Actually, I'm looking back at the 1st Bush Gore debate and both candidates are extremely respectful and seems to take the cues of the moderator (Leher) when he noted they were at their time limit.
(10-08-2020 08:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote: Do you find it helpful or damaging to a candidate when then have 2 minutes to answer the initial question and 1 minute for rebuttal and refuse to stop when the time limit is up?
2 minutes is 2 minutes. I would think that would be a huge mark against a person. 2 minutes are up. STFU or learn to get your points in quicker.
That would have broke 200 years of precedent. They have ALWAYS talked over their given time.
I'm surprised the moderator did not force Pence to answer but let Harris off the hook at the same time. Letting them BOTH off the hook was a shocker.
But the entire debate was nothing but Dem talking points disguised as
Since TV debates have really only taken place since 1960, 200 yrs is a stretch.
I can see going over on occasion when one needs to finish a point. But when a candidate spends 70 seconds revisiting a previous question then running out of time, only to keep talking, that needs to stop.
I'm for a 2 minute cap with a 10 second overage warning to then cutting off the mic.
As you can see by CNN's "Time Tracker", Pence spoke for exact 3 seconds longer than Harris did last night during the debate. Had he not gone beyond his time, Harris would have had significantly more time than Pence. He did what he had to do to get his equal time. All of this is set up to the benefit of the Democrats.
(10-08-2020 08:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote: Do you find it helpful or damaging to a candidate when then have 2 minutes to answer the initial question and 1 minute for rebuttal and refuse to stop when the time limit is up?
2 minutes is 2 minutes. I would think that would be a huge mark against a person. 2 minutes are up. STFU or learn to get your points in quicker.
That would have broke 200 years of precedent. They have ALWAYS talked over their given time.
I'm surprised the moderator did not force Pence to answer but let Harris off the hook at the same time. Letting them BOTH off the hook was a shocker.
But the entire debate was nothing but Dem talking points disguised as
Since TV debates have really only taken place since 1960, 200 yrs is a stretch.
I can see going over on occasion when one needs to finish a point. But when a candidate spends 70 seconds revisiting a previous question then running out of time, only to keep talking, that needs to stop.
I'm for a 2 minute cap with a 10 second overage warning to then cutting off the mic.
Debates are debates, just because there was no TV before 1960 does not mean the same thing didn't happen in the debates before 1960.
Interestingly in that 1960 debate, everyone listening on radio thought Nixon won and everyone watching TV thought Kennedy won. I'm not sure being on TV make the debates more substantive, likely it makes it less so.
If you hated what you saw then you just hate American political debates period. This was one of the most in depth and better debates I have seen in a while.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2020 12:21 PM by ericsrevenge76.)
(10-08-2020 08:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote: Do you find it helpful or damaging to a candidate when then have 2 minutes to answer the initial question and 1 minute for rebuttal and refuse to stop when the time limit is up?
2 minutes is 2 minutes. I would think that would be a huge mark against a person. 2 minutes are up. STFU or learn to get your points in quicker.
That would have broke 200 years of precedent. They have ALWAYS talked over their given time.
I'm surprised the moderator did not force Pence to answer but let Harris off the hook at the same time. Letting them BOTH off the hook was a shocker.
But the entire debate was nothing but Dem talking points disguised as
Since TV debates have really only taken place since 1960, 200 yrs is a stretch.
I can see going over on occasion when one needs to finish a point. But when a candidate spends 70 seconds revisiting a previous question then running out of time, only to keep talking, that needs to stop.
I'm for a 2 minute cap with a 10 second overage warning to then cutting off the mic.
Debates are debates, just because there was no TV before 1960 does not mean the same thing didn't happen in the debates before 1960.
Interestingly in that 1960 deabte, everyone listening on radio thought Nixon won and everyone watching TV thought Kennedy won. I'm not sure being on TV make the debate more substantive, like it makes it less so.
If you hated what you saw then you just hate American political debates period. This was one of the most in depth and better debates I have seen in a while.
Agreed on last nights debate being the best I've seen in awhile.
I've also read about how heated the debates were by our founding fathers. Often times spit flying and yelling. Afterwards, often times shook hands and still agreed to work together for the betterment of the country.
Same with some of the notable economist in 1700's and 1800s. Debating used to be much more heated than today. People just didn't take it personal. Everyone should know including myself that we aren't right about every topic lol.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2020 12:13 PM by natibeast21.)
(10-08-2020 08:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote: Do you find it helpful or damaging to a candidate when then have 2 minutes to answer the initial question and 1 minute for rebuttal and refuse to stop when the time limit is up?
2 minutes is 2 minutes. I would think that would be a huge mark against a person. 2 minutes are up. STFU or learn to get your points in quicker.
That would have broke 200 years of precedent. They have ALWAYS talked over their given time.
I'm surprised the moderator did not force Pence to answer but let Harris off the hook at the same time. Letting them BOTH off the hook was a shocker.
But the entire debate was nothing but Dem talking points disguised as
Since TV debates have really only taken place since 1960, 200 yrs is a stretch.
I can see going over on occasion when one needs to finish a point. But when a candidate spends 70 seconds revisiting a previous question then running out of time, only to keep talking, that needs to stop.
I'm for a 2 minute cap with a 10 second overage warning to then cutting off the mic.
Debates are debates, just because there was no TV before 1960 does not mean the same thing didn't happen in the debates before 1960.
Interestingly in that 1960 deabte, everyone listening on radio thought Nixon won and everyone watching TV thought Kennedy won. I'm not sure being on TV make the debate more substantive, like it makes it less so.
If you hated what you saw then you just hate American political debates period. This was one of the most in depth and better debates I have seen in a while.
Agreed on last nights debate being the best I've seen in awhile.
I've also read about how heated the debates were by our founding fathers. Often times spit flying and yelling. Afterwards, often times shook hands and still agreed to work together for the betterment of the country.
Same with some of the notable economist in 1700's and 1800s. Debating used to be much more heated than today. People just didn't take it personal. Everyone should know including myself that we aren't right about every topic lol.
The difference is in things that have nothing to do with civility. In the early political debates the differences were largely philosophical so the debate was much more structured and the finer points distinguishing the candidates made much more clearer by their arguments. And none of it was scripted to 30 second sound bytes.
The other major difference is that the voters (and remember it wasn't universal suffrage) were landowners, businessmen, and people who paid taxes. These people understood applied economics, trade balance, and debt. They had lived the history of the nation and didn't need fact checkers. Today's voters glazed over in history class, skimmed the books, and are largely ignorant of our history, especially that which preceded their working life when they began to pay attention to it, and particularly anything that happened before they were born. Lost upon them are the underlying arguments that went into the constitution and because that time period is remote they merely assume the ideals must have been too, when nothing could be farther from the truth. So lacking the scope of personal experience with history, having been poorly educated in it, and many lacking fundamental business skills, the modern politician panders to their prejudices and to their immediate gratification because they lack the basis of knowledge for the majority of them to be appealed to on principle.
The debate lacked any depth at all and what many of you refer to as depth was merely greater explanation of the sound bytes. Specificity as to how to implement policy was lacking, adequate identification of precisely who it would be that would benefit from the policies was lacking, and of course the failure of both to speak to the legislative obstacles of their policies was lacking. And none of that deals with constitutionality. Harris and Pence were politer, they didn't overtalk nearly as much as Trump and Biden, but totally lacking was the prima facia fact that neither of them would be involved in the legislative process unless there was a tie in the Senate vote. Vice Presidents are ambassadors to the nation and largely figureheads.
In short, the stupider the electorate as a whole becomes, the less effective representative government becomes. And quite frankly our Marxist enemies are banking on that very thing. That is why they favor massive immigration from regions unfamiliar with the history of the U.S., the principles behind its constitution, and who lack the means to be supportive of its structures by taxes. The really disgusting part though is how ignorant subsequent generations of U.S. Citizens are due to their own apathy and lousy education.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2020 12:34 PM by JRsec.)
(10-08-2020 08:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote: Do you find it helpful or damaging to a candidate when then have 2 minutes to answer the initial question and 1 minute for rebuttal and refuse to stop when the time limit is up?
2 minutes is 2 minutes. I would think that would be a huge mark against a person. 2 minutes are up. STFU or learn to get your points in quicker.
That would have broke 200 years of precedent. They have ALWAYS talked over their given time.
I'm surprised the moderator did not force Pence to answer but let Harris off the hook at the same time. Letting them BOTH off the hook was a shocker.
But the entire debate was nothing but Dem talking points disguised as
Since TV debates have really only taken place since 1960, 200 yrs is a stretch.
I can see going over on occasion when one needs to finish a point. But when a candidate spends 70 seconds revisiting a previous question then running out of time, only to keep talking, that needs to stop.
I'm for a 2 minute cap with a 10 second overage warning to then cutting off the mic.
As you can see by CNN's "Time Tracker", Pence spoke for exact 3 seconds longer than Harris did last night during the debate. Had he not gone beyond his time, Harris would have had significantly more time than Pence. He did what he had to do to get his equal time. All of this is set up to the benefit of the Democrats.
No, disregard for the time begat disregard for the time.
Literally, it was a mirrored format. 2 mins to speak for each, 1 min rebut for each. But once Pence decided to go over on the first question--to the point where the moderator had to say "thank you on two occasions" then go over the 1 minute rebuttal for more than 20 seconds and three "thank you's".
Then, at the beginning of the second topic (if there had been discussions with the VP's about succession with the presidential candidates) Pence completely ignored the question and went back talking about the Rona and Swine flu, and still went over.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2020 12:31 PM by salukiblue.)
(10-08-2020 11:21 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote: That would have broke 200 years of precedent. They have ALWAYS talked over their given time.
I'm surprised the moderator did not force Pence to answer but let Harris off the hook at the same time. Letting them BOTH off the hook was a shocker.
But the entire debate was nothing but Dem talking points disguised as
Since TV debates have really only taken place since 1960, 200 yrs is a stretch.
I can see going over on occasion when one needs to finish a point. But when a candidate spends 70 seconds revisiting a previous question then running out of time, only to keep talking, that needs to stop.
I'm for a 2 minute cap with a 10 second overage warning to then cutting off the mic.
Debates are debates, just because there was no TV before 1960 does not mean the same thing didn't happen in the debates before 1960.
Interestingly in that 1960 deabte, everyone listening on radio thought Nixon won and everyone watching TV thought Kennedy won. I'm not sure being on TV make the debate more substantive, like it makes it less so.
If you hated what you saw then you just hate American political debates period. This was one of the most in depth and better debates I have seen in a while.
Agreed on last nights debate being the best I've seen in awhile.
I've also read about how heated the debates were by our founding fathers. Often times spit flying and yelling. Afterwards, often times shook hands and still agreed to work together for the betterment of the country.
Same with some of the notable economist in 1700's and 1800s. Debating used to be much more heated than today. People just didn't take it personal. Everyone should know including myself that we aren't right about every topic lol.
The difference is in things that have nothing to do with civility. In the early political debates the differences were largely philosophical so the debate was much more structured and the finer points distinguishing the candidates made much more clearer by their arguments. And none of it was scripted to 30 second sound bytes.
The other major difference is that the voters (and remember it wasn't universal suffrage) were landowners, businessmen, and people who paid taxes. These people understood applied economics, trade balance, and debt. They had lived the history of the nation and didn't need fact checkers. Today's voters glazed over in history class, skimmed the books, and are largely ignorant of our history, especially that which preceded their working life when they began to pay attention to it, and particularly anything that happened before they were born. Lost upon them are the underlying arguments that went into the constitution and because that time period is remote they merely assume the ideals must have been too, when nothing could be farther from the truth. So lacking the scope of personal experience with history, having been poorly educated in it, and many lacking fundamental business skills, the modern politician panders to their prejudices and to their immediate gratification because they lack the basis of knowledge for the majority of them to be appealed to on principle.
The debate lacked any depth at all and what many of you refer to as depth was merely greater explanation of the sound bytes. Specificity as to how to implement policy was lacking, adequate identification of precisely who it would be that would benefit from the policies was lacking, and of course the failure of both to speak to the legislative obstacles of their policies was lacking. And none of that deals with constitutionality. Harris and Pence were politer, they didn't overtalk nearly as much as Trump and Biden, but totally lacking was the prima facia fact that neither of them would be involved in the legislative process unless there was a tie in the Senate vote. Vice Presidents are ambassadors to the nation and largely figureheads.
In short, the stupider the electorate as a whole becomes, the less effective representative government becomes. And quite frankly our Marxist enemies are banking on that very thing. That is why they favor massive immigration from regions unfamiliar with the history of the U.S., the principles behind its constitution, and who lack the means to be supportive of its structures by taxes. The really disgusting part though is how ignorant subsequent generations of U.S. Citizens are due to their own apathy and lousy education.
I agree with all of that, but how much depth can you expect in two minutes? I would assume the debates in the old days (1600s through 1800s) went on for hours upon hours and maybe even days of debating. I love a real debate! Often times you are able to find middle ground. Just because a point/sound bite is made, it rarely negates the other side's actual argument, it just negates that part of the argument.
Example: Debating climate change could go on for a year if you really dove into the issue. It's extremely complicated and both sides would learn a lot they are right and wrong about. Left: You don't care about the Earth! Right: Yes we do but you need to look at the economics of solar/wind/etc. vs. natural gas! Hell I think we need to really look into Nuclear TBH. There is middle ground to be made right there. IMO unless the gov't starts to look back into Nuclear, I think U.S. corporations will be the one to change anything as they will be the ones to innovate and this being one of the primary topics without real solutions being provided is a joke.
Also, every time I've seen either side try to dig a little more into an issue, the moderator basically is like "wait wait wait I control how this conversation goes not you two. My questions only." It's a joke. I still credit both Pence and Biden for one of the better presidential debates I've seen (even if both are VPs).
So, again I blame the Media. F em for controlling everything the vast majority of Americans get to read, see, and hear.
Joe Rogan would have been the best we could have asked for in 2020 and that's sad.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2020 01:05 PM by natibeast21.)
(10-08-2020 11:42 AM)salukiblue Wrote: Since TV debates have really only taken place since 1960, 200 yrs is a stretch.
I can see going over on occasion when one needs to finish a point. But when a candidate spends 70 seconds revisiting a previous question then running out of time, only to keep talking, that needs to stop.
I'm for a 2 minute cap with a 10 second overage warning to then cutting off the mic.
Debates are debates, just because there was no TV before 1960 does not mean the same thing didn't happen in the debates before 1960.
Interestingly in that 1960 deabte, everyone listening on radio thought Nixon won and everyone watching TV thought Kennedy won. I'm not sure being on TV make the debate more substantive, like it makes it less so.
If you hated what you saw then you just hate American political debates period. This was one of the most in depth and better debates I have seen in a while.
Agreed on last nights debate being the best I've seen in awhile.
I've also read about how heated the debates were by our founding fathers. Often times spit flying and yelling. Afterwards, often times shook hands and still agreed to work together for the betterment of the country.
Same with some of the notable economist in 1700's and 1800s. Debating used to be much more heated than today. People just didn't take it personal. Everyone should know including myself that we aren't right about every topic lol.
The difference is in things that have nothing to do with civility. In the early political debates the differences were largely philosophical so the debate was much more structured and the finer points distinguishing the candidates made much more clearer by their arguments. And none of it was scripted to 30 second sound bytes.
The other major difference is that the voters (and remember it wasn't universal suffrage) were landowners, businessmen, and people who paid taxes. These people understood applied economics, trade balance, and debt. They had lived the history of the nation and didn't need fact checkers. Today's voters glazed over in history class, skimmed the books, and are largely ignorant of our history, especially that which preceded their working life when they began to pay attention to it, and particularly anything that happened before they were born. Lost upon them are the underlying arguments that went into the constitution and because that time period is remote they merely assume the ideals must have been too, when nothing could be farther from the truth. So lacking the scope of personal experience with history, having been poorly educated in it, and many lacking fundamental business skills, the modern politician panders to their prejudices and to their immediate gratification because they lack the basis of knowledge for the majority of them to be appealed to on principle.
The debate lacked any depth at all and what many of you refer to as depth was merely greater explanation of the sound bytes. Specificity as to how to implement policy was lacking, adequate identification of precisely who it would be that would benefit from the policies was lacking, and of course the failure of both to speak to the legislative obstacles of their policies was lacking. And none of that deals with constitutionality. Harris and Pence were politer, they didn't overtalk nearly as much as Trump and Biden, but totally lacking was the prima facia fact that neither of them would be involved in the legislative process unless there was a tie in the Senate vote. Vice Presidents are ambassadors to the nation and largely figureheads.
In short, the stupider the electorate as a whole becomes, the less effective representative government becomes. And quite frankly our Marxist enemies are banking on that very thing. That is why they favor massive immigration from regions unfamiliar with the history of the U.S., the principles behind its constitution, and who lack the means to be supportive of its structures by taxes. The really disgusting part though is how ignorant subsequent generations of U.S. Citizens are due to their own apathy and lousy education.
I agree with all of that, but how much depth can you expect in two minutes? I would assume the debates in the old days (1600s through 1800s) went on for hours upon hours and maybe even days of debating. I love a real debate! Often times you are able to find middle ground. Just because a point/sound bite is made, it rarely negates the other side's actual argument, it just negates that part of the argument.
Example: Debating climate change could go on for a year if you really dove into the issue. It's extremely complicated and both sides would learn a lot they are right and wrong about. Left: You don't care about the Earth! Right! You don't understand the economics of solar/wind/etc. vs. natural gas! Hell I think we need to really look into Nuclear TBH. There is middle ground to be made right there.
Also, every time I've seen either side try to dig a little more into an issue, the moderator basically is like "wait wait wait I control how this conversation goes not you two. My questions only." It's a joke. I still credit both Pence and Biden for one of the better presidential debates I've seen (even if both are VPs).
So, again I blame the Media. F em for controlling everything the vast majority of Americans get to read, see, and hear.
Joe Rogan would have been the best we could have asked for in 2020 and that's sad.
I wish there was a glimmer of a chance that President Trump could take even a fraction of a lesson on how to properly handle a debate. But I realize that there’s little hope of that.
I was just thinking that. Pence should have made a phonedrop and said, "...and that's how it's done Mr. President". LOL
I gave up watching it because it was so obvious the moderator wasn't one and was only a Demoncraptic talking point. Every question started as a Demon talking point before ex-ing the debaters.
I agree with those who said that the debate won't move the needle much if at all, mostly because there are likely few undecideds at this point.
Noticed from the get go how so many of the 'questions' began with editorializing by the moderator that inevitably led to a dem talking point question teed up for Harris. My other complaint right from the start is letting Kamala rebut without giving Pence that chance.
But what can we expect when we know that the moderator will always be siding with the democrat?
I'd like to see the moderator's job changed. No more of this one person getting to decide what the topics are. Have an online portal where regular citizens can submit questions. Have one person representing each side decide ahead of time, which 10 or 12 questions will be asked. Each side gets to choose half of the questions. Both candidates get to answer the question with each getting a chance to rebut.
Change the time format to 3 or 4 minutes to respond, half that to rebut. It's difficult to speak with any details in 2 minutes.
Pence 'won' if that even matters but he wasn't unscathed. Pence and Trump need to figure out a way to answer the healthcare/pre-existing conditions question, as it seems that the dems are going to use that a lot to try and persuade people to give their side a look.
Pence did land some big blows and Harris not answering the pack the court question was one. He was calm and smooth like I expected and she was flailing much of the time with her dem talking points.
(10-08-2020 08:55 AM)salukiblue Wrote: Do you find it helpful or damaging to a candidate when then have 2 minutes to answer the initial question and 1 minute for rebuttal and refuse to stop when the time limit is up?
2 minutes is 2 minutes. I would think that would be a huge mark against a person. 2 minutes are up. STFU or learn to get your points in quicker.
That would have broke 200 years of precedent. They have ALWAYS talked over their given time.
I'm surprised the moderator did not force Pence to answer but let Harris off the hook at the same time. Letting them BOTH off the hook was a shocker.
But the entire debate was nothing but Dem talking points disguised as
Since TV debates have really only taken place since 1960, 200 yrs is a stretch.
I can see going over on occasion when one needs to finish a point. But when a candidate spends 70 seconds revisiting a previous question then running out of time, only to keep talking, that needs to stop.
I'm for a 2 minute cap with a 10 second overage warning to then cutting off the mic.
Debates are debates, just because there was no TV before 1960 does not mean the same thing didn't happen in the debates before 1960.
Interestingly in that 1960 deabte, everyone listening on radio thought Nixon won and everyone watching TV thought Kennedy won. I'm not sure being on TV make the debate more substantive, like it makes it less so.
If you hated what you saw then you just hate American political debates period. This was one of the most in depth and better debates I have seen in a while.
Agreed on last nights debate being the best I've seen in awhile.
I've also read about how heated the debates were by our founding fathers. Often times spit flying and yelling. Afterwards, often times shook hands and still agreed to work together for the betterment of the country.
Same with some of the notable economist in 1700's and 1800s. Debating used to be much more heated than today. People just didn't take it personal. Everyone should know including myself that we aren't right about every topic lol.
Most debates are simply candidates repeating talking points, so they did better than usual.
Moderator: "What would your policy on Syria be?"
Candidate: "Syria is important and I would do what's right. Now I think its really important to focus on social security,..." then a two minute speech on social security.
(10-08-2020 11:21 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote: That would have broke 200 years of precedent. They have ALWAYS talked over their given time.
I'm surprised the moderator did not force Pence to answer but let Harris off the hook at the same time. Letting them BOTH off the hook was a shocker.
But the entire debate was nothing but Dem talking points disguised as
Since TV debates have really only taken place since 1960, 200 yrs is a stretch.
I can see going over on occasion when one needs to finish a point. But when a candidate spends 70 seconds revisiting a previous question then running out of time, only to keep talking, that needs to stop.
I'm for a 2 minute cap with a 10 second overage warning to then cutting off the mic.
Debates are debates, just because there was no TV before 1960 does not mean the same thing didn't happen in the debates before 1960.
Interestingly in that 1960 deabte, everyone listening on radio thought Nixon won and everyone watching TV thought Kennedy won. I'm not sure being on TV make the debate more substantive, like it makes it less so.
If you hated what you saw then you just hate American political debates period. This was one of the most in depth and better debates I have seen in a while.
Agreed on last nights debate being the best I've seen in awhile.
I've also read about how heated the debates were by our founding fathers. Often times spit flying and yelling. Afterwards, often times shook hands and still agreed to work together for the betterment of the country.
Same with some of the notable economist in 1700's and 1800s. Debating used to be much more heated than today. People just didn't take it personal. Everyone should know including myself that we aren't right about every topic lol.
The difference is in things that have nothing to do with civility. In the early political debates the differences were largely philosophical so the debate was much more structured and the finer points distinguishing the candidates made much more clearer by their arguments. And none of it was scripted to 30 second sound bytes.
The other major difference is that the voters (and remember it wasn't universal suffrage) were landowners, businessmen, and people who paid taxes. These people understood applied economics, trade balance, and debt. They had lived the history of the nation and didn't need fact checkers. Today's voters glazed over in history class, skimmed the books, and are largely ignorant of our history, especially that which preceded their working life when they began to pay attention to it, and particularly anything that happened before they were born. Lost upon them are the underlying arguments that went into the constitution and because that time period is remote they merely assume the ideals must have been too, when nothing could be farther from the truth. So lacking the scope of personal experience with history, having been poorly educated in it, and many lacking fundamental business skills, the modern politician panders to their prejudices and to their immediate gratification because they lack the basis of knowledge for the majority of them to be appealed to on principle.
The debate lacked any depth at all and what many of you refer to as depth was merely greater explanation of the sound bytes. Specificity as to how to implement policy was lacking, adequate identification of precisely who it would be that would benefit from the policies was lacking, and of course the failure of both to speak to the legislative obstacles of their policies was lacking. And none of that deals with constitutionality. Harris and Pence were politer, they didn't overtalk nearly as much as Trump and Biden, but totally lacking was the prima facia fact that neither of them would be involved in the legislative process unless there was a tie in the Senate vote. Vice Presidents are ambassadors to the nation and largely figureheads.
In short, the stupider the electorate as a whole becomes, the less effective representative government becomes. And quite frankly our Marxist enemies are banking on that very thing. That is why they favor massive immigration from regions unfamiliar with the history of the U.S., the principles behind its constitution, and who lack the means to be supportive of its structures by taxes. The really disgusting part though is how ignorant subsequent generations of U.S. Citizens are due to their own apathy and lousy education.
Someone did a study of the Lincoln-Douglas debates a few years back and compared to the more recent debates. The level of language was FAR, FAR higher in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. I've never read them, but there are transcripts: https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historycu...ebates.htm
(10-08-2020 11:42 AM)salukiblue Wrote: Since TV debates have really only taken place since 1960, 200 yrs is a stretch.
I can see going over on occasion when one needs to finish a point. But when a candidate spends 70 seconds revisiting a previous question then running out of time, only to keep talking, that needs to stop.
I'm for a 2 minute cap with a 10 second overage warning to then cutting off the mic.
Debates are debates, just because there was no TV before 1960 does not mean the same thing didn't happen in the debates before 1960.
Interestingly in that 1960 deabte, everyone listening on radio thought Nixon won and everyone watching TV thought Kennedy won. I'm not sure being on TV make the debate more substantive, like it makes it less so.
If you hated what you saw then you just hate American political debates period. This was one of the most in depth and better debates I have seen in a while.
Agreed on last nights debate being the best I've seen in awhile.
I've also read about how heated the debates were by our founding fathers. Often times spit flying and yelling. Afterwards, often times shook hands and still agreed to work together for the betterment of the country.
Same with some of the notable economist in 1700's and 1800s. Debating used to be much more heated than today. People just didn't take it personal. Everyone should know including myself that we aren't right about every topic lol.
The difference is in things that have nothing to do with civility. In the early political debates the differences were largely philosophical so the debate was much more structured and the finer points distinguishing the candidates made much more clearer by their arguments. And none of it was scripted to 30 second sound bytes.
The other major difference is that the voters (and remember it wasn't universal suffrage) were landowners, businessmen, and people who paid taxes. These people understood applied economics, trade balance, and debt. They had lived the history of the nation and didn't need fact checkers. Today's voters glazed over in history class, skimmed the books, and are largely ignorant of our history, especially that which preceded their working life when they began to pay attention to it, and particularly anything that happened before they were born. Lost upon them are the underlying arguments that went into the constitution and because that time period is remote they merely assume the ideals must have been too, when nothing could be farther from the truth. So lacking the scope of personal experience with history, having been poorly educated in it, and many lacking fundamental business skills, the modern politician panders to their prejudices and to their immediate gratification because they lack the basis of knowledge for the majority of them to be appealed to on principle.
The debate lacked any depth at all and what many of you refer to as depth was merely greater explanation of the sound bytes. Specificity as to how to implement policy was lacking, adequate identification of precisely who it would be that would benefit from the policies was lacking, and of course the failure of both to speak to the legislative obstacles of their policies was lacking. And none of that deals with constitutionality. Harris and Pence were politer, they didn't overtalk nearly as much as Trump and Biden, but totally lacking was the prima facia fact that neither of them would be involved in the legislative process unless there was a tie in the Senate vote. Vice Presidents are ambassadors to the nation and largely figureheads.
In short, the stupider the electorate as a whole becomes, the less effective representative government becomes. And quite frankly our Marxist enemies are banking on that very thing. That is why they favor massive immigration from regions unfamiliar with the history of the U.S., the principles behind its constitution, and who lack the means to be supportive of its structures by taxes. The really disgusting part though is how ignorant subsequent generations of U.S. Citizens are due to their own apathy and lousy education.
Someone did a study of the Lincoln-Douglas debates a few years back and compared to the more recent debates. The level of language was FAR, FAR higher in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. I've never read them, but there are transcripts: https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historycu...ebates.htm
Well remember Bullet, they wrote, and I mean quill and ink and pen and ink, letters which they took great pains to word precisely what they intended to convey. And I might add they learned grammar and spelling at an early age and the use of it distinguished the classes perhaps more than wealth. So years of writing formal letters, and beautifully I might add as I've seen some of them, engraved syntax on their minds and it was reflected as hey spoke. Lincoln thought in paragraphs in some of his debates carefully laying out an concept that he would embellish until he substantially proved his position in summation. But then he was a lawyer in the days before they cranked them out in record numbers and most of them chased the 1800's version of the ambulance.
The letters of the founding fathers are so beautifully written that the language alone makes them worth reading.
One area that'll hurt Trump/Pence in the Rust Belt swing states (PA, OH, MI) is when Kamala was adamant how many manufacturing jobs we've lost under Trump. I don't know if the numbers she was spouting were accurate, but I think Pence did a poor job there & he really needed to iterate strongest economy & Biden largely supports policies that move jobs overseas.
(This post was last modified: 10-10-2020 09:56 AM by Bronco'14.)
(10-10-2020 09:56 AM)Bronco14 Wrote: One area that'll hurt Trump/Pence in the Rust Belt swing states (PA, OH, MI) is when Kamala was adamant how many manufacturing jobs we've lost under Trump. I don't know if the numbers she was spouting were accurate, but I think Pence did a poor job there & he really needed to iterate strongest economy & Biden largely supports policies that move jobs overseas.
Kamala probably made up her rust belt job loss numbers just like she made up the Lincoln SCOTUS scenario...it was a bald-faced lie. Lincoln did not nominate because the senate was in recess. Any nomination could not move forward until they returned. Once the senate was back from recess he nominated immediately. His decision to postpone was out of practicality not deference.
I don't think the rust belt production job loss numbers really matter to a the individual voter.
Their vote will be made more on do I have a good job? Yes or No
Do I feel secure in my good job? Yes or No
Are my family members employed? Yes or No
Does my financial future seem solid? Yes or No
If the answers are yes, vote is for incumbent to keep the status quo.
No and the vote is for the challenger.
![[Image: Ejxy3oSXYAAOJzv.jpeg]](https://www.weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Ejxy3oSXYAAOJzv.jpeg)
