Portland and Seattle are the only cities with enough spine to fight back.
[Edited on 7/28/2020 by BrerRabbit]
I support dissent. I support Black Lives Matter. I support Colin Kaepernick. But I would like to hear some "end game strategy" from all those involved. Do these protests end the moment that Donald Trump is no longer president?
I would very much like to hear (and see) Biden's responses when asked what HE would do to alleviate the seemingly riotous rebellions that are happening in places like Portland. I'm not picking on Joe - I just want to see and hear him respond LIVE and in real time to such questioning. Everything I've seen on him has been noticeably pre-produced and edited.
Like the responses to debates aren't scripted, rehearsed, memorized???? Do you not remember the concern that Reagan wouldn't be able to remember his lines in his 2nd term debates? He was at least good humored about his gaffes. The lengthy rehearsals for Dole w/stand-ins for the charismatic articulate Clinton? Do you think Biden's going to say something different from his previous statements?
You just made the case for no debate - we know what Trump thinks. A town hall for Biden would work.
How - and in what universe do my comments make a case AGAINST debates? I honestly do not think they do.
As someone who doesn't care much for either of the candidates, allow me to post one totally unbiased observation: the majority of those who are not in favor of Presidential debates are Joe Biden supporters. Research this and get back to me. If I'm wrong, I'll go out and buy a MAGA hat and eat it.
the majority of those who are not in favor of Presidential debates are Joe Biden supporters.
I would agree with this believing that Joe Biden "Live" will make for great SNL material. I will again state that I wish for the debates to take place but predict they will not. The DNP will find every reason on this planet to keep Joe of the debate stage. They can't agree on a Moderator, they will insist on a fact checker, Joe doesn't like the format, Joe is under the weather, Joe has other commitments and the Republicans will not re-schedule......Yada, yada yada
How - and in what universe do my comments make a case AGAINST debates? I honestly do not think they do.
As someone who doesn't care much for either of the candidates, allow me to post one totally unbiased observation: the majority of those who are not in favor of Presidential debates are Joe Biden supporters.
Re-read your post - you said it was parody material & you were right. I'm agreeing w/you.
I've said this ad nauseum. I haven't watched a debate since Kennedy/Nixon. I've thought they were useless my entire voting life & even less so now when there is non-stop inescapable election coverage. It has nothing to do w/who the 2020 nominees are.
I predict they will not.
Agreed. As I said before, 2 months from now is like 2 years in Covid time. A lot can happen.
Biden doesn't need to make an excuse. He can just say no. There's absolutely nothing that requires presidential debates.
The VP debate would be even more nonsensical.
Biden doesn't need to make an excuse. He can just say no. There's absolutely nothing that requires presidential debates.
OK, say he doesn't need to have an excuse, but the press/media will ask.
And his answer?....
Couldn't a fair point be made that the VP debate could be the most consequential in quite a long time? With the advanced age and some questionable health situations surrounding both POTUS candidates, there might be a greater chance than ever that one of these men do not finish the next 4 year term. If Biden picks a well known politician like Harris, then we can pretty much figure it out, but anyone else, and even her, I think it would be good to see them in action fielding live questions and exchanging with the other side.
OK, say he doesn't need to have an excuse, but the press/media will ask. And his answer?....
Yes, the media will ask & Trump will shame him, but so what?
The sponsor of the debates (used to be League of Women Voters, no idea who it is now) will just say there won't be any 2020 debates. Again, in 2 months time, anything could happen that would prevent them.
Couldn't a fair point be made that the VP debate could be the most consequential in quite a long time?
It might have been a fair point pre-Covid. Nothing is certain but uncertainty now.
Can you imagine the VP dates in 2016 if they'd been asked "how would you handle riots in every major city,
police murdering black men on camera, the public pulling down Confederate monuments, armed marches on state capitols & federal property, and a pandemic that is so out of control in the US that former allies - the UK, EU, & even Canada won't allow Americans to visit?" What could they possibly have said????
I don't care how smart, "woke," or politically savvy someone is, they can't predict what issues they will face & how they will handle them should they find themselves in the position of being president. Voters can't divide the tickets. They're either voting for Trump or Biden.
The VP is irrelevant. Trump haters aren't going to not vote for Biden because of his running mate & vice versa. Did anyone vote for Trump because they loved Pence? or hated Kaine? Was that the deciding factor between candidates?
I keep going back to the media maw. It has 24 hrs to fill 365 days. Voters will have a chance to see the VP candidates on any 1 of a zillion interviews they'll give during the campaign. I doubt there is a single question that won't be asked by the professional journalists as well as the PR pros pretending to be journalists. The candidates don't "need" a TV special devoted to them.
[Edited on 7/29/2020 by cyclone88]
Joe will announce his pick next week (“first week in August”- AP) - didn’t say if there was a potential favorite among Kamala Harris, Susan Rice & Elizabeth Warren, the 3 previously-reported (by AP) finalists - it could be someone else, who knows -
Joe has a lot of experience & must summon all his political savvy to make sure his pick will bring in the most votes - Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, the Clintons, others are all advisers in the process -
sincere best wishes to All the candidates
OK, say he doesn't need to have an excuse, but the press/media will ask. And his answer?....
Yes, the media will ask & Trump will shame him, but so what?
Well, John Q. Voting Public will take notice
Yes, the media will ask & Trump will shame him, but so what?
Well, John Q. Voting Public will take notice
Maybe.
Couldn't a fair point be made that the VP debate could be the most consequential in quite a long time?
It might have been a fair point pre-Covid. Nothing is certain but uncertainty now.
Can you imagine the VP dates in 2016 if they'd been asked "how would you handle riots in every major city,
police murdering black men on camera, the public pulling down Confederate monuments, armed marches on state capitols & federal property, and a pandemic that is so out of control in the US that former allies - the UK, EU, & even Canada won't allow Americans to visit?" What could they possibly have said????I don't care how smart, "woke," or politically savvy someone is, they can't predict what issues they will face & how they will handle them should they find themselves in the position of being president. Voters can't divide the tickets. They're either voting for Trump or Biden.
The VP is irrelevant. Trump haters aren't going to not vote for Biden because of his running mate & vice versa. Did anyone vote for Trump because they loved Pence? or hated Kaine? Was that the deciding factor between candidates?
I keep going back to the media maw. It has 24 hrs to fill 365 days. Voters will have a chance to see the VP candidates on any 1 of a zillion interviews they'll give during the campaign. I doubt there is a single question that won't be asked by the professional journalists as well as the PR pros pretending to be journalists. The candidates don't "need" a TV special devoted to them.
[Edited on 7/29/2020 by cyclone88]
The candidates might not need a TV special devoted to them, but the TV networks certainly need and want it.
It might be hard to imagine undecided voters this go around, but assuming they still exist, I think you underestimate the impact a good debate performance could have on somebody who might be on the fence. Even just the soundbites, the headlines, the fallout that can come from it, for the people who vote but don't really follow day-to-day issues, things that come out of a debate can impact some people's decisions. People who don't subscribe to voting by political party. They say independents determine elections. If that is is still the case then the Ds and Rs aren't going to do a thing with any debate storylines. Everyone else? A good debate performance could sway somebody to one side, a poor debate performance could steer someone away from the other side.
We might not think that is a wise way of choosing, and you might not value the debate process, but my views and your views are not necessarily universal and shared among the voting public. Plenty things I have no use for that many people are into. So to each their own. That and the media wants it for their own reasons.
The candidates might not need a TV special devoted to them, but the TV networks certainly need and want it.
It might be hard to imagine undecided voters this go around, but assuming they still exist, I think you underestimate the impact a good debate performance could have on somebody who might be on the fence. Even just the soundbites, the headlines, the fallout that can come from it, for the people who vote but don't really follow day-to-day issues, things that come out of a debate can impact some people's decisions. People who don't subscribe to voting by political party. They say independents determine elections. If that is is still the case then the Ds and Rs aren't going to do a thing with any debate storylines. Everyone else? A good debate performance could sway somebody to one side, a poor debate performance could steer someone away from the other side.
We might not think that is a wise way of choosing, and you might not value the debate process, but my views and your views are not necessarily universal and shared among the voting public. Plenty things I have no use for that many people are into. So to each their own. That and the media wants it for their own reasons.
The media's needs shouldn't dictate the American political process.
Now, w/social media added to the mix where a 10 second exchange can go viral, candidates are encouraged to "perform" rather than "enlighten." It will be interesting to see the viewer #s for TV if the debates are also available on FB or other platform where viewers who are glued to their phones rather than a TV might see at least portions of the debate. There are generations of voting age who don't watch TV. Our views & media habits are NOT universally shared w/those of different generations.
The problem w/a debate storyline (as in any reality storyline), is Trump's behavior was off-script in the last debates. I remember clips of him wandering around the stage & looming behind the Dem candidate in an effort to call attention to himself & detract from whatever was being said. It's who he is. Angry, short-attention span, desperate for the camera 100% of the time. In that regard, it was an indication of how he would behave - all those photo ops w/world leaders he literally shoved out of the way so he'd be the primary focus of pics.
I have yet to see any one-on-one clips of an interview w/Trump as president where there is dialogue. There is ranting, belittling, & talking over the opponent/interviewer. No one has a dialogue w/him. No one.
As for whether the debates will happen, who knows? Anything planned more than 2 days in advance during Covid19 is in danger of being canceled or rescheduled.
The candidates might not need a TV special devoted to them, but the TV networks certainly need and want it.
It might be hard to imagine undecided voters this go around, but assuming they still exist, I think you underestimate the impact a good debate performance could have on somebody who might be on the fence. Even just the soundbites, the headlines, the fallout that can come from it, for the people who vote but don't really follow day-to-day issues, things that come out of a debate can impact some people's decisions. People who don't subscribe to voting by political party. They say independents determine elections. If that is is still the case then the Ds and Rs aren't going to do a thing with any debate storylines. Everyone else? A good debate performance could sway somebody to one side, a poor debate performance could steer someone away from the other side.
We might not think that is a wise way of choosing, and you might not value the debate process, but my views and your views are not necessarily universal and shared among the voting public. Plenty things I have no use for that many people are into. So to each their own. That and the media wants it for their own reasons.
The media's needs shouldn't dictate the American political process.
Now, w/social media added to the mix where a 10 second exchange can go viral, candidates are encouraged to "perform" rather than "enlighten." It will be interesting to see the viewer #s for TV if the debates are also available on FB or other platform where viewers who are glued to their phones rather than a TV might see at least portions of the debate. There are generations of voting age who don't watch TV. Our views & media habits are NOT universally shared w/those of different generations.
The problem w/a debate storyline (as in any reality storyline), is Trump's behavior was off-script in the last debates. I remember clips of him wandering around the stage & looming behind the Dem candidate in an effort to call attention to himself & detract from whatever was being said. It's who he is. Angry, short-attention span, desperate for the camera 100% of the time. In that regard, it was an indication of how he would behave - all those photo ops w/world leaders he literally shoved out of the way so he'd be the primary focus of pics.
I have yet to see any one-on-one clips of an interview w/Trump as president where there is dialogue. There is ranting, belittling, & talking over the opponent/interviewer. No one has a dialogue w/him. No one.
As for whether the debates will happen, who knows? Anything planned more than 2 days in advance during Covid19 is in danger of being canceled or rescheduled.
If the debates are done on things like FB and other 'social media", they should be shown start to finish with a split screen so both candidates can be seen. Sometimes the reaction to a question or statement can be just as important as what was said.
Plus, how would you know that the "editors" didn't leave out something they thought might hurt their candidate?
If the debates are done on things like FB and other 'social media",
NOTHING related to true politics or government should be done on social media. Nothing.
I’m not assuming you’re advocating for that Jerry, but it just blows my mind that people look to outlets like FB for news or anything of substance. It’s frankly pretty terrifying.
I'm not advocating for debates to be shown anywhere, but plenty of sports, concerts, and theatrical events are show on FB Live and other platforms like it that are no different from TV - the events aren't controlled by anyone but the producer (like the League of Women voters or whoever sponsors the debates). People are even MORE accustomed to getting information & having meetings via Zoom now during Covid19. The debates could be on Zoom for all I care.
If the debates are done on things like FB and other 'social media",
NOTHING related to true politics or government should be done on social media. Nothing.
I’m not assuming you’re advocating for that Jerry, but it just blows my mind that people look to outlets like FB for news or anything of substance. It’s frankly pretty terrifying.
I'm not, really, I'm not. There is too much of a chance of "unseen participation of how the debate would be presented" that I couldn't discount any of the conspiracy theories of how it was manipulated to favor one candidate for the other.
How often could there be a "technical glitch" or connection problem, "sorry, lost feed", problems with "my microphone isn't working, many things that could happen either accidentally or "accidentally on purpose".
The Russian/Korean/Chinese connection of the candidate saying one thing in the studio and something completely different going out through FB.
All conspiracy theories, some whack, some where you think, could be, some plausible. Who would know.
If the debates are held, there should be 2 podiums about 7 feet apart. Cameras for each podium would be fixed in place so they don't pan or tilt and no zoom focus. The floor on each side of the podium marked to show where the camera has a field of view. Tell the candidates you can move to this point and the camera can pick you up. Outside of the marks, you can't be seen, and the microphone can't pick you up. Therefore you need to stay within these marks.
All major networks would use the feed from those cameras. Not just one.
Split screen, again to show both candidates at all times. No full screen close up shots of either candidate at any time of the debate except during introductions.
Questions can come in by way of a verifiable e-mail client. Nothing else. The question must be read using the e-mail headings ie: noone@nowhere.com and the name of the person sending the e-mail.
No prepared questions. The candidates will have to think on their feet.
No, I don't think the debates should be on FB due to all the fake information, news by bots, fake membership, and other attempts by foreign states to influence the 2016 election that are apparently happening still.
Tell the candidates you can move to this point and the camera can pick you up. Outside of the marks, you can't be seen, and the microphone can't pick you up. Therefore you need to stay within these marks.
Same issue as masks; who's going to enforce this? During the last presidential debates, Trump didn't say anything, he just meandered around the stage, circled behind the Dem candidate at one point that caused her to look over her shoulder as to what was going on, and both drawing attention to himself & trying to throw the other candidate off.
Have we not learned that Trump doesn't follow rules unless he makes them? He can be told anything; doesn't mean he'll do it. He could just stand behind Biden & make funny faces. He's childish & will do anything to make Biden look disoriented & feeble. If Biden's in the shot, Trump would be, too.
Some posters don't understand 1) there are social media platforms other than FB Live that stream unedited content (e.g., youtube live) and 2) there is a group of voters who watch their phones/ipads instead of TV. In 1960, TV was the new media & JFK used it to his advantage to debate Nixon. 60 years later, phones are the media a lot of people rely on.
If he leaves his section of the stage and goes behind Biden, turn off the video feed on Bidens' camera.
I guess a monitor that the candidates see is required so he can see that he's not being broadcast.
Rules would have to be explained, a document showing the rules, and options, have have been explained to the candidates be signed by the candidates before the debates go on air.
The final sentence would be "If you do not agree and abide by these rules of conduct, the debates will be terminated at that moment. Video and audio feed will shut down. Explanations to the audience will be given as to what rules of conduct were broken by whom and why the debates have been terminated from a newscaster at undisclosed location."
Unfortunately, Jerry, you & I aren't running the debates. I wouldn't have them at all & you'd have strict rules.
Unfortunately, Jerry, you & I aren't running the debates. I wouldn't have them at all & you'd have strict rules.
You are correct sir. Yes, If you don't have the rules in effect, anything is fair game.
Used to be a guy in one of my platoons that had the opinion that if the rules don't say NO, then it's ok to do it.
He did have a valid argument about that, so I've believed since then that the rules have to say what is and isn't allowed, and what can and will happen if those rules are broken.
Earlier today, Newsweek reported Joe’s aides & campaign strategists are urging him to opt out of the debates
I question the credibility of some of these news sources - the article referred to him as “Vice President Joe Biden”
Earlier today, Newsweek reported Joe’s aides & campaign strategists are urging him to opt out of the debates
I question the credibility of some of these news sources - the article referred to him as “Vice President Joe Biden”
Although I believe Biden has little to gain with a debate (why offer any hope to Trump who is digging a deeper hole for himself everyday?), I think there should always be debates. Trump had terrible debate performances in 2016 and still won, so it is unlikely that it will hurt Biden significantly. I think most people have made up their mind already. Heck, some people will probably already have cast their vote by mail before the debates happen. I'm wondering if Trump complaints about mail in voting may cause his voters to wait until election day to cast their votes making them more susceptible to changes due to debate performance.
I think there should always be debates.
Curious as to why you think there should always be debates - especially after some ballots have already been cast? They didn't exist until JFK challenged Nixon in 1960.
Wendall Wilkie asked FDR to debate & FDR declined in 1940. The U of MD invited the 2 candidates to debate in 1956 & both declined. The 1st actual presidential debate was 1960 when a vigorous JFK took on pale, nervous Nixon on TV. No debates after that until 1976 - 16 years later.
By the time, the debates happen, there have been party hopeful debates, party primaries & caucuses, the national party conventions in which both candidates present their platform & make their pitch, & voting has started. Is there anything the public doesn't know by then? Especially when one candidate is the incumbent & has a 4 year record?
Also, "winning" a debate ain't always what it's cracked up to be. In my eyes, John Kerry kicked George W. Bush's arse in the debates. But to many, he came off looking like a smug smart a$$ - which turned off a lot of voters.
Personally, I love the debates! For the record, I don't believe I've ever heard an acceptable REAL answer from any candidate to any REAL question. Most participants at this level know and understand the political adage, "answer the question that you WISH they had asked" and just work from there. The entertainment value is huge!
Yeah, Joe is liable to be caught channeling James Stockdale ... but Trump will likely blow a gasket and melt down all over the stage on a couple of occasions. I just hope that Megyn Kelly is on the panel to make both ..."grabbers" sweat!
With the possibility of no televised sports - and the fact that I've pretty much watched all of Netflix, Hulu, Shudder, Amazon Prime and everything else obtainable via digital media - bring on those debates!
[Edited on 8/3/2020 by Rusty]
From today's New York Times - Debates Are Quip Contests; Scrap Them
Let’s Scrap the Presidential Debates
By Elizabeth Drew
Ms. Drew is a journalist based in Washington.
Nervous managers of the scheduled 2020 presidential debates are shuffling the logistics and locations to deal with the threat of the coronavirus. But here’s a better idea: Scrap them altogether. And not for health reasons.
The debates have never made sense as a test for presidential leadership. In fact, one could argue that they reward precisely the opposite of what we want in a president. When we were serious about the presidency, we wanted intelligence, thoughtfulness, knowledge, empathy and, to be sure, likability. It should also without saying, dignity.
Yet the debates play an outsize role in campaigns and weigh more heavily on the verdict than their true value deserves. Some of them have been less than hilarious, but they did the job of dominating reaction to a debate. Whatever substance existed was largely ignored. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan debated the incumbent Jimmy Carter, Carter made a serious point about Reagan’s position on Medicare, and Reagan’s riposte, “There you go again,” a non-answer if ever there was one, brought down the house and that was that.
In the first 1984 debate, Reagan, seeking re-election and at 73, the oldest person to be nominated for the presidency, seemed tired and tended to wander off mentally at times. His lackluster performance caused panic among his staff. Democratic supporters of former Vice President Walter Mondale saw an opening.
But another debate soon followed. Thoroughly prepared, Reagan got off the crack, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”
The audience roared and Mr. Mondale feigned a laugh, knowing he was cooked. Not even Reagan’s ending of that debate, reminiscing about driving along the Pacific Coast and musing about time capsules, was enough to undermine his political prospects. Reagan’s “joke” aimed at nullifying the age issue dominated the post-debate chatter.
But what is the point or relevance of the carefully prepared one-liner? It’s as spontaneous as a can of sardines. It’s usually delivered from a memory chip in the mind, having been fashioned and rehearsed with aides. When is a president called upon to put down an interlocutor, be it a member of Congress or a foreign leader, before a large audience — or at all?
This, by the way, isn’t written out of any concern that Donald Trump will prevail over Joe Biden in the debates; Mr. Biden has done just fine in a long string of such contests. The point is that “winning” a debate, however assessed, should be irrelevant, as are the debates themselves.
The better way to pay attention to and choose among the presidential candidates is to follow the long campaign that so many complain about. The reason for such moaning has always been a mystery, because unless the campaign is taking place in your living room, you can simply switch it off.
The key words are “pay attention to,” because over the stretch of 2015-2016 it wasn’t impossible to see the implications of a Trump presidency. Not just the vulgarity but the ignorance and insensitivity and extreme narcissism were apparent more than a year before Election Day.
Moreover, we didn’t need the debates to tell us that Trump had chosen to be the P.T. Barnum of American politics. For him, it was (and still is) all about the show, about distracting the public from reality. It was obvious that Mr. Trump had no real affinity for the working-class people whose votes he was chasing. Nothing in his life suggested that his heart was with struggling workers and farmers. It wasn’t impossible to know that he wasn’t the skilled businessman he professed to be. His bankruptcies and shady business practices and discrimination against Black tenants were no secret.
The debates took us nowhere nearer the realities about arguably the most disastrous president in our history. They became simply another tool in his arsenal.
The party conventions, also vestigial organs of a political system that no longer exists, are close to being done away with, if not for the reasons they should be. There’s no reason not to throw the presidential debates on the trash heap of useless (at best) rituals that are no help in our making such a fateful decision.
The entertainment value is huge!
Sadly, that's the point of the NYT article from this morning I just posted. It's not a tool to enlighten voters or get serious answers on questions. It's scripted entertainment. The candidates know it (Trump having been through his share as a primary candidate & then nominee & Biden as a primary candidate & then VP nominee). Anyone else who expects more is kidding themselves.
Funny how so many issues are divided by party affiliation and nothing more.
If I were a Democrat, I would not under any circumstances want Joe Biden on a debate stage either.
Argue or present any reason against it you care to.
If I were a Democrat, I would not under any circumstances want Joe Biden on a debate stage either.
Big V, I think people are sick of the two of us re debates, but I will point out that I don't want to see Trump on a debate stage, either. I don't know the political leanings of the author of the NYT article, but her piece was an objective look at how useless the debates are in political terms but a wealth of entertainment value.
