riot and loot?"

Now, the second question would be fair game to the lefties on here based on their above comments. But it is not what we want in our politics.

Quote: AZDuffman

In the "three mistakes" question the questions were screened by the moderator then asked. The point is that a debate is not a place for gotcha questions. Nor is it the media's job to put out said questions. Probing questions should be asked.

For example. "President Biden, you have called for banning gas stoves. What do you say to people who prefer a gas stove?" Nothing gotcha as this is about a policy his administration is openly pushing. Conversely, he should not be asked something like "President Biden, the racist group BLM openly supports you. Do you accept the support of such a group given their tendency to riot and loot?"

Now, the second question would be fair game to the lefties on here based on their above comments. But it is not what we want in our politics.

That's not a, "Gotcha question." If someone wants to be the leader of the country, then I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask them what policy decisions they have done in prior public office that they now believe to have been mistakes. Where is the, "Gotcha?" Is the, 'Gotcha,' putting someone in a position such that they have to admit to being a fallible human being? If a person can't admit fallibility, then I absolutely am not voting for them. We're all fallible.

I wouldn't have a problem with Biden being asked the BLM question you mentioned. The phrasing of the question portrays the group as racist, but it does not imply that the person being asked the question is racist. It gives Biden the opportunity to address national unity as well as to encourage people not to be looting and rioting. He could give some (probably already rehearsed) stump speech segment about peaceful political activism.

Quote: Mission146

That's not a, "Gotcha question." If someone wants to be the leader of the country, then I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask them what policy decisions they have done in prior public office that they now believe to have been mistakes. Where is the, "Gotcha?" Is the, 'Gotcha,' putting someone in a position such that they have to admit to being a fallible human being? If a person can't admit fallibility, then I absolutely am not voting for them. We're all fallible.

It is "gotcha" because:

1. John Kerry was not asked the same question.
2. You are asking him to give three reasons not to vote for him.

Quote:

I wouldn't have a problem with Biden being asked the BLM question you mentioned. The phrasing of the question portrays the group as racist, but it does not imply that the person being asked the question is racist. It gives Biden the opportunity to address national unity as well as to encourage people not to be looting and rioting. He could give some (probably already rehearsed) stump speech segment about peaceful political activism.

BLM is racist. Quite simple if it was "WLM" it would be called racist up and down the line. Thus it is a racist group. But a candidate should not have to explain why a group supports him.

Quote: Mission146

You can't rightly call someone a liar for interpreting something differently than you do. The only way you could prove your accusation is to somehow demonstrate that he couldn't have interpreted it that way.

It cannot be interpreted any other way when Trump specifically blamed the violence on violent protestors on both sides and specifically condemned the white supremacists and neo-Nazi's.

He also recognized there were people representing both sides of the issue who were not there to protest violently. Those were the people he referred to as 'very fine people'.

Did you watch the video?

Did you listen to what Trump said?

Did Trump ever say there were fine people on the side of the white supremacists?

Did Trump ever cozy up to the white supremacists?

I think what proved it was during the trial after the first impeachment of Trump. The defense played the well-recorded incident where Trump said the things that the media distorted into a statement that white supremacists were "fine people" and showed that Trump specifically excluded white supremacists as who he was talking about. As a result, this particular matter got dropped. I don't know how much more proof you need Trump did not say what is still claimed. That it got claimed again here is mischievous or ignorant, one.

I paid a lot of attention to what actually took place in the big picture. A woman had been killed by a man driving into a crowd of protestors, and the media wanted Trump to make his press conference be about condemning white supremacy, linking it [correctly I'm sure]. I think it is absolutely clear they were outraged that Trump did not do this. Admittedly, any normal politician would have, and you can also say Trump shot himself in the foot by stubbornly returning to whether or not the statues should have been removed, and that "fine people" argued they should stay. Any normal politician ...

He did address that death, in that news conference, relating how the mother of the woman thanked him for what he said about her courage. But it was not enough for the media, who felt that the whole thing should be about condemning white supremacists.

If the only questionable thing Trump said or did involved the Charlottesville incident he’d still be President. You might as well gripe his presidency was brought down by a hangnail.

Quote: AZDuffman

It is "gotcha" because:

1. John Kerry was not asked the same question.
2. You are asking him to give three reasons not to vote for him.

BLM is racist. Quite simple if it was "WLM" it would be called racist up and down the line. Thus it is a racist group. But a candidate should not have to explain why a group supports him.

My earlier post stipulated that both candidates should be asked the question if both held prior office, or any position of import, for that matter.

Quote: Myself

That said, it's not a question that should be asked selectively; it's a question that should be asked of anyone running for anything who has held prior office.

See? With that, I agree with your first point, except I'd already stipulated it. I'm also taking it as true that Kerry wasn't asked that, or a substantially similar, question. If the context was specifically in the context of being POTUS, then asking Kerry that would make no sense because Kerry was never POTUS, but I don't know what context the question was asked.

How is that three reasons not to vote for someone? You can easily spin the question into a positive by highlighting the mistake, clarifying what made it a mistake and then saying what you learned from it such that a similar mistake will not be repeated. This is really easy stuff.

I don't care if BLM is racist or not. My point is that the question frames the group, not the person being asked the question, as racist. If Biden wants to clarify why he thinks BLM is not racist, or that most of them aren't, in his answer, then he could.

Quote: Tanko

It cannot be interpreted any other way when Trump specifically blamed the violence on violent protestors on both sides and specifically condemned the white supremacists and neo-Nazi's.

He also recognized there were people representing both sides of the issue who were not there to protest violently. Those were the people he referred to as 'very fine people'.

Did you watch the video?

Did you listen to what Trump said?

Did Trump ever say there were fine people on the side of the white supremacists?

Did Trump ever cozy up to the white supremacists?

I'm not giving my interpretation of it, so your list of questions is irrelevant to me; I was suggesting that you can't rightly call Geno a liar for interpreting something differently than the way you do. My interpretation is irrelevant to Geno's, that you called him a liar and whether or not he was rightly called a liar.

Anyway, I did see the speech, but I don't specifically recall it anyway. Unlike 90% of this country for the better part of six years, I don't commit to memory and obsess over every word that Trump says.