WWTBAM Bored

Sorry my friends but that was just so sad to watch. Especially when it was supposed to be a friendly FOX moderator.

I had to click to see if the thread was about the debate or NBC reviving The Weakest Link.

Lol

Easy misunderstanding

There was no clear winner, but there were definitely 328 million losers.

Hey Saucy, I'm actually embarrassed you saw that. But then, I'm embarrassed ANYONE saw that. Wreck, Train.

There will be commentators working for state-run media around the world who will seize on this with the following analysis: "You've been preaching to us for decades that Democracy is the only way...and it gives us THIS?" For those inclined to justify monarchies and dictatorships, this was a gift.

But here's the point--yes, occasionally Democracy gives us this. But, it also gives us the right to choose. I'll take the bargain, bad as it might be at times.

After watching that mess, I don't think Trump is trying to win the election at all. I think his plan is to fight it in the courts and have them declare Trump the winner.

Absolutely disgusting.

Civility, decorum, conduct in keeping with the office being sought, sticking to the actual issues without getting personal.....gone, utterly vanished.

This wasn't a debate, it was a "meet you after school at 3 o'clock" middle school brawl.

And Buff, you are 100% right. Anybody extolling the virtues of democracy will NOT want to use this as Exhibit A.

And in the end, what effect did this have?
Trump supporters will still vote Trump.
Biden supporters will still vote Biden.
And undecideds, in the aftermath of last night's equivalent of a WWE Wrestling extravaganza, will say screw it, stay home on November 3rd, order pizza delivery and see what's left in their Netflix queue.

So my wife and I took different tactics in leading up to the debate.

She watched the episodes of West Wing involving Presidential debates.

I listened to 4 hours of comments (really 2 hours of comments within a 4 hour span) during a telephonic public meeting "in South Dakota" on Section 404 / Section 10 permitting of the Keystone XL pipeline.

I was better prepared and slightly less disappointed in the debate, as a result.

Chris Wallace now knows what it felt like when his father was reporting from the middle of a war zone.

Trump set the tone. He brings out the worst in everybody. Look at what a mockery he made of the GOP debates for the nomination in 2016.

If anybody seriously believes the whole atmosphere wouldn't have been different if ANY Republican but Trump had been on that stage...

... or if anybody seriously believes the whole atmosphere wouldn't have been exactly the same if ANY Democrat other than Biden had been on that stage ....

... I politely scoff.

I have a basic question that I have asked in prior debates that got out of hand:

Don't these microphones have an "off" switch in the control room? If so, why isn't it used?

It might not stop someone from talking over another person but it certainly would slow them down.

EDIT: Evidently that is being considered in the next two debates, per an AP article on changes in structure and format of those debates:

One possibility being discussed is to give the moderator the ability to cut off the microphone of one of the debate participants while his opponent is talking, according to a person familiar with the deliberations who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

SpacemanSpiff wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 30, 2020 1:08 pm

I have a basic question that I have asked in prior debates that got out of hand:

Don't these microphones have an "off" switch in the control room? If so, why isn't it used?

It might not stop someone from talking over another person but it certainly would slow them down.

EDIT: Evidently that is being considered in the next two debates, per an AP article on changes in structure and format of those debates:

One possibility being discussed is to give the moderator the ability to cut off the microphone of one of the debate participants while his opponent is talking, according to a person familiar with the deliberations who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Not going to happen. Dealing with implicit biases likely impacting whether each candidate is being treated equally and, more importantly, creating the easy argument that the media purposefully silenced one of the candidates.

Appa23 wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 30, 2020 2:32 pm

SpacemanSpiff wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 30, 2020 1:08 pm

I have a basic question that I have asked in prior debates that got out of hand:

Don't these microphones have an "off" switch in the control room? If so, why isn't it used?

It might not stop someone from talking over another person but it certainly would slow them down.

EDIT: Evidently that is being considered in the next two debates, per an AP article on changes in structure and format of those debates:

One possibility being discussed is to give the moderator the ability to cut off the microphone of one of the debate participants while his opponent is talking, according to a person familiar with the deliberations who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Not going to happen. Dealing with implicit biases likely impacting whether each candidate is being treated equally and, more importantly, creating the easy argument that the media purposefully silenced one of the candidates.

Each candidate was supposed to get two minutes to answer a question. Automatically turning off the other candidate's microphone during those two minutes would avoid that issue and would have reduced the problem significantly. --Bob

I've been saying for a while (since 2016 at least) that they should use game show rules.

1. Both candidates in isolation booths, unable to hear or see the other or the moderator.
2. Each is asked the same question and given two, or whatever, minutes to answer. Again, the other cannot hear the answer or see the other person.
3. The candidates, when answering, can see a countdown clock for their time.
4. When the time is up, the mic and their lights go off so that no one can hear or see them until they get the next question.
5. A panel of non-partisan judges (or a few dozen people with fast and good online research skills) do fact-checking and designate the truth or lies in the answer. While we wait for the results, let the pundits do their thing.
6. Clear the board and repeat as long as necessary.

SpacemanSpiff wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 30, 2020 1:08 pm

I have a basic question that I have asked in prior debates that got out of hand:

Don't these microphones have an "off" switch in the control room? If so, why isn't it used?

It might not stop someone from talking over another person but it certainly would slow them down.

EDIT: Evidently that is being considered in the next two debates, per an AP article on changes in structure and format of those debates:

One possibility being discussed is to give the moderator the ability to cut off the microphone of one of the debate participants while his opponent is talking, according to a person familiar with the deliberations who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

I thought about that in the first few minutes. Game shows have had soundproof booths for, what, 60 years? Leave their speakers on all the time, but give 'em an indicator light and a mike only during their 2 minute turn.

gsabc wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 30, 2020 3:32 pm

I've been saying for a while (since 2016 at least) that they should use game show rules.

1. Both candidates in isolation booths, unable to hear or see the other or the moderator.
2. Each is asked the same question and given two, or whatever, minutes to answer. Again, the other cannot hear the answer or see the other person.
3. The candidates, when answering, can see a countdown clock for their time.
4. When the time is up, the mic and their lights go off so that no one can hear or see them until they get the next question.
5. A panel of non-partisan judges (or a few dozen people with fast and good online research skills) do fact-checking and designate the truth or lies in the answer. While we wait for the results, let the pundits do their thing.
6. Clear the board and repeat as long as necessary.

You were posting this as I was writing my post. I'd like to see the candidates have a chance to rebut or refute any statements by the other. I don't agree with keeping them in the dark.

What gets lost in this is that Biden didn't have a really strong debate. Right off the bat, Chris Wallace nailed him with a question about whether he supported packing the Supreme Court (he sidestepped the issue). But Trump wasn't interested in formal debating; he just ranted and interrupted. He also went off on tangents about how smart Biden was, how Biden wouldn't have crowds at rallies because he couldn't draw crowds, and, worst of all turning Biden's mention of his son Beau into an attack on Hunter Biden's drug addiction. It's hard to see how any of that played well to anyone who wasn't already in the tank for Trump.

By the end of the debate (and I'm not sure how many people were left by then), Biden had figured out that his strength was to talk to the American people, facing the camera, while Trump continued to sweat and snarl. It reminded me of the Nixon-Kennedy debate. Those who listened to the debate on the radio felt Nixon had done well, but those who saw him on TV, being the usual sweaty, shifty Nixon, while Kennedy looked Kennedyesque, were far more impressed by Kennedy.

The next debate is the town hall, which should give Biden an even bigger advantage, because he connects well with the public.

Some good came out of it, there's a new Weird Al Yankovic video of him moderating the debate.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... n9x-DjTMT0

The Republican National Committee has announced, two years in advance, that it will boycott the 2024 presidential debates. They've given up on negotiating with the debate commission. Just shows that Trumpism is alive and well in the GOP.

jarnon wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:13 am

The Republican National Committee has announced, two years in advance, that it will boycott the 2024 presidential debates. They've given up on negotiating with the debate commission. Just shows that Trumpism is alive and well in the GOP.

One idea I've heard floated is that if the Republican candidate refuses to attend, the debate commission could go ahead with the debate and invite the Libertarian and Green candidates instead. You can bet Donald Trump won't want to have people talk about him for two hours.

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:20 am

jarnon wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:13 am

The Republican National Committee has announced, two years in advance, that it will boycott the 2024 presidential debates. They've given up on negotiating with the debate commission. Just shows that Trumpism is alive and well in the GOP.

One idea I've heard floated is that if the Republican candidate refuses to attend, the debate commission could go ahead with the debate and invite the Libertarian and Green candidates instead. You can bet Donald Trump won't want to have people talk about him for two hours.

Sure he would. They talk about him incessantly now. Free rent and all.

BackInTex wrote: ↑

Sun Jan 16, 2022 5:47 pm

silverscreenselect wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:20 am

jarnon wrote: ↑

Fri Jan 14, 2022 9:13 am

The Republican National Committee has announced, two years in advance, that it will boycott the 2024 presidential debates. They've given up on negotiating with the debate commission. Just shows that Trumpism is alive and well in the GOP.

One idea I've heard floated is that if the Republican candidate refuses to attend, the debate commission could go ahead with the debate and invite the Libertarian and Green candidates instead. You can bet Donald Trump won't want to have people talk about him for two hours.

Sure he would. They talk about him incessantly now. Free rent and all.

Exactly. Bless their hearts.