No Debate

[Monkeyshack]

I just watched this News segment on the presidential debate, I think that it raised some important questions.

PBS Link

Open Debates website

Check it out what do you all think?

Should there be actual one-on-one debate going on?

Should any question be open for debate?

What do you all think... is this all just a bunch of bogus crap?

 

[JHoNNy1OoO]

I saw that show on Friday. I found it quite interesting. Especially the part when the womans group, who had the interests of the people, gave up the authority to organize the debates. They felt that they could no longer keep it fair. The campaigns started hating that a womans group was calling the shots instead of themselves. That's when the Presidential Debates Commitee was founded and ever since then the individual campaigns have basically had complete control(including keeping 3rd parties out) of the debates instead of the best interest of the people.

Should there be actual one-on-one debate going on? Of-Course
It's even stupid that they call these things debates since they can't really keep on discussing each others ideas like a true debate. 3 debates is a joke anyways but at least have a real debate and not questions you already have answeres for in a perfect 60 or 90 second soundbite.

Should any question be open for debate? Yes

 

[dahunan]

Do the debaters get to know any of the questions beforehand?

 

[umbrella39]

I just finished watching it. What a shame the "debates" aren't actually debates at all.

Get ready for a lot of "Please don't ask questions of the other candidate" Yawn. They need to get rid of the Commission on Presidential Debates and return it to the LOWV.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I think the FCC should cite the campaigns for false advertisement. Either that or the Debate Commission should be forced to rename their events . . .

1) Let's Sit and Talk Past One Another for an Hour
2) Did You Ever Wonder What an Hour Long Campaign Ad Would Be Like?
3) Who Would Have Thought You Could Answer 20 Questions Using the Same Phrase Ad Nauseum?
4) Yeah You Cannot Believe Anything I Say But You REALLY Cannot Believe Anything the Other Guy Says
5) Lies and Half Truths R Us

 

[Moonbeam]

You have the candidates, debates, and campaigns you deserve.

 

[Gravity]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You have the candidates, debates, and campaigns you deserve.

True enough. However, Moonbeam, it's what "we" deserve. It's not like you get your own personal format since you are um,well, better than the rest of us.

We'll get what we deserve on November 2nd. also.

 

[Monkeyshack]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I think the FCC should cite the campaigns for false advertisement.

That a great idea, we sue the past presidents because they said.. A and B but never did A or B.... that would be something I would get in on... I wonder how viable that is.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Monkeyshack

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I think the FCC should cite the campaigns for false advertisement.

That a great idea, we sue the past presidents because they said.. A and B but never did A or B.... that would be something I would get in on... I wonder how viable that is.

It is sad how the republicans and the democrats have pretty much stiffled the whole process. From deals to include Perot in the 92 debates to deals excluding him from the 96 debates. Buchanon in 00... remember him? They wanted nothing to do with him that year either.

I had no idea the whole thing was just a bunch of bull$hit where no real 'debating' is actually allowed.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Gravity

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You have the candidates, debates, and campaigns you deserve.

True enough. However, Moonbeam, it's what "we" deserve. It's not like you get your own personal format since you are um,well, better than the rest of us.

We'll get what we deserve on November 2nd. also.

Only if this time they count the votes.

 

[CycloWizard]

The holdup on official approval of the debates is now the CPD doing battle with the parties involved. They had an article about it in the school paper (since we're hosting the town hall) and apparently, the questions were supposed to come from 100 "undecided" voters according to the CPD. Both Dems and Reps changed this to 50 "soft Bush" and 50 "soft Kerry" supporters posing the questions. The reasoning is apparently because they didn't want supporters of one campaign posing as undecideds. CPD apparently doesn't like this change, but really, it's out of their hands, as neither candidate will attend the debate without the change. :roll:

There has to be a better way.

[edit]Looks like they're changing things around: first debate will be foreign policy (September 30), the last on domestic/economic policy (October 13), and the second still town hall (October 8). Doesn't appear that they've reached an agreement on the exact format of the second yet.

http://www.debates.org/media/bakerandjordanltr.pdf [/edit]

 

[imported_Mike]

I watched it and was disgusted on how ignorant I was to the entire process. I knew both parties knew the questions before the debate...but wow.