Isn’t it a crime to urge a terrorist organization to intimidate voters at the polls? Should I contact the local authorities to alert them to this danger? Or perhaps go right to the FBI.
The key is that it can’t be an active mute button that the moderator chooses to hit. Instead, the rules should be the mics are automatically on when it’s your turn to answer, and off when your time is up. MAGAts might still try to argue bias, but that’s a tougher sell.
Obviously, they can’t change the rules at this point, so it’s all academic. But it’s nice to dream.
Think I’ve changed my mind on the musical selection, it should def be that carnival sideshow music. That would be awesome!
I’m seriously doubting Donny will show for two more debates. He’s got to be furiously devising a lie that gets him out at last minute, BUT doesn’t make him look weak. Maybe Melania gets rushed to hospital. A ‘Very Important’ national security emergency, (its classified!) and meeting he CANNOT miss. Or maybe he calls in a favour and Putin or Kim make loud rattling noises, requiring his bigly diplomatic skills!
Are Pence and Kamala going to debate? Because I’d tune in to see that!
(Obviously his wife will be with him at all times!)
I guess I just have a very different attitude about the purpose of these debates than most people. I view them as a public battle of wits. We already know everything there is to know about these peoples’ policies. The reason they have these debates is to satisfy the inherent curiosity that the country has about the ability of “their” guy or girl to battle the other one in the only form of “battle” that our society deems acceptable for politicians (perhaps sadly). And the outcome of this battle provides a potential morale booster for the supporters of one of those sides - meaning greater turnout - and POSSIBLY a chance to peel some votes away from the other person.
In such a battle, when one participant lands a blow on the other, you want “your” guy to hit him back. (Really, you just want your guy to beat the everloving shit out of the other, but realistically you know both guys are going to land some punches.) The best you can hope for is that your guy lands some punches, some hard ones, that connect, and send the other guy staggering backwards with the force of the blow. And that when the other guy does something stupid, your guy takes advantage of the opening to nail him.
That latter sentence - read it again. “When the other guy does something stupid, your guy takes advantage of the opening to nail him.”
Let’s take the proud boys thing, for instance. Why didn’t Biden, after hearing this, turn to Trump and ask, loudly, “what does stand by mean?” Trump would babble a few syllables. Then Biden repeats: “WHAT DOES STAND BY MEAN?” He needed to keep pushing him on that.
Trump, on at least one occasion, caused Biden to choke. When he asked him to name “one law enforcement group that supported him” and Biden couldn’t do it. As far as I know, Biden never caused Trump to choke. Yeah, I know a lot of people are going to say “he choked on every single question.” These people are in denial.
Trump called Biden stupid, right there, directly to his face. “Don’t ever use the word smart with me. You are NOT SMART.” The proper response to this would be to turn to Trump and say something, ANYTHING, to prevent that egregious insult from just lingering in the air and give people the impression that Biden is the kind of guy who you can just insult with impunity and not suffer any consequences. But he didn’t.
There isn’t anything anyone can say here, or on the news, or on the approximately 3000 Facebook posts I’m seeing today, to convince me that Joe Biden performed well in this debate, as a debater. It may be that people perceived Trump as being more objectionable in his conduct and that the numbers are reflective of that. And I’ll accept that (if those numbers are actually borne out by reality.) But I will not accept that Biden did a good job in the debate.
I guess you do. It’s certainly different from mine. 
Are there two more Biden-Trump debates on top of the Harris-Pence debate?
I do think on the “smart” rant Biden should have at least changed the subject back to covid, or said something like “you really don’t want to talk about your covid record do you” because Trump did successfully employ the dead cat method to get people to stop talking about his covid handling.
But in general, I don’t think Biden needs to get a barb in every time Trump does. I think staying on-brand is the most important thing and Trump wants to create a situation where people feel like they have to get in the mud with him so they can look petty and he can come across as who he always is. Letting him go off for a while and then ending it with “everything he told you is a lie” is the way to go generally IMO.
That’s the schedule for now, at least:
- October 7: VP debate
- October 15: Town hall style debate
- October 22: Similar format to last night
I completely understand what you are saying, and do not necessarily disagree. But those are not Biden’s strongest points and he is a much better and more serious candidate by far (in my opinion, obviously).
I would like to see Biden often say: “I didn’t come here to get in a mud flinging contest, do you have anything to say on the topic?” I would also like to see Trump shut up a whole lot more.
I would even admire Biden for saying: “I am prepared to debate the topics we agreed to, but I like to think before I act, and even before I talk . . . .I can see we do not agree on that matter. So your ad hoc attack is out of place sir! That being said, you are trying to hide your own shortcomings with these distractions.”
I have never faced such enormous pressure as Biden did last night, but I have had to testify in court before and I found that difficult and I was rattled. In a like manner, I can throw a perfect fifteen yard pass almost every time the neighborhood kids want to go to the schoolyard. I have no illusions as to my ability to do that under any pressure at all, and certainly not under an NFL blitz.
You’re right, that is quite far from what I think the purpose of presidential debates are. If that’s what you think they are, then your reaction makes more sense, but it sounds like you acknowledge (I hope) that your view is probably in the minority, and that what you would fly in the face of what the majority think debates should be about? Look at the post about the focus group. They were putting emphasis on Biden being the bigger man. The double standard is unfortunate, but it exists, and it has to be acknowledged.
Honestly Trump will be the winner for a lot of people because, for them, there are no losing conditions to his performance, while Biden has no winning conditions. Some people will never judge Trump, not by any rule, nor any standard. With no standards there is no losing.
Trump failed in almost all manners as a US president and didn’t bother to defend or bring up any policies. Instead he shouted, interrupted, screamed, insulted Wallace, insulted Biden, insulted Warren, lied about his taxes, lied about his handling of covid, lied about the economy, refused to condemn racism, condemned racial training, insulted Biden’s family, and lied about each and every topic brought up to him. All of which he did continuously and repeatedly. That was it. He presented no coherent policy.
You know, it really hurt when we poked ourselves in the eyes with red hot needles. Let’s go do it two more times!!
He might be able to blurt out the first quip if he catches Trump in the middle of a breath, but I doubt that he would be able to finish the longer second suggestion without being talked over.
Yeah with a lot of these long speeches Biden would come off as Sam Eagle from the muppets.
You are certainly correct. However I accidentally typed something Biden COULD use. Whenever Trump yells something off topic Biden can look at him quizzically and say: “I like to think before I talk (pause), I can see we disagree about that too.”
It can be pre-loaded. He will not have to worry about how to express his idea. In some instances it might give him the time to formulate a better response.
Love it!!!
Looks like they may be changing the rules for the next 2 debates:
They have to do more than just stop the clock when a debater is interrupted; the interrupter needs to be penalized by losing some of their own time or adding time to his opponent’s. When all of the interrupter’s time has expired or been taken away, they should be removed from the stage so his opponent can use the rest of their time uninterrupted.
I agree. I’ve never really understood why it’s apparently so godamn hard for them to set some rules and enforce them for these debates. They do it with every other fucking thing on earth…normal people have to follow rules in life. Athletes have to follow rules in a game. Why is it SO hard for them to have simple, ENFORCEABLE rules for these debates?
Do you really have to ask that? The answer is because trump doesn’t follow rules and when he breaks them, no one can stop him. Why can no one stop him? Because he doesn’t listen to anyone. Short of PHYSICAL FORCE, no one can stop him. Seriously. How would YOU take control of trump?