America’s Chris Wallace Problem |

[Feanor2]

You hold sympathies for white nationalists? Maybe talk a little more about that.

 

[Feanor2]

Well firstly there is no such thing as “white”. It is a legal construction referring to a group that lacks minority status. It has been set up as the dominant race possessing power.

The concept of the four races was invented by British anthropologists in the 1800s

Thank you for expounding on you antipathy towards white nationalism as I can now read your posts with that in mind.

 

[ProVobis]

Chief Justice Roberts

 

[ProVobis]

How about Albert Einstein?

Ah, the Entanglement Theory. Now you’re talking.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Actually I was thinking Brit Hume re a debate moderator.

 

[Feanor2]

Another rightist

 

[Jeanne_S]

Yes indeed!

 

[Feanor2]

Why are people except Provobis naming only rightists?

 

[Feanor2]

With the virulently racist lead writer

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Say whatever one might about Trump’s behavior, that’s a different topic from Chris Wallace’s clear pandering to Biden. Trump was complaining about going one on two that night. A poor performance on Wallace’s part.

For those who think this is baseless, try to imagine for a minute Tucker Carlson as a moderator. Think we’d be hearing left’s screams? Well that’s how we see Wallace. Wallace is a water carrier for the left just as Carlson is for the rest of us.

Steve Scully is another well documented Biden backer. So the next debate, if it happens, will feature Trump going one on two again and it will be obvious. Again.

At the moment, the moderators are picked by the debate organizers. I think that should change. Biden picks one moderator, Trump picks another moderator, the debate organizer picks the third. Then they draw lots or whatever to determine the order. That would be fairer than this travesty.

 

[Theo520]

I do see it. I just don’t see it as pervasive as some here have claimed.

When you only have one debate moderator, it is pervasive if he exhibits gross bias in doing his moderating.

It was quite obvious who Wallace was rooting for.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I’m not a fan of Alec Baldwin however he and Jim Carry did a hilarious spoof on the debate.They both nailed the mannerisms and voices of Trump and Biden. Ohh and KH impetsonator made an appearance as well.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I do see it. I just don’t see it as pervasive as some here have claimed.

When you only have one debate moderator, it is pervasive if he exhibits gross bias in doing his moderating.

It was quite obvious who Wallace was rooting for.

I disagree. It is true that Wallace admonished the President more than he did Biden, but that was only because Trump needed more admonishing. He objectively was interrupting more often and refusing to abide by the rules set by the moderator, which applied equally to both of them. If you think Wallace was biased, then cite some example of what he said or did that uniformly disadvantaged Trump.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

If you think Wallace was biased, then cite some example of what he said or did that uniformly disadvantaged Trump.

Let’s look at two examples:

CHRIS WALLACE: You, in the course of these four years, have never come up with a comprehensive plan to replace Obamacare, and just this last Thursday you signed a largely symbolic Executive Order to protect people with pre-existing conditions five days before this debate. So my question, sir, is what is the Trump healthcare plan?

The expression ** largely symbolic** is an opinion expressed by a supposedly “neutral” monitor. Perhaps many including yourself would agree with that phrase. But none of you can say that phrase is not an opinion in this context. So Trump picked up on Wallace expressing his own opinion in lieu of “neutrality”:

DONALD TRUMP: Well, first of all, I guess I’m debating you, not him, but that’s okay. I’m not surprised.

Now you want to dismiss that in your usual manner. It gets better. Read the entire exchange over court packing. Not once does Wallace say anything to Biden about his unwillingness to answer the question. Not one single time. He just forces the debate to move on. From the transcript, the closing part of that:

CHRIS WALLACE: Gentlemen, I think we’ve ended this-

JOE BIDEN: This is so un-Presidential.

DONALD TRUMP: He’s going to pack the court. He is not going to give a list.

CHRIS WALLACE: We have ended the segment. We’re going to move on to the second segment.

Not one word from Wallace here other than to move the debate on. Just lets this non-answer go while letting Biden hammer Trump over the pre-existing conditions discussion. There is more, but that will do.

I’m sure you’ll just love Steve Scully.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

CHRIS WALLACE: You, in the course of these four years, have never come up with a comprehensive plan to replace Obamacare, and just this last Thursday you signed a largely symbolic Executive Order to protect people with pre-existing conditions five days before this debate. So my question, sir, is what is the Trump healthcare plan?

It is an objective fact that the executive order that Trump signed is largely symbolic, because it expresses an intent and a goal but does not have any force to it. It is more like a promise to what the administration intends to do rather than action that accomplishes anything. Here is the actual text. Can you find anything in this that is more than symbolic? Something with teeth? Something with consequences?

 

[Ridgerunner]

It is an objective fact that the executive order that Trump signed is largely symbolic, because it expresses an intent and a goal but does not have any force to it. It is more like a promise to what the administration intends to do rather than action that accomplishes anything. Here is the actual text. Can you find anything in this that is more than symbolic? Something with teeth? Something with consequences?

That’s hardly the point, even if true. The point is that Wallace passed judgment on Trump’s order. He became a partisan advocate when he did that, and worse, the comment was gratuitous. It was totally unnecessary to the actual inquiry.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It is an objective fact that the executive order that Trump signed is largely symbolic, because it expresses an intent and a goal but does not have any force to it. It is more like a promise to what the administration intends to do rather than action that accomplishes anything. Here is the actual text. Can you find anything in this that is more than symbolic? Something with teeth? Something with consequences?

That’s hardly the point, even if true. The point is that Wallace passed judgment on Trump’s order.

Citing an objective fact that is not a matter of opinion is not “passing judgement.” No one believes Trump’s order is anything more than symbolic (which is not necessarily a bad thing, since lots of symbolic motions are passed by Congress too, but it is a fact when it comes to asking about details.)

It was totally unnecessary to the actual inquiry.

It was necessary to avoid the meaningless response of “I signed an executive order…”.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Citing an objective fact that is not a matter of opinion is not “passing judgement.”

Yes, sure. All assertions by dems are “objective facts”. All assertions by Repubs are “lies”. We have been treated to that analysis for a very long time.

Truth is, though, that characterizing something as merely symbolic is a judgment, and when it comes to things like executive orders is a negative one.

t was necessary to avoid the meaningless response of “I signed an executive order…”.

Yes. Wallace wanted HIS answers, not Trump’s. If he didn’t like Trump’s answer to something, he just insisted on a different one. He didn’t even make Biden answer very serious questions. Biden would just refuse and Wallace would let it go.

Wallace was as biased as biased gets, but he has been for four years now against Trump. I won’t w

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

It is an objective fact that the executive order that Trump signed is largely symbolic

That is a gross assumption on your part to say this is “objective” fact. The way you word it is to assume the factuality to begin with. This is a common ipse dixit flaw in many Democrat arguments. Including this one.

It would have been far better as a neutral question if Wallace had left out those two words. By leaving them in, he was echoing the Biden campaign talking point which you have repeated here ad nauseum. When questions with loaded wording are used, don’t be surprised when that gets called out.

I noticed how you simply skipped over the court packing conversation. Harris refused to answer the same question last night and the moderator did better with this than Wallace did.

In general, moderators should exercise more care than Wallace did to make sure their questions don’t include “loaded” terms that favor one side or the other. Opinions are for the candidates to state, not the moderator as happened more than once in this debate. The way Wallace asked that question betrayed the integrity of his role, hence he has to take some responsibility for letting the debate go so out of control.

In contrast, Susan Page didn’t appear to have let her politics get in the way of the debate she moderated last night and that’s the way the first debate should have been. Wallace shouldn’t be in the headlines. Page, by comparison, is barely mentioned.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Citing an objective fact that is not a matter of opinion is not “passing judgement.”

Yes, sure. All assertions by dems are “objective facts”.

No, but this one is asserted by more that just dems.

All assertions by Repubs are “lies”.

Not true either. Not by a long shot.

Truth is, though, that characterizing something as merely symbolic is a judgment, and when it comes to things like executive orders is a negative one.

I linked to the full text of the executive order. If you think it has any force of law, please cite the passage where it says there are any penalties if an insurance company chooses to exclude pre-existing conditions from coverage.

Yes. Wallace wanted HIS answers, not Trump’s.

Well, if Trump’s answer was “I signed an executive order” that would not be an answer to the question of what is your plan for health care. Not your promise or your goal or your hopes and dreams, but your plan. That is a fair question to ask someone who is working hard to invalidate the one law we do have that requires coverage for pre-existing conditions.

That is a gross assumption on your part to say this is “objective” fact. The way you word it is to assume the factuality to begin with.

Same challenge to you. Show me the passage in the executive order that requires coverage of pre-existing conditions.