my way of doing the debates...

[browsing deer]

would be to have the questions be open ended.
The border, what to do about it, the defic, what about it, roe v wade, what to do about it.

The debate is three hours, each candidate gets 17 minutes the whole night. They can waste all 17 minutes in one question, or spread his/her talk across all the questions. Each candidate faces chess clocks. The 17 minutes is up, that candidate is done.

If you attack another candidate that is a three minute penalty. All the other candidates gets 20 seconds added their clocks.

Moderators are there to enforce the rules. Otherwise, they shut up

I feel this would be more useful than vainglorious reporters preening themselves at the expense of the candidates. We would get more useful answers, and each candidate would get more useful time

Not going to happen, but I feel it would be nice

 

[Siete]

the best way to do political debates ..

never invite RW's ... they'll cry like babies about them anyway, what's the difference?

 

[BlackFlag]

would be to have the questions be open ended.
The border, what to do about it, the defic, what about it, roe v wade, what to do about it.

The debate is three hours, each candidate gets 17 minutes the whole night. They can waste all 17 minutes in one question, or spread his/her talk across all the questions. Each candidate faces chess clocks. The 17 minutes is up, that candidate is done.

If you attack another candidate that is a three minute penalty. All the other candidates gets 20 seconds added their clocks.

Moderators are there to enforce the rules. Otherwise, they shut up

I feel this would be more useful than vainglorious reporters preening themselves at the expense of the candidates. We would get more useful answers, and each candidate would get more useful time

Not going to happen, but I feel it would be nice

That's just lobbing softballs at them. Candidates would LOVE to hear those questions because then they can just riff off answers they've memorized. The important questions are about how they are going to realistically implement their policies and what the actual positive and negative effects of those policies are going to be. They definitely don't want voters wondering about that.

 

[TNHarley]

the best way to do political debates ..

never invite RW's ... they'll cry like babies about them anyway, what's the difference?

IKR? Why should they want to talk about the economy instead of a competitors moralities.. What losers

 

[SwimExpert]

I would like to see written debates. Let these morons open their mouths, and there's no telling what stench will come out.

 

[Cecilie1200]

would be to have the questions be open ended.
The border, what to do about it, the defic, what about it, roe v wade, what to do about it.

The debate is three hours, each candidate gets 17 minutes the whole night. They can waste all 17 minutes in one question, or spread his/her talk across all the questions. Each candidate faces chess clocks. The 17 minutes is up, that candidate is done.

If you attack another candidate that is a three minute penalty. All the other candidates gets 20 seconds added their clocks.

Moderators are there to enforce the rules. Otherwise, they shut up

I feel this would be more useful than vainglorious reporters preening themselves at the expense of the candidates. We would get more useful answers, and each candidate would get more useful time

Not going to happen, but I feel it would be nice

If I were Ted Cruz (an excellent candidate who really needs a breakout moment to draw attention to his campaign), I would arrange a debate with Donald Trump, or Ben Carson, or both. A REAL debate, not these pathetic, overcrowded inquisitions run by the leftist media for the purposes of advancing their own agenda; an actual give-and-take among the two or three candidates themselves on the issues, to allow voters to actually see where they stand. I think Ben Carson is serious-minded enough to appreciate the substantive value of such an approach, and I think Donald Trump is too much of an attention whore to turn down the opportunity to be seen.

 

[browsing deer]

A REAL debate, not these pathetic, overcrowded inquisitions run by the leftist media for the purposes of advancing their own agenda; an actual give-and-take among the two or three candidates themselves on the issues, to allow voters to actually see where they stand. I think Ben Carson is serious-minded enough to appreciate the substantive value of such an approach, and I think Donald Trump is too much of an attention whore to turn down the opportunity to be seen.

That is what I desire too. Get it so it is more like the Lincoln/Douglas debate where each shows the competing views rather than the snark of the reporters

 

[Mac1958]

would be to have the questions be open ended.
The border, what to do about it, the defic, what about it, roe v wade, what to do about it.

The debate is three hours, each candidate gets 17 minutes the whole night. They can waste all 17 minutes in one question, or spread his/her talk across all the questions. Each candidate faces chess clocks. The 17 minutes is up, that candidate is done.

If you attack another candidate that is a three minute penalty. All the other candidates gets 20 seconds added their clocks.

Moderators are there to enforce the rules. Otherwise, they shut up

I feel this would be more useful than vainglorious reporters preening themselves at the expense of the candidates. We would get more useful answers, and each candidate would get more useful time

Not going to happen, but I feel it would be nice

Not going to happen indeed, because it wouldn't produce nearly enough shallow fireworks for ratings.

Better to ask gotcha questions and insult the candidates, that'll draw the viewers.
.

 

[BlackFlag]

would be to have the questions be open ended.
The border, what to do about it, the defic, what about it, roe v wade, what to do about it.

The debate is three hours, each candidate gets 17 minutes the whole night. They can waste all 17 minutes in one question, or spread his/her talk across all the questions. Each candidate faces chess clocks. The 17 minutes is up, that candidate is done.

If you attack another candidate that is a three minute penalty. All the other candidates gets 20 seconds added their clocks.

Moderators are there to enforce the rules. Otherwise, they shut up

I feel this would be more useful than vainglorious reporters preening themselves at the expense of the candidates. We would get more useful answers, and each candidate would get more useful time

Not going to happen, but I feel it would be nice

If I were Ted Cruz (an excellent candidate who really needs a breakout moment to draw attention to his campaign), I would arrange a debate with Donald Trump, or Ben Carson, or both. A REAL debate, not these pathetic, overcrowded inquisitions run by the leftist media for the purposes of advancing their own agenda; an actual give-and-take among the two or three candidates themselves on the issues, to allow voters to actually see where they stand. I think Ben Carson is serious-minded enough to appreciate the substantive value of such an approach, and I think Donald Trump is too much of an attention whore to turn down the opportunity to be seen.

Why would Trump or Carson agree to slum it wih someone who's floundering in the polls? Do you think they would want to possibly help Cruz's numbers go up?

 

[Davros]

A REAL debate, not these pathetic, overcrowded inquisitions run by the leftist media for the purposes of advancing their own agenda; an actual give-and-take among the two or three candidates themselves on the issues, to allow voters to actually see where they stand. I think Ben Carson is serious-minded enough to appreciate the substantive value of such an approach, and I think Donald Trump is too much of an attention whore to turn down the opportunity to be seen.

That is what I desire too. Get it so it is more like the Lincoln/Douglas debate where each shows the competing views rather than the snark of the reporters

Yes, I was thinking the same thing myself. Replace these clown show debates with 2 to 3 person debates like that. Problem is it doesn't stop the politician from lying, but benefit is it gets more substantive and in depth into issues. 30 to 60 second answers are of limited use.

 

[Davros]

would be to have the questions be open ended.
The border, what to do about it, the defic, what about it, roe v wade, what to do about it.

The debate is three hours, each candidate gets 17 minutes the whole night. They can waste all 17 minutes in one question, or spread his/her talk across all the questions. Each candidate faces chess clocks. The 17 minutes is up, that candidate is done.

If you attack another candidate that is a three minute penalty. All the other candidates gets 20 seconds added their clocks.

Moderators are there to enforce the rules. Otherwise, they shut up

I feel this would be more useful than vainglorious reporters preening themselves at the expense of the candidates. We would get more useful answers, and each candidate would get more useful time

Not going to happen, but I feel it would be nice

If I were Ted Cruz (an excellent candidate who really needs a breakout moment to draw attention to his campaign), I would arrange a debate with Donald Trump, or Ben Carson, or both. A REAL debate, not these pathetic, overcrowded inquisitions run by the leftist media for the purposes of advancing their own agenda; an actual give-and-take among the two or three candidates themselves on the issues, to allow voters to actually see where they stand. I think Ben Carson is serious-minded enough to appreciate the substantive value of such an approach, and I think Donald Trump is too much of an attention whore to turn down the opportunity to be seen.

Why would Trump or Carson agree to slum it wih someone who's floundering in the polls? Do you think they would want to possibly help Cruz's numbers go up?

Do 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, 5 vs 6, and then maybe put the remainder in a clown show debate.

 

[g5000]

I can just see one of these guys as President.

"That Putin was unfair! He was totally biased against me. It's not my fault I got steamrolled."

 

[BlackFlag]

would be to have the questions be open ended.
The border, what to do about it, the defic, what about it, roe v wade, what to do about it.

The debate is three hours, each candidate gets 17 minutes the whole night. They can waste all 17 minutes in one question, or spread his/her talk across all the questions. Each candidate faces chess clocks. The 17 minutes is up, that candidate is done.

If you attack another candidate that is a three minute penalty. All the other candidates gets 20 seconds added their clocks.

Moderators are there to enforce the rules. Otherwise, they shut up

I feel this would be more useful than vainglorious reporters preening themselves at the expense of the candidates. We would get more useful answers, and each candidate would get more useful time

Not going to happen, but I feel it would be nice

If I were Ted Cruz (an excellent candidate who really needs a breakout moment to draw attention to his campaign), I would arrange a debate with Donald Trump, or Ben Carson, or both. A REAL debate, not these pathetic, overcrowded inquisitions run by the leftist media for the purposes of advancing their own agenda; an actual give-and-take among the two or three candidates themselves on the issues, to allow voters to actually see where they stand. I think Ben Carson is serious-minded enough to appreciate the substantive value of such an approach, and I think Donald Trump is too much of an attention whore to turn down the opportunity to be seen.

Why would Trump or Carson agree to slum it wih someone who's floundering in the polls? Do you think they would want to possibly help Cruz's numbers go up?

Do 1 vs 2, 3 vs 4, 5 vs 6, and then maybe put the remainder in a clown show debate.

Hmm that would be interesting. They desperately need to cut the field down for the next debate. To maybe 5 candidates at most.

 

[Cecilie1200]

would be to have the questions be open ended.
The border, what to do about it, the defic, what about it, roe v wade, what to do about it.

The debate is three hours, each candidate gets 17 minutes the whole night. They can waste all 17 minutes in one question, or spread his/her talk across all the questions. Each candidate faces chess clocks. The 17 minutes is up, that candidate is done.

If you attack another candidate that is a three minute penalty. All the other candidates gets 20 seconds added their clocks.

Moderators are there to enforce the rules. Otherwise, they shut up

I feel this would be more useful than vainglorious reporters preening themselves at the expense of the candidates. We would get more useful answers, and each candidate would get more useful time

Not going to happen, but I feel it would be nice

If I were Ted Cruz (an excellent candidate who really needs a breakout moment to draw attention to his campaign), I would arrange a debate with Donald Trump, or Ben Carson, or both. A REAL debate, not these pathetic, overcrowded inquisitions run by the leftist media for the purposes of advancing their own agenda; an actual give-and-take among the two or three candidates themselves on the issues, to allow voters to actually see where they stand. I think Ben Carson is serious-minded enough to appreciate the substantive value of such an approach, and I think Donald Trump is too much of an attention whore to turn down the opportunity to be seen.

Why would Trump or Carson agree to slum it wih someone who's floundering in the polls? Do you think they would want to possibly help Cruz's numbers go up?

As I said, I think Ben Carson is a serious-minded individual who would really like to discuss the issues, and I think Donald Trump is too much of an attention whore to turn it down. I also think, conservative voters being what they are, both of them would lose a lot of credibility with their target audiences if they turned it down.

 

[Auld Phart]

I can just see one of these guys as President.

"That Putin was unfair! He was totally biased against me. It's not my fault I got steamrolled."

Good news is. if they get in trouble in discussions with Putin....;


they can always borrow Hillarys reset button

 

[BlackFlag]

would be to have the questions be open ended.
The border, what to do about it, the defic, what about it, roe v wade, what to do about it.

The debate is three hours, each candidate gets 17 minutes the whole night. They can waste all 17 minutes in one question, or spread his/her talk across all the questions. Each candidate faces chess clocks. The 17 minutes is up, that candidate is done.

If you attack another candidate that is a three minute penalty. All the other candidates gets 20 seconds added their clocks.

Moderators are there to enforce the rules. Otherwise, they shut up

I feel this would be more useful than vainglorious reporters preening themselves at the expense of the candidates. We would get more useful answers, and each candidate would get more useful time

Not going to happen, but I feel it would be nice

If I were Ted Cruz (an excellent candidate who really needs a breakout moment to draw attention to his campaign), I would arrange a debate with Donald Trump, or Ben Carson, or both. A REAL debate, not these pathetic, overcrowded inquisitions run by the leftist media for the purposes of advancing their own agenda; an actual give-and-take among the two or three candidates themselves on the issues, to allow voters to actually see where they stand. I think Ben Carson is serious-minded enough to appreciate the substantive value of such an approach, and I think Donald Trump is too much of an attention whore to turn down the opportunity to be seen.

Why would Trump or Carson agree to slum it wih someone who's floundering in the polls? Do you think they would want to possibly help Cruz's numbers go up?

As I said, I think Ben Carson is a serious-minded individual who would really like to discuss the issues, and I think Donald Trump is too much of an attention whore to turn it down. I also think, conservative voters being what they are, both of them would lose a lot of credibility with their target audiences if they turned it down.

Well it's never going to happen. No way do Trump and Carson have any interest in lending credibility to a competitor's floundering campaign. If Cruz asked them they would dismiss it as a stunt and their supporters would agree with them.

 

[Cecilie1200]

would be to have the questions be open ended.
The border, what to do about it, the defic, what about it, roe v wade, what to do about it.

The debate is three hours, each candidate gets 17 minutes the whole night. They can waste all 17 minutes in one question, or spread his/her talk across all the questions. Each candidate faces chess clocks. The 17 minutes is up, that candidate is done.

If you attack another candidate that is a three minute penalty. All the other candidates gets 20 seconds added their clocks.

Moderators are there to enforce the rules. Otherwise, they shut up

I feel this would be more useful than vainglorious reporters preening themselves at the expense of the candidates. We would get more useful answers, and each candidate would get more useful time

Not going to happen, but I feel it would be nice

If I were Ted Cruz (an excellent candidate who really needs a breakout moment to draw attention to his campaign), I would arrange a debate with Donald Trump, or Ben Carson, or both. A REAL debate, not these pathetic, overcrowded inquisitions run by the leftist media for the purposes of advancing their own agenda; an actual give-and-take among the two or three candidates themselves on the issues, to allow voters to actually see where they stand. I think Ben Carson is serious-minded enough to appreciate the substantive value of such an approach, and I think Donald Trump is too much of an attention whore to turn down the opportunity to be seen.

Why would Trump or Carson agree to slum it wih someone who's floundering in the polls? Do you think they would want to possibly help Cruz's numbers go up?

As I said, I think Ben Carson is a serious-minded individual who would really like to discuss the issues, and I think Donald Trump is too much of an attention whore to turn it down. I also think, conservative voters being what they are, both of them would lose a lot of credibility with their target audiences if they turned it down.

Well it's never going to happen. No way do Trump and Carson have any interest in lending credibility to a competitor's floundering campaign. If Cruz asked them they would dismiss it as a stunt and their supporters would agree with them.

Perhaps, but their supporters are very small groups among conservative and independent voters, and the much larger group of people who haven't yet chosen a candidate to throw their rabid support to certainly would NOT agree. They would see the demurring candidates as cowards who are uninterested in dispensing with entertainment campaigning for substantive issues. That would in itself lend more credibility to the campaign of the candidate proposing the substantive debate.