Rank the debate moderators.

[Direckshun]

Feel free to explain why you prefer who you preferred.

Jim Lehrer (1st debate)
Martha Raddatz (VPOTUS)
Candy Crowley (2nd debate)
Bob Scheiffer (3rd debate)

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

We have an adversarial system in our courts because we think it's a better path to truth than having, for example, a judge who decides what witnesses to call and what questions to ask before ruling on the matter at hand.

Courts have far more structure to weed out pure bullshit than Presidential debates, particularly the barely-moderated ones you unsurprisingly seem to prefer.

And as you know, in some courts (SCOTUS), judges are allowed to directly challenge the legal representatives. And we hail that as a time-honored responsibility.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Courts have far more structure to weed out pure bullshit than Presidential debates, particularly the barely-moderated ones you unsurprisingly seem to prefer.

And as you know, in some courts (SCOTUS), judges are allowed to directly challenge the legal representatives. And we hail that as a time-honored responsibility.

Appeals courts like the SCOTUS generally aren't making determinations of fact.

I guess there's a chance I might not prefer barely-moderated debates if, like you, I could be confident that 9 times out of 10 the bias would benefit my candidate, but I would hope not.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Appeals courts like the SCOTUS generally aren't making determinations of fact.

I guess there's a chance I might not prefer barely-moderated debates if, like you, I could be confident that 9 times out of 10 the bias would benefit my candidate, but I would hope not.

I do not think that Direckshun would be all gung-ho for active moderators, if those moderators were, say, Brit Hume and Bill O'Reilly.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

I do not think that Direckshun would be all gung-ho for active moderators, if those moderators were, say, Brit Hume and Bill O'Reilly.

Oh come now, Hume's not that bad. If Stefanopolous (sp) can be credible, so can Hume.

O'Reilly of course would just, well, I hope you didn't bring up his name because you think he's even remotely credible.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Appeals courts like the SCOTUS generally aren't making determinations of fact.

No, but they're constantly making determinations of accuracy in everything the lawyers before them are arguing.

If a lawyer is wrong, or vague, the courts can split them open in direct, immediate ways.

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I would say it's a combination of 1 and 3.

CIA documents were quick in determining terrorism as the likely cause, but at the time the President spoke, likely was all we had to go with.

I’m not sure you can really combine 1 and 3?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by FishingRod

I’m not sure you can really combine 1 and 3?

I think you can, but regardless, I'm just saying that I believe Obama was calling it an act of terror in the way that would provide the most wiggle room should it have been something else.

Diplomacy and foreign policy require all kinds of language like that, since these crises so often demand an immediate statement while facts on the ground are foggy and still being gathered.