The Form and Essence of the Debates

[DGS49]

One of the main purposes of the "debates" (which are not truly debates) is for the candidates to explain their policies and the reasoning behind them.

Would it not truly be beneficial to make at least a portion of the questions known in advance? Give them a chance to prepare answers - even use a teleprompter - so that the viewers can get a clear picture of what the candidates stand for.

That portion of the "debate" could also include a short time for rebuttal by the other candidate.

Another part of the proceedings could be spontaneous, with questions chosen and presented by the Moderator.

One of the real problems with this sort of event, as we have seen many times in the past, is that the candidates prepare answers and present those prepared answers regardless of what the questions were, and many in the audience don't pick up on it.

What is the purpose of the debates?

 

[skye]

With Joe Hiden there is no point to debates. Sorry but it's the truth.

 

[candycorn]

One of the main purposes of the "debates" (which are not truly debates) is for the candidates to explain their policies and the reasoning behind them.

Would it not truly be beneficial to make at least a portion of the questions known in advance? Give them a chance to prepare answers - even use a teleprompter - so that the viewers can get a clear picture of what the candidates stand for.

That portion of the "debate" could also include a short time for rebuttal by the other candidate.

Another part of the proceedings could be spontaneous, with questions chosen and presented by the Moderator.

One of the real problems with this sort of event, as we have seen many times in the past, is that the candidates prepare answers and present those prepared answers regardless of what the questions were, and many in the audience don't pick up on it.

What is the purpose of the debates?

The purpose is to give the facade that there is a difference in the parties when there isn't. That isn't to say that there is no difference in the candidates...Trump is much worse than anyone the Democrats put out this time around. But when the R's and D's agree on anything--like the commission on presidential debates--the overarching paradigm is to do the following; keep the duopoly alive.

Two reasons that you couldn't pay me enough to watch any of these presidential debates (I may watch my girl Kamala kick Pence's ass);

• I made my mind up long ago on voting for anyone who would be about to oust the blob.
• The debates are meaningless exercises where, as you said, the answers given rarely match the questions asked.

When the League of Women Voters ran the debates, there was some actual give and take. Now we get pseudo-debates to where the candidates essentially debate themselves.

 

[WelfareQueen]

But since one of the candidates is not really doing a campaign (Hidin' Biden) this will be a chance for Americans to see him for the first time without a teleprompter and {theoretically) without the questions ahead of time.

Since CNN is not doing the first debate I think there is a fair chance the debate question will not be given to him in advance, Maybe Joe can take a few shots of Geritol before hand so he has a fighting chance. Otherwise I think he will look like what he is....a bumbling idiot.

 

[talksalot]

I don't think Biden can handle a debate even with the moderators' help, which I'm sure will be provided.

 

[two_iron]

Hidin' is going to need a therapy rodent or something to keep him from losing his shit and having a nuclear meltdown in front of the country. He's thin-skinned because the msm politburo treats him like a stage 4 cancer patient, but he's got a TON of fucking baggage and Trump is going to be.... well, Trump.

"C'mon man!! Are you a junkie??" won't cut it.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It's going to be comedy gold watching Trump eat Biden alive...lol Biden can't get it right with a teleprompter

 

[Indeependent]

One of the main purposes of the "debates" (which are not truly debates) is for the candidates to explain their policies and the reasoning behind them.

Would it not truly be beneficial to make at least a portion of the questions known in advance? Give them a chance to prepare answers - even use a teleprompter - so that the viewers can get a clear picture of what the candidates stand for.

That portion of the "debate" could also include a short time for rebuttal by the other candidate.

Another part of the proceedings could be spontaneous, with questions chosen and presented by the Moderator.

One of the real problems with this sort of event, as we have seen many times in the past, is that the candidates prepare answers and present those prepared answers regardless of what the questions were, and many in the audience don't pick up on it.

What is the purpose of the debates?

The purpose is to give the facade that there is a difference in the parties when there isn't. That isn't to say that there is no difference in the candidates...Trump is much worse than anyone the Democrats put out this time around. But when the R's and D's agree on anything--like the commission on presidential debates--the overarching paradigm is to do the following; keep the duopoly alive.

Two reasons that you couldn't pay me enough to watch any of these presidential debates (I may watch my girl Kamala kick Pence's ass);

• I made my mind up long ago on voting for anyone who would be about to oust the blob.
• The debates are meaningless exercises where, as you said, the answers given rarely match the questions asked.

When the League of Women Voters ran the debates, there was some actual give and take. Now we get pseudo-debates to where the candidates essentially debate themselves.

I agree that both parties are the same and that's why I'm thankful to Trump for running against both parties.

 

[Indeependent]

One of the main purposes of the "debates" (which are not truly debates) is for the candidates to explain their policies and the reasoning behind them.

Would it not truly be beneficial to make at least a portion of the questions known in advance? Give them a chance to prepare answers - even use a teleprompter - so that the viewers can get a clear picture of what the candidates stand for.

That portion of the "debate" could also include a short time for rebuttal by the other candidate.

Another part of the proceedings could be spontaneous, with questions chosen and presented by the Moderator.

One of the real problems with this sort of event, as we have seen many times in the past, is that the candidates prepare answers and present those prepared answers regardless of what the questions were, and many in the audience don't pick up on it.

What is the purpose of the debates?

The purpose is to give the facade that there is a difference in the parties when there isn't. That isn't to say that there is no difference in the candidates...Trump is much worse than anyone the Democrats put out this time around. But when the R's and D's agree on anything--like the commission on presidential debates--the overarching paradigm is to do the following; keep the duopoly alive.

Two reasons that you couldn't pay me enough to watch any of these presidential debates (I may watch my girl Kamala kick Pence's ass);

• I made my mind up long ago on voting for anyone who would be about to oust the blob.
• The debates are meaningless exercises where, as you said, the answers given rarely match the questions asked.

When the League of Women Voters ran the debates, there was some actual give and take. Now we get pseudo-debates to where the candidates essentially debate themselves.

I agree that both parties are the same and that's why I'm thankful to Trump for running against both parties.

Thanks for admitting you never watched any of Trump's speeches or interviews when he was campaigning in 2016.
It must be pathetic to be you.

 

[candycorn]

One of the main purposes of the "debates" (which are not truly debates) is for the candidates to explain their policies and the reasoning behind them.

Would it not truly be beneficial to make at least a portion of the questions known in advance? Give them a chance to prepare answers - even use a teleprompter - so that the viewers can get a clear picture of what the candidates stand for.

That portion of the "debate" could also include a short time for rebuttal by the other candidate.

Another part of the proceedings could be spontaneous, with questions chosen and presented by the Moderator.

One of the real problems with this sort of event, as we have seen many times in the past, is that the candidates prepare answers and present those prepared answers regardless of what the questions were, and many in the audience don't pick up on it.

What is the purpose of the debates?

The purpose is to give the facade that there is a difference in the parties when there isn't. That isn't to say that there is no difference in the candidates...Trump is much worse than anyone the Democrats put out this time around. But when the R's and D's agree on anything--like the commission on presidential debates--the overarching paradigm is to do the following; keep the duopoly alive.

Two reasons that you couldn't pay me enough to watch any of these presidential debates (I may watch my girl Kamala kick Pence's ass);

• I made my mind up long ago on voting for anyone who would be about to oust the blob.
• The debates are meaningless exercises where, as you said, the answers given rarely match the questions asked.

When the League of Women Voters ran the debates, there was some actual give and take. Now we get pseudo-debates to where the candidates essentially debate themselves.

I agree that both parties are the same and that's why I'm thankful to Trump for running against both parties.

Thanks for admitting you never watched any of Trump's speeches or interviews when he was campaigning in 2016.
It must be pathetic to be you.

It IS pathetic to be you.
I'm much more informed than you are or ever will be.

 

[Indeependent]

One of the main purposes of the "debates" (which are not truly debates) is for the candidates to explain their policies and the reasoning behind them.

Would it not truly be beneficial to make at least a portion of the questions known in advance? Give them a chance to prepare answers - even use a teleprompter - so that the viewers can get a clear picture of what the candidates stand for.

That portion of the "debate" could also include a short time for rebuttal by the other candidate.

Another part of the proceedings could be spontaneous, with questions chosen and presented by the Moderator.

One of the real problems with this sort of event, as we have seen many times in the past, is that the candidates prepare answers and present those prepared answers regardless of what the questions were, and many in the audience don't pick up on it.

What is the purpose of the debates?

The purpose is to give the facade that there is a difference in the parties when there isn't. That isn't to say that there is no difference in the candidates...Trump is much worse than anyone the Democrats put out this time around. But when the R's and D's agree on anything--like the commission on presidential debates--the overarching paradigm is to do the following; keep the duopoly alive.

Two reasons that you couldn't pay me enough to watch any of these presidential debates (I may watch my girl Kamala kick Pence's ass);

• I made my mind up long ago on voting for anyone who would be about to oust the blob.
• The debates are meaningless exercises where, as you said, the answers given rarely match the questions asked.

When the League of Women Voters ran the debates, there was some actual give and take. Now we get pseudo-debates to where the candidates essentially debate themselves.

I agree that both parties are the same and that's why I'm thankful to Trump for running against both parties.

Thanks for admitting you never watched any of Trump's speeches or interviews when he was campaigning in 2016.
It must be pathetic to be you.

It IS pathetic to be you.
I'm much more informed than you are or ever will be.

One wouldn't know from the pathos you are constantly posting.
You come off like the ignorant fool you are.
Too much CNN, I presume.

 

[candycorn]

One of the main purposes of the "debates" (which are not truly debates) is for the candidates to explain their policies and the reasoning behind them.

Would it not truly be beneficial to make at least a portion of the questions known in advance? Give them a chance to prepare answers - even use a teleprompter - so that the viewers can get a clear picture of what the candidates stand for.

That portion of the "debate" could also include a short time for rebuttal by the other candidate.

Another part of the proceedings could be spontaneous, with questions chosen and presented by the Moderator.

One of the real problems with this sort of event, as we have seen many times in the past, is that the candidates prepare answers and present those prepared answers regardless of what the questions were, and many in the audience don't pick up on it.

What is the purpose of the debates?

The purpose is to give the facade that there is a difference in the parties when there isn't. That isn't to say that there is no difference in the candidates...Trump is much worse than anyone the Democrats put out this time around. But when the R's and D's agree on anything--like the commission on presidential debates--the overarching paradigm is to do the following; keep the duopoly alive.

Two reasons that you couldn't pay me enough to watch any of these presidential debates (I may watch my girl Kamala kick Pence's ass);

• I made my mind up long ago on voting for anyone who would be about to oust the blob.
• The debates are meaningless exercises where, as you said, the answers given rarely match the questions asked.

When the League of Women Voters ran the debates, there was some actual give and take. Now we get pseudo-debates to where the candidates essentially debate themselves.

I agree that both parties are the same and that's why I'm thankful to Trump for running against both parties.

Thanks for admitting you never watched any of Trump's speeches or interviews when he was campaigning in 2016.
It must be pathetic to be you.

It IS pathetic to be you.
I'm much more informed than you are or ever will be.

One wouldn't know from the pathos you are constantly posting.
You come off like the ignorant fool you are.
Too much CNN, I presume.

You probably believe the "thugs on a plane" bullshit, the "inspecting the bunker" bullshit, "my taxes are under audit" bullshit. You eat bullshit like it's your only food source. Because all you consume is the shit that comes out of the blob's mouth. Inject some disinfectant into your bloodstream and fade off to sleep shit brains. You're using oxygen that could be utilized by someone with something to contribute.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

One of the main purposes of the "debates" (which are not truly debates) is for the candidates to explain their policies and the reasoning behind them.

Would it not truly be beneficial to make at least a portion of the questions known in advance? Give them a chance to prepare answers - even use a teleprompter - so that the viewers can get a clear picture of what the candidates stand for.

That portion of the "debate" could also include a short time for rebuttal by the other candidate.

Another part of the proceedings could be spontaneous, with questions chosen and presented by the Moderator.

One of the real problems with this sort of event, as we have seen many times in the past, is that the candidates prepare answers and present those prepared answers regardless of what the questions were, and many in the audience don't pick up on it.

What is the purpose of the debates?

The purpose is to give the facade that there is a difference in the parties when there isn't. That isn't to say that there is no difference in the candidates...Trump is much worse than anyone the Democrats put out this time around. But when the R's and D's agree on anything--like the commission on presidential debates--the overarching paradigm is to do the following; keep the duopoly alive.

Two reasons that you couldn't pay me enough to watch any of these presidential debates (I may watch my girl Kamala kick Pence's ass);

• I made my mind up long ago on voting for anyone who would be about to oust the blob.
• The debates are meaningless exercises where, as you said, the answers given rarely match the questions asked.

When the League of Women Voters ran the debates, there was some actual give and take. Now we get pseudo-debates to where the candidates essentially debate themselves.

I agree that both parties are the same and that's why I'm thankful to Trump for running against both parties.

Thanks for admitting you never watched any of Trump's speeches or interviews when he was campaigning in 2016.
It must be pathetic to be you.

It IS pathetic to be you.
I'm much more informed than you are or ever will be.

One wouldn't know from the pathos you are constantly posting.
You come off like the ignorant fool you are.
Too much CNN, I presume.

You probably believe the "thugs on a plane" bullshit, the "inspecting the bunker" bullshit, "my taxes are under audit" bullshit. You eat bullshit like it's your only food source. Because all you consume is the shit that comes out of the blob's mouth. Inject some disinfectant into your bloodstream and fade off to sleep shit brains. You're using oxygen that could be utilized by someone with something to contribute.

You drink don't you? It's easy to tell....your anger emerges

By the way, absolutely nobody cares about VP debates

Sober up

 

[Dogmaphobe]

We are electing a person to lead the nation. If they cannot handle the heat of battle mano y mano in a debate, how the hell can they do any good when it is time to deal with Xi?

I want a leader who can think on his feet and not somebody who can only read the teleprompter his handlers provided.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I'm much more informed than you are or ever will be.

Your knowledge of the Kardashians really doesn't come into play here, however.

 

[candycorn]

One of the main purposes of the "debates" (which are not truly debates) is for the candidates to explain their policies and the reasoning behind them.

Would it not truly be beneficial to make at least a portion of the questions known in advance? Give them a chance to prepare answers - even use a teleprompter - so that the viewers can get a clear picture of what the candidates stand for.

That portion of the "debate" could also include a short time for rebuttal by the other candidate.

Another part of the proceedings could be spontaneous, with questions chosen and presented by the Moderator.

One of the real problems with this sort of event, as we have seen many times in the past, is that the candidates prepare answers and present those prepared answers regardless of what the questions were, and many in the audience don't pick up on it.

What is the purpose of the debates?

The purpose is to give the facade that there is a difference in the parties when there isn't. That isn't to say that there is no difference in the candidates...Trump is much worse than anyone the Democrats put out this time around. But when the R's and D's agree on anything--like the commission on presidential debates--the overarching paradigm is to do the following; keep the duopoly alive.

Two reasons that you couldn't pay me enough to watch any of these presidential debates (I may watch my girl Kamala kick Pence's ass);

• I made my mind up long ago on voting for anyone who would be about to oust the blob.
• The debates are meaningless exercises where, as you said, the answers given rarely match the questions asked.

When the League of Women Voters ran the debates, there was some actual give and take. Now we get pseudo-debates to where the candidates essentially debate themselves.

I agree that both parties are the same and that's why I'm thankful to Trump for running against both parties.

Thanks for admitting you never watched any of Trump's speeches or interviews when he was campaigning in 2016.
It must be pathetic to be you.

It IS pathetic to be you.
I'm much more informed than you are or ever will be.

One wouldn't know from the pathos you are constantly posting.
You come off like the ignorant fool you are.
Too much CNN, I presume.

You probably believe the "thugs on a plane" bullshit, the "inspecting the bunker" bullshit, "my taxes are under audit" bullshit. You eat bullshit like it's your only food source. Because all you consume is the shit that comes out of the blob's mouth. Inject some disinfectant into your bloodstream and fade off to sleep shit brains. You're using oxygen that could be utilized by someone with something to contribute.

You drink don't you? It's easy to tell....your anger emerges

By the way, absolutely nobody cares about VP debates

Sober up

It'll be fun to watch Harris and Pence. That there is nothing on the line adds to it. Nobody cares about the top of the ticket debates either. Nobody is going to have their minds changed by these scripted responses. Its all a matter of who gets their voters to the polls. The Dems have done well in state-wide contests in WI, MI, and PA since the blob oozed into office. We'll see if that holds.

You're high right now, aren't you?

 

[candycorn]

I'm much more informed than you are or ever will be.

Your knowledge of the Kardashians really doesn't come into play here, however.

Oh....you mean the one who advises the President? LOL...

 

[candycorn]

We are electing a person to lead the nation. If they cannot handle the heat of battle mano y mano in a debate, how the hell can they do any good when it is time to deal with Xi?

I want a leader who can think on his feet and not somebody who can only read the teleprompter his handlers provided.

I'd like one who can tell the truth at least some of the time. The blob cannot.

 

[Indeependent]

One of the main purposes of the "debates" (which are not truly debates) is for the candidates to explain their policies and the reasoning behind them.

Would it not truly be beneficial to make at least a portion of the questions known in advance? Give them a chance to prepare answers - even use a teleprompter - so that the viewers can get a clear picture of what the candidates stand for.

That portion of the "debate" could also include a short time for rebuttal by the other candidate.

Another part of the proceedings could be spontaneous, with questions chosen and presented by the Moderator.

One of the real problems with this sort of event, as we have seen many times in the past, is that the candidates prepare answers and present those prepared answers regardless of what the questions were, and many in the audience don't pick up on it.

What is the purpose of the debates?

The purpose is to give the facade that there is a difference in the parties when there isn't. That isn't to say that there is no difference in the candidates...Trump is much worse than anyone the Democrats put out this time around. But when the R's and D's agree on anything--like the commission on presidential debates--the overarching paradigm is to do the following; keep the duopoly alive.

Two reasons that you couldn't pay me enough to watch any of these presidential debates (I may watch my girl Kamala kick Pence's ass);

• I made my mind up long ago on voting for anyone who would be about to oust the blob.
• The debates are meaningless exercises where, as you said, the answers given rarely match the questions asked.

When the League of Women Voters ran the debates, there was some actual give and take. Now we get pseudo-debates to where the candidates essentially debate themselves.

I agree that both parties are the same and that's why I'm thankful to Trump for running against both parties.

Thanks for admitting you never watched any of Trump's speeches or interviews when he was campaigning in 2016.
It must be pathetic to be you.

It IS pathetic to be you.
I'm much more informed than you are or ever will be.

One wouldn't know from the pathos you are constantly posting.
You come off like the ignorant fool you are.
Too much CNN, I presume.

You probably believe the "thugs on a plane" bullshit, the "inspecting the bunker" bullshit, "my taxes are under audit" bullshit. You eat bullshit like it's your only food source. Because all you consume is the shit that comes out of the blob's mouth. Inject some disinfectant into your bloodstream and fade off to sleep shit brains. You're using oxygen that could be utilized by someone with something to contribute.

I have stated this before but you're too emotional to get it.
All politicians suck.
I voted for Trump's platform and he's doing what he campaigned on.
So you can eat shit, you self-hating American POS.

 

[Indeependent]

I'm much more informed than you are or ever will be.

Your knowledge of the Kardashians really doesn't come into play here, however.

Oh....you mean the one who advises the President? LOL...

Yeah, when it comes to punishment being too harsh.