The GOP is serious about fixing the debates

I listed two specific problems - that a majority of reasonable person would agree with

And I showed how your two problems are a load of horseshit, intended to deflect attention away from your myriad policy failures.


1 - informed voting is preferred over uninformed voting. So having debates prior to allowing people to vote is preferred

I don't understand what you mean by "uninformed voting".

And also, what a bizarre standard you just put on the spot.

So let me get this straight...when it comes to elections, all debates have to occur before early voting, but when it comes to voting for Supreme Court Justices, those debates can occur after 50M people had already voted.

I'm going to hold you to this standard...I bet it crumbles in 5-10 posts.
 
2 - eliminating bias from the debate would be ideal. I am open to suggestions on how this can be done

There is no bias in the debates and if you're perceiving bias, that's because you can't answer for any of your policy failures.

So you scream "BIAS" because you don't want to answer for why your shitty tax cut plunged us into a recession before COVID forced lockdowns.
 
And I showed how your two problems are a load of horseshit, intended to deflect attention away from your myriad policy failures.

false

millions vote before the candidates even debate. You did not even discuss this.

you have one more chance to discuss this as an adult with me

one

you can do that - or continue to troll and act childish. your choice. it is clear people are getting tired of your act - so consider this an olive branch
 
I will start adding you to my ban list if you can't stay on topic

You're the one who brought up election integrity!

So if you care about it so much, how come on 1/6 your stupid ass was shitposting here on JPP?

Probably because it's all bullshit and you don't believe a single word of it yourself.

What a fucking poseur.
 
It not just that the questions tend to be poor quality now, it is that the candidates barely attempt to answer the questions, they immediately go into the talking points they intended to hit when they walked in the door. This wont fix that, but still it is a good move, the previous show runners have thoroughly discredited themselves.

And they are not remotely debates, they need to be renamed.
 
You're the one who brought up election integrity!

So if you care about it so much, how come on 1/6 your stupid ass was shitposting here on JPP?

Probably because it's all bullshit and you don't believe a single word of it yourself.

What a fucking poseur.

bye. every thread I start will have you banned.
 
It not just that the questions tend to be poor quality now, it is that the candidates barely attempt to answer the questions, they immediately go into the talking points they intended to hit when they walked in the door. This wont fix that, but still it is a good move, the previous show runners have thoroughly discredited themselves.

And they are not remotely debates, they need to be renamed.

the moderators just play up the talking points. it has gotten to be absurd -
 
Trump bombed in all debates he was in, and the last thing they want is a repeat performance by him or a Trump-lite candidate, especially since they don't want to run on policy but rather innuendo

And prepared candidate already has a pretty good idea of what areas the questions are going to be centered upon, if nothing else, have their talking points ready to bail if it is too tough

Yeah, totally! Any candidate with a decent staff would be able to practice and prepare for the questions everyone knows is coming.

But even if what zym is saying is true and Trump got the questions ahead of time with Biden, it wouldn't have changed ANYTHING.
 
that is not true. they have been controversial many times in history.

Well, then you got to show us proof "they have been controversial many times in history"

People have been critical of instances, Nixon complaining about the camera showing him sweating, Candy Crowley correcting Romney, Democrats bitching cause climate change was never raised, but overall, there has never been a controversy over Presidential debates
 
the moderators just play up the talking points. it has gotten to be absurd -

For D's......because the Mind Molders (nee journalists) are generally hostile towards R's for the R's it is somewhat different. Absurd yes, I sometimes still watch but less and less, and it has probably been 20 years since the "debates" mattered to me. It has become a sort of political performance art.
 
no sane person likes how the debates are ran.

Well that's general because I don't like the fact that candidates can interrupt each other or spit out a rehearsed response that doesn't address the topic or question at all.

I agree that the format needs work and the moderators need to moderate better...but that's got nothing to do with bias and everything to do with tradition.
 
For D's......because the Mind Molders (nee journalists) are generally hostile towards R's for the R's it is somewhat different. Absurd yes, I sometimes still watch but less and less, and it has probably been 20 years since the "debates" mattered to me. It has become a sort of political performance art.

the primary debates are also a big problem with tons of bias. the debate planting questions for instance were in trying to give Hillary a leg up on her competition.
 
millions vote before the candidates even debate

Well that's not true because all those candidates debated in the primaries.


You did not even discuss this.

But I did:

So let me get this straight...when it comes to elections, all debates have to occur before early voting, but when it comes to voting for Supreme Court Justices, those debates can occur after 50M people had already voted.

Take your head out of your ass.
 
Back
Top