Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Moderators are incompetent hacks with no political knowledge.
They should have a panel of the top general, most recent american economic Nobel laureate (or some equivalent), most recently retired surgeon general and attorneys general write the questions which are then presented by a moderator, then the author of each question responds to their answers and if required asks a single follow up question to each debator.
More importantly, if the candidates are non-responsive they should shut off their fucking microphones.
And when it isn't their turn shut off their mics. The only hot mics should be the moderators and the candidate being addressed by the moderators.
yes plz :)
I think this is a great point. All the moderators are media personalities without a background so they can't really claim expert knowledge on the issues. But the panel of experts I think is spot on to create this basis of expertise or fact. The single follow up used to be the norm. e.g. "candidates have 2 minute responses with a 30 second follow up" (strictly adhered to time)
also give them the authority to mute a candidate's mic for breaking rules, like talking over someone else when they don't have the floor. perhaps you can have a separate umpire type character. record what's going in the mic and release it 7 days later for transparency but don't let it get messy
Its been at least 10 years since I've watched one. They dont even answer the questions that are asked.
Candidates go straight to personal attacks :/
Since they changed the rules where candidates are allowed to address each other its been a slow decline to Jerry Springer status.
Ten years... So that's essentially two debates:
Clinton v. Trump, 2016 Biden v. Trump, 2020
One might be tempted to believe the problem is more with one bumbling fascist fool and the decay of American democracy than with the format as such.
If the debate were actually a debate, I would consider watching them.
The intelligence squared series is a great example of what a debate could be. I'm utterly disinterested in what talking heads have to say about who won or lost. I want an actual score at the end.
this version of debates is actually reality tv
I mean, debates aren't just like, whatever we pretend them to be.
They are like, an actual, structured, formatted, moderated thing. There are definitions that are meaningful to these words.
For example: https://opentodebate.org/what-is-the-oxford-style-debate-format/
You poll the audience before the debate begins on the reaction to the thesis. You poll them afterwords. Whichever team changed more minds is the winner.
They’re not debates. They’re ridiculous slapfights that no one cares about.
The debates stopped being controlled by an independent 3rd party and started being controlled by the DNC and RNC.
Simple.
The last real debate was in 1984.
At what point do we start blaming the people for selecting them to run?
If our votes mattered...yes...I'd blame the people.
I doubt we'll have em much longer, doesnt seem like not participating hurts any candidates chances.