Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I hear ya. That's what's so awesome about debate, though. A good debater WILL wait and then tear the opponent apart in rebuttal. I couldn't do it. I'd be growling "BULLSHIT" and throwing my water glass and having all kinds of works.Its not a matter of equipment being capable. Sure it is.Only one mic at a time sounds good, but we should ask G.T. if that is feasible.Last night was a waste of time for those of us interested in hearing the participants take on issues. How do you feel about these rule changes:
- Only one microphone is on at any time
- The microphone of the speaker will be shut off when the time set by the moderator is reached
- Rebuttals will be provided equal time (2 minutes for each, the initial question, and the rebuttal)
A warning light (these were used in some of the primary debates) would give the speakers fair warning to wrap up and mic shouldn't be cut off until speaker has finished statement.
More time should be allowed for the responses. I'm sick of bumper sticker policies.
It's that, in a debate - its nauseating to hear the counter-debater BEGIN a 2 or 3 minute screed about something that you've got the "counter" to within its first sentence. Because every soul's time is wasted if its a false premise screed. Its hard to let it "rip," so to speak.
Why is it unimportant to hold a fucking manchild accountable for his manchild/erratic behaviour, when he is running for POTUS? Same in reverse, woman child...?Stay specifically on the issues, specifically (1) what they plan on doing when in office & why, and (2) hypothetical situations and how they would react.
No silly gotcha questions or time spent flinging mud at the other debater.
Just kidding, the press would never do that. Too boring, too important.
.
Its very easy. As simple as a volume knob, literally.I hear ya. That's what's so awesome about debate, though. A good debater WILL wait and then tear the opponent apart in rebuttal. I couldn't do it. I'd be growling "BULLSHIT" and throwing my water glass and having all kinds of works.Its not a matter of equipment being capable. Sure it is.Only one mic at a time sounds good, but we should ask G.T. if that is feasible.Last night was a waste of time for those of us interested in hearing the participants take on issues. How do you feel about these rule changes:
- Only one microphone is on at any time
- The microphone of the speaker will be shut off when the time set by the moderator is reached
- Rebuttals will be provided equal time (2 minutes for each, the initial question, and the rebuttal)
A warning light (these were used in some of the primary debates) would give the speakers fair warning to wrap up and mic shouldn't be cut off until speaker has finished statement.
More time should be allowed for the responses. I'm sick of bumper sticker policies.
It's that, in a debate - its nauseating to hear the counter-debater BEGIN a 2 or 3 minute screed about something that you've got the "counter" to within its first sentence. Because every soul's time is wasted if its a false premise screed. Its hard to let it "rip," so to speak.
I thought manipulating the mics so quickly back and forth might be difficult. I sincerely wish they'd do it. I think it would only take once, and the candidates would start paying attention to the rules.
Trump raising taxes on the middle class? Does Kaine know anything?
Trump raising taxes on the middle class? Does Kaine know anything?
say what??
Your wish was granted.we don't need no stinkn' moderator. only one rule. its unfair to play fair. let em have at it !!
"FBI said we couldn't vet refugees"
"they are wrong"
2 min later---
"emails"
"but the FBI said"
contradictory old coot. so funny to me.
Its all theater! Or these people are just frikkin retarded!
Maybe because the FBI never said we couldnt vet refugees. You guys leave out words and details to try and make a point that came from nowhere. Of course when that fact that the FBI didnt say that is presented to you you will just call names and deflect as a response but you cant ever ever ever post the quote where the FBI said what you claim
Whenever you guys just lay out a link, you know it doesnt say what you claim and this followed suit. Thanks
Your wish was granted.we don't need no stinkn' moderator. only one rule. its unfair to play fair. let em have at it !!
whoa.Your wish was granted.we don't need no stinkn' moderator. only one rule. its unfair to play fair. let em have at it !!
I've often thought the non-partisan debate committee could put someone forward to moderate? Maybe they're too shy to go in front of 50 million plus? They should at least be responsible for questions being asked. I'm not a Trump supporter, but the questions have gone real easy on the Democrat, both of them. Tough questions for both, please. So the Trumpsters stop whining.Rules I'd like to see:
1. Stop using the media as moderators and find someone who understands how to moderate.
2. Only one mic on at a time. Deductions in time for interrupting. Mics and time deductions are managed by a neutral party off stage.
3. Topics agreed upon by both candidates ahead of time. (foreign policy, social issues, jobs)
4. Moderators not allowed to fact check.
5. Gotcha questions or questions plaguing the campaign can even be known ahead of time. I have no issue with Hillary knowing an email or Benghazi question is coming or Trump knowing a tax question is coming.
6. Audience must remain silent.
7. The moderator is allowed to ask a question of the candidate and state that the candidate cannot mention his or her opponent. In other words, What is YOUR view on this subject and what do YOU intent to do.
8. Breaks allowed. I want to hear answers. I don't need to see a marathon.
Last night was a waste of time for those of us interested in hearing the participants take on issues. How do you feel about these rule changes:
- Only one microphone is on at any time
- The microphone of the speaker will be shut off when the time set by the moderator is reached
- Rebuttals will be provided equal time (2 minutes for each, the initial question, and the rebuttal)
You cant explain a complicated policy in 2 minutes. You just cant.
He's not crying. He's got a valid point that the debates in this election cycle have lost all semblance of decorum. Yes, Kaine came off like a partisan poster here--rude and inane talking points that gave little substance. But it has been done by both sides in past debates. Either forget the debates or "teach 'em" how to behave.Last night was a waste of time for those of us interested in hearing the participants take on issues. How do you feel about these rule changes:
- Only one microphone is on at any time
- The microphone of the speaker will be shut off when the time set by the moderator is reached
- Rebuttals will be provided equal time (2 minutes for each, the initial question, and the rebuttal)
In other words, Kaine came off as a petulant toddler throwing a fit, while Pence wiped the floor with him based on a command of the fact, and you are crying...
He's not crying.
He's got a valid point that the debates in this election cycle have lost all semblance of decorum. Yes, Kaine came off like a partisan poster here--rude and inane talking points that gave little substance. But it has been done by both sides in past debates. Either forget the debates or "teach 'em" how to behave.
Donnie can stroke Vlad.He's not crying.
Kaine damaged the ticket last night. How much is hard to say - not enough in any case.
He's got a valid point that the debates in this election cycle have lost all semblance of decorum. Yes, Kaine came off like a partisan poster here--rude and inane talking points that gave little substance. But it has been done by both sides in past debates. Either forget the debates or "teach 'em" how to behave.
Part of the debate is to see who has the ability to control the dialogue, that is important to know. We are talking about our rulers who must deal with rulers from other nations and with our Congress.
Looks like we all have our priorities.Why is it unimportant to hold a fucking manchild accountable for his manchild/erratic behaviour, when he is running for POTUS? Same in reverse, woman child...?Stay specifically on the issues, specifically (1) what they plan on doing when in office & why, and (2) hypothetical situations and how they would react.
No silly gotcha questions or time spent flinging mud at the other debater.
Just kidding, the press would never do that. Too boring, too important.
.
Its relevant.
walk and chew gum or whine at folks who canLooks like we all have our priorities.Why is it unimportant to hold a fucking manchild accountable for his manchild/erratic behaviour, when he is running for POTUS? Same in reverse, woman child...?Stay specifically on the issues, specifically (1) what they plan on doing when in office & why, and (2) hypothetical situations and how they would react.
No silly gotcha questions or time spent flinging mud at the other debater.
Just kidding, the press would never do that. Too boring, too important.
.
Its relevant.
.
