View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67067 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
scullyfu
Joined: 01 Jan 2006 Posts: 8869 Location: Niagara Falls
Back to top |
Posted: 01/14/22 4:38 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
put an empty chair in their spot & proceed with the 'debate'; let the dem candidate have all the time. i'd be happy for the repuQ not to be there, wouldn't have to listen to their bs lies.
_________________ i'll always bleed Storm green.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009 Posts: 15755 Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009 Posts: 8983
Back to top |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67067 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
|
Hawkeye
Joined: 10 Aug 2010 Posts: 765 Location: Houston, TX
Back to top |
Posted: 04/14/22 4:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Replace the Republican with the highest polling 3rd party candidate and have at it.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8254 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 04/16/22 4:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
A lot of selective quoting and understanding going on, as usual.
The RNC is not against participating in presidential debates. That would be foolhardy. The RNC is simply reacting to what it perceives to be substantial evidence of unfairness and bias in the debates that have been sanctioned by one particular organization, the CPD. That is not foolhardy. Any other organization or media platform can organize, propose or hold debates, which the RNC presumably will consider.
Moreover, no Republican candidate is bound by votes of the RNC as to whether he or she will participate in CPD debates, if there are any.
From the same selectively quoted sources:
Quote: |
"Debates are an important part of the democratic process, and the RNC is committed to free and fair debates," RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement. "The Commission on Presidential Debates is biased and has refused to enact simple and commonsense reforms to help ensure fair debates including hosting debates before voting begins and selecting moderators who have never worked for candidates on the debate stage."
She added that the RNC will "find newer, better debate platforms" for Republican candidates to make their cases. |
Quote: |
Ultimately, decisions about debate participation are up to the party's nominees and not the party itself. |
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67067 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 04/16/22 4:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I agree the GOP has legitimate grievances and the commission has failed to address them
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009 Posts: 8983
Back to top |
Posted: 04/17/22 4:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
GlennMacGrady wrote: |
A lot of selective quoting and understanding going on, as usual.
The RNC is not against participating in presidential debates. That would be foolhardy. The RNC is simply reacting to what it perceives to be substantial evidence of unfairness and bias in the debates that have been sanctioned by one particular organization, the CPD. That is not foolhardy. Any other organization or media platform can organize, propose or hold debates, which the RNC presumably will consider. |
Oh, like Trump stalking HRC on stage?? And Trump never shutting up and letting Biden finish? Or Trump, on the occasion or two that the wind bag needed to refill, interrupting Biden? Or Trump claiming that everything was "fake news?"
Like that was fair!
_________________ "Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8254 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 04/17/22 6:18 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Ex-Ref wrote: |
GlennMacGrady wrote: |
A lot of selective quoting and understanding going on, as usual.
The RNC is not against participating in presidential debates. That would be foolhardy. The RNC is simply reacting to what it perceives to be substantial evidence of unfairness and bias in the debates that have been sanctioned by one particular organization, the CPD. That is not foolhardy. Any other organization or media platform can organize, propose or hold debates, which the RNC presumably will consider. |
Oh, like Trump stalking HRC on stage?? And Trump never shutting up and letting Biden finish? Or Trump, on the occasion or two that the wind bag needed to refill, interrupting Biden? Or Trump claiming that everything was "fake news?"
Like that was fair! :roll: :roll: |
You're completely missing the issue, Ex-Ref. The issue is not the behavior of the candidates on the debate stage; it's the behavior of the debate moderators, their backgrounds and their selections.
Go back before Trump. In 2012 we had moderator Candy Crowley constantly interrupting and arguing with Mitt Romney about what, in her opinion, Obama had said about the "terrorist" attack in Libya. It was unprecedented for a moderator to do that.
It got worse in 2016 with Fox's Meghan Kelly and ABC's Martha Raddatz even more aggressively trying to steer the debate with interruptions and their own speeches.
The interruptions and interventions continued in 2020 with Fox's Chris Wallace. Another Trump-Biden debate moderator, C-SPAN's Steve Scully, had worked as an assistant for Biden and Ted Kennedy and had in recent years retweeted the comment, "No, Not Trump, Not Ever."
That's the kind of perceived bias and unfairness the RNC is concerned about.
In my opinion, candidates should be able to say whatever they want during debates—answer the questions, don't answer the questions, go off on tangents, bloviate, BS, curse, lie, whatever. No one really cares what the always-canned answers are. Folks want to take the measure of the debaters'
personalities, personas, wit, intelligence, humor, decorum, likeability, etc. If a debater wants to act like an ass or a jerk or know-it-all bore, that's all valuable information for voters.
But moderators shouldn't have their thumbs on the scale or interject their own opinions, or even give the appearance thereof. Ideally, they should be completely neutral and invisible. Just like a ref. |
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18059 Location: Queens
Back to top |
Posted: 04/17/22 7:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Well, then, that's not a bloody debate, now is it?
_________________ Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009 Posts: 15755 Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009 Posts: 8983
Back to top |
Posted: 04/17/22 8:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
GlennMacGrady wrote: |
Ex-Ref wrote: |
GlennMacGrady wrote: |
A lot of selective quoting and understanding going on, as usual.
The RNC is not against participating in presidential debates. That would be foolhardy. The RNC is simply reacting to what it perceives to be substantial evidence of unfairness and bias in the debates that have been sanctioned by one particular organization, the CPD. That is not foolhardy. Any other organization or media platform can organize, propose or hold debates, which the RNC presumably will consider. |
Oh, like Trump stalking HRC on stage?? And Trump never shutting up and letting Biden finish? Or Trump, on the occasion or two that the wind bag needed to refill, interrupting Biden? Or Trump claiming that everything was "fake news?"
Like that was fair! |
You're completely missing the issue, Ex-Ref. The issue is not the behavior of the candidates on the debate stage; it's the behavior of the debate moderators, their backgrounds and their selections.
Go back before Trump. In 2012 we had moderator Candy Crowley constantly interrupting and arguing with Mitt Romney about what, in her opinion, Obama had said about the "terrorist" attack in Libya. It was unprecedented for a moderator to do that.
It got worse in 2016 with Fox's Meghan Kelly and ABC's Martha Raddatz even more aggressively trying to steer the debate with interruptions and their own speeches.
The interruptions and interventions continued in 2020 with Fox's Chris Wallace. Another Trump-Biden debate moderator, C-SPAN's Steve Scully, had worked as an assistant for Biden and Ted Kennedy and had in recent years retweeted the comment, "No, Not Trump, Not Ever."
That's the kind of perceived bias and unfairness the RNC is concerned about.
In my opinion, candidates should be able to say whatever they want during debates—answer the questions, don't answer the questions, go off on tangents, bloviate, BS, curse, lie, whatever. No one really cares what the always-canned answers are. Folks want to take the measure of the debaters'
personalities, personas, wit, intelligence, humor, decorum, likeability, etc. If a debater wants to act like an ass or a jerk or know-it-all bore, that's all valuable information for voters.
But moderators shouldn't have their thumbs on the scale or interject their own opinions, or even give the appearance thereof. Ideally, they should be completely neutral and invisible. Just like a ref. |
Oh, so the point isn't about unfairness during the debate, it's only about unfairness toward them, so they're going to take their candidate and go home? Got it.
_________________ "Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009 Posts: 8983
Back to top |
Posted: 04/17/22 8:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Howee wrote: |
Certainly, the rules and styles of any moderator need to be fair and unbiased.
To ME, the simplest control they ought to be allowed is to cut off a mic when a debater has exceeded their allotted time by, say, 30 seconds. THAT'S objectivity defined: X number of seconds, and yer done.
(Now....I'm curious about which Party might object to THAT?? ) |
I'm not sure that would work for some candidates. They would continue talking and injecting comments and distracting, not only the other candidate(s), but the people watching. I'm thinking that they need to put them in a 10' x 10' soundproof plexiglass-type box. Then, when they continue to ramble, but can't be heard, they will look goofy. And who wants a goofy president?
_________________ "Women are judged on their success, men on their potential. It’s time we started believing in the potential of women." —Muffet McGraw
“Thank you for showing the fellas that you've got more balls than them,” Haley said, to cheers from the crowd.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009 Posts: 15755 Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8254 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 04/18/22 8:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Queenie wrote: |
Well, then, that's not a bloody debate, now is it? |
No it isn't, but:
1. It's just my personal view, which no one in charge of debates will adopt.
2. I don't consider any of these pieces of stage theater to be informative "debates", much less memorable, and I've seen just about all of them since the first between Kennedy and Nixon. Given 90, 60 or 30 seconds, no one can intelligently debate important policy topics such as nuclear proliferation, inflation, immigration, climate change, energy policy, or what to do in Ukraine. All we ever get is mainly practiced talking points.
No moderator is ever going to get blowhard politicians to stick to time limits, especially ultra-blowhards such as Clinton, Obama and Trump. (McGovern, Mondale, Dole and WBush were relatively laconic.)
I'd rather just give them 30 minutes to discuss a topic and let them do whatever they want with no other time limits or moderator interference. Like a civilized conversation. Or an uncivilized one. |
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 67067 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 04/18/22 9:01 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
GlennMacGrady wrote: |
I don't consider any of these pieces of stage theater to be informative "debates", much less memorable, and I've seen just about all of them since the first between Kennedy and Nixon. Given 90, 60 or 30 seconds, no one can intelligently debate important policy topics such as nuclear proliferation, inflation, immigration, climate change, energy policy, or what to do in Ukraine. All we ever get is mainly practiced talking points. |
Most voters don't know enough about any of those subjects to be able to tell which candidate's policies are better. Heck, most candidates don't know enough about more than one or two of them to be able to speak about them with any depth.
The presidency is a management position. What we need to know is their governing philosophy, management style, and ability to identify and hire the right people to work under them. Specific policies are mostly beside the point.
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009 Posts: 15755 Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
Posted: 04/18/22 9:17 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
The presidency is a management position. What we need to know is their governing philosophy, management style, and ability to identify and hire the right people to work under them. Specific policies are mostly beside the point. |
Quite true, imo. Especially the delegation by hire/appointment part, which includes the ability TO MAINTAIN A FUNCTIONAL, PRODUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THOSE EXPERTS. [See: NOT Trump]
I have long viewed the Big Debates as a way to discern an important quality in leadership: How to think on your feet! Most polished politicians are trained in that, but many also reveal their substandard thinking skills by A: avoiding a direct, revealing response to a direct question and B: re-directing focus to a negative aspect of their opponent. [See: Palin] All might be acceptable techniques, but a REAL leader can articulate their ideas and rationales from a genuine knowledge base, and an informed observer can pick up on that quality quickly.
_________________ Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 16379 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
Posted: 04/19/22 9:44 am ::: |
Reply |
|
You know what? Never mind. It's not worth it.
|
|
StevenHW
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 10983 Location: Sacramento, California
Back to top |
|
|
|