| Final-Fan said: I think you do have a point, but "5 to 0" is a significant exaggeration in my opinion. The way I see it, there are only three hard questions I am certain the moderator went into the debate intending to aim specifically at Trump: tax returns, the birth certificate, and the comment about Clinton's "look". Even in the case of the question about Iraq, I'm not sure whether that would have been brought up if Trump hadn't brought it up in the first place. (To be fair, it could safely have been anticipated he would do that.) I also believe he probably would have asked Clinton about the emails but Trump beat him to the punch. 3 to 1 is still one-sided but not as bad as your claim. And I hope you will admit that Trump has presented a very large target with the birtherism and refusing to release his tax returns; both completely self-inflicted wounds. |
I really think "5 t0 0" is fair. We can't really count as a question a question he didn't ask but one think he would probably have asked, and rule out a question one believe he would not have asked if. We are counting the questions, but here you are changing the count based on your belief of his intentions. He didn't just ask, he fact-checked (so even for rules was on Clinton's side), he replied back. About the constitutionality of stop and frisk, it's not a fact-check, it's a debate he's having (see Giuliani in new york times), and he's interrupting.
I don't know what is the intention of someone that on first debate in front of millions people prepare at least 3 hard questions for a candidate, and is prepared to debate on that, and 0 or 1 for the other. He come here biased, it's strange to say he was more fair than it seems based on what he did not do but we assume he would have the fairness to do on other circumstances.
