I would like to see that format. I believe we saw a version of it in 2008 for Obama and McCain. Rev. Rick Warren asked the same questions to each individually. McCain went first, with Obama offstage unable to hear McCain’s comments. I don’t recall an opportunity to rebut.
If it is so that Mr. Fishback "has watched every single minute of every televised presidential debate in U.S. history", he has my utmost sympathy. Pity that he couldn't watch the Lincoln Douglas debates, but then again with AI ..... I just read an article about a professor who has created artificial audio of the Supreme Court arguments in Brown v. Board of Education.
A Lincoln-Douglas format would be informative, for sure. Trump routinely speaks, completely extemporaneously, for an hour or more. But the idea that Biden could speak with no Teleprompter for more than 30 seconds, let alone remember what the topic is supposed to be for that long is ridiculous.
But the debates could be useful, even with a moderator, if the moderator's role were limited to providing questions, keeping time, giving the candidates a 30-second warning if they are going over their alotted time and then turning off their microphone. Only one candidate's microphone should be live at a time, in strict compliance with whatever time limits have been set.
While Trump did interrupt a lot four years ago, interrupting and shouting over opponents' attempts to speak have been Biden staples for years. Remember poor Paul Ryan trying to get a word in edgewise in 2012?
Mr. Fishback's idea is sound, but not really apropos in today's MTV world where both news reports and advertising are presented with stroboscopic methodology. I would suggest providing a list of ten topics (not questions!) to the candidates and giving each candidate five minutes to speak on each. Candidate A would speak first on Topic 1. Candidate B would speak first on Topic 2 and alternate "first responder" to each topic. Give each candidate five minutes for a closing argument, the time to be used as the candidate chooses. His summation could touch upon a few of the subjects discussed. It could touch upon none. He could answer a question posed by his opponent during the evening. The opponent's microphone would be disabled during each candidate's speaking time. Also, I would not permit a candidate to "go back to a question" instead of addressing the immediate topic as he could do that in his summation. Should he transgress his microphone would be cut and he would lose any remaining time for that segment and his opponent would be on the clock.
The only role for the Moderator would be to introduce the candidates and read a brief bio of each provided by the candidate himself.
I agree 100% with this format. Moderators are too busy preening and selling their own brands and ideologies and it takes away from any useful information.
I like this suggestion. It might be improved by using a ratio for the talking time. As mentioned, the ratio of time was 2-3-1. Meaning the first person has 2 units of time, the second person 3 units, and the first person concludes with 1 unit. In that era long speeches were the norm. Today the updated version could be 20-30-10 minutes which could be tolerated by today's population. No moderator is needed, thus elevates the debate format. No posturing by the presumed presenter, nor advance knowledge of questions, and if the microphones cut off, then interruptions would be stifled.
My suggestion is to scrap both major party candidates. Replace them with a debate between google AI versus Microsoft AI. The audience could be all of the bots on the web trying to influence the twitter mob. Everyone else can spend a few hours on a vigorous walk.
I hope the debate is savage, cruel, mean-spirited and destructive to Joe Biden. I hope he suffers. I hope the moderator suffers. But I hope that Biden suffers the most. I hope that he is humiliated on the world-stage and that his supporters and anyone who voted for him feel pangs of remorse, regret and shame...
I am looking forward to the "debate"... and then, all the clever, "nuanced" bullshit to follow when it is over...
The debates will be designed by both CNN and ABC to both boost Biden and deflate Trump, Biden will be alllowed to lie incessantely and Trumps truths, when he forms anything resembling articulate, will be turned off by the network in the name of not broadcasting mis-information. Will be a total sham. Plus Biden will have all the questions ahead of time, be knocked up on drugs beyong belief and probably be allowed to have a micro earpiece so his staff can help keep him on track. I also fiture the network will use their video magic to make Biden look 70 and Trump 83 which is why we'll have no audience.
Because everything Biden says is a lie, and Trump is given to hyperbole, we would need an “objective” fact-checker, one with impeccable credentials. The Free Press, Matt Taibbi, and Walter Kirk come to mind.
Trump is a terrible debater - he can't stay on topic and he makes assertions more tuned to campaign rally than debate. He interrupts. He turns red. He sniffles like a small child with a cold.
Biden is in advanced old age and it's sad seeing him try. He can only read scripts at this point, and can no longer determine which pieces of his script are instructions for him and which are actually part of a speech.
Add to that the fact that CNN is choosing a moderator with a long, long history of partisan behavior, and we know the questions will be designed to help Biden and hurt Trump. We know CNN will use its chyron to back Biden.
No audience? Ordinarily, I'd think that's OK, but the fact Biden wants it means his handlers know that his mental issues have reached the point where applause and other random noises will disorient him. Plus, it gives CNN the opportunity to edit the debate without anyone seeing it. Which they'll undoubtedly do if they think they can get away with it.
Kennedy thinks, strangely, that trying to debate the actual issues is what anyone wants at this point. It's theater. People want TikTok bits. CNN wants Biden to win. Trump is obviously losing his marbles, too, or he'd never agree to do this on CNN.
Excellent proposal! However, this is totally unrealistic in today's short attention span world. As an alternative, they could follow the format of competitive High School debates. Surely, we could expect presidential candidates to perform at the level of ordinary High School students.
The Free Press is disappointingly like other media in generally ignoring RFK, Jr. and specifically ignoring his exclusion from these debates. To partially rectify that, Kennedy's on-the-nose comment:
"Presidents Trump and Biden are colluding to lock America into a head-to-head match-up that 70% say they do not want. They are trying to exclude me from their debate because they are afraid I would win. Keeping viable candidates off the debate stage undermines democracy.
Forty-three percent of Americans identify as independents. If Americans are ever going to escape the hammerlock of the two-party system, now is the time to do it. These are the two most unpopular candidates in living memory.
By excluding me from the stage, Presidents Biden and Trump seek to avoid discussion of their eight years of mutual failure including deficits, wars, lockdowns, chronic disease, and inflation."
The question with this proposed format is why have them together at all ? Just print there scripts or each make it's own youtube , and one response youtube , done . If there not going to at least make hand jesters at each other , there is no fun in it . It's a well know fact that many are attracted to debates for the fun !
I would like to see that format. I believe we saw a version of it in 2008 for Obama and McCain. Rev. Rick Warren asked the same questions to each individually. McCain went first, with Obama offstage unable to hear McCain’s comments. I don’t recall an opportunity to rebut.
If it is so that Mr. Fishback "has watched every single minute of every televised presidential debate in U.S. history", he has my utmost sympathy. Pity that he couldn't watch the Lincoln Douglas debates, but then again with AI ..... I just read an article about a professor who has created artificial audio of the Supreme Court arguments in Brown v. Board of Education.
A Lincoln-Douglas format would be informative, for sure. Trump routinely speaks, completely extemporaneously, for an hour or more. But the idea that Biden could speak with no Teleprompter for more than 30 seconds, let alone remember what the topic is supposed to be for that long is ridiculous.
But the debates could be useful, even with a moderator, if the moderator's role were limited to providing questions, keeping time, giving the candidates a 30-second warning if they are going over their alotted time and then turning off their microphone. Only one candidate's microphone should be live at a time, in strict compliance with whatever time limits have been set.
While Trump did interrupt a lot four years ago, interrupting and shouting over opponents' attempts to speak have been Biden staples for years. Remember poor Paul Ryan trying to get a word in edgewise in 2012?
Mr. Fishback's idea is sound, but not really apropos in today's MTV world where both news reports and advertising are presented with stroboscopic methodology. I would suggest providing a list of ten topics (not questions!) to the candidates and giving each candidate five minutes to speak on each. Candidate A would speak first on Topic 1. Candidate B would speak first on Topic 2 and alternate "first responder" to each topic. Give each candidate five minutes for a closing argument, the time to be used as the candidate chooses. His summation could touch upon a few of the subjects discussed. It could touch upon none. He could answer a question posed by his opponent during the evening. The opponent's microphone would be disabled during each candidate's speaking time. Also, I would not permit a candidate to "go back to a question" instead of addressing the immediate topic as he could do that in his summation. Should he transgress his microphone would be cut and he would lose any remaining time for that segment and his opponent would be on the clock.
The only role for the Moderator would be to introduce the candidates and read a brief bio of each provided by the candidate himself.
I agree 100% with this format. Moderators are too busy preening and selling their own brands and ideologies and it takes away from any useful information.
I like this suggestion. It might be improved by using a ratio for the talking time. As mentioned, the ratio of time was 2-3-1. Meaning the first person has 2 units of time, the second person 3 units, and the first person concludes with 1 unit. In that era long speeches were the norm. Today the updated version could be 20-30-10 minutes which could be tolerated by today's population. No moderator is needed, thus elevates the debate format. No posturing by the presumed presenter, nor advance knowledge of questions, and if the microphones cut off, then interruptions would be stifled.
My suggestion is to scrap both major party candidates. Replace them with a debate between google AI versus Microsoft AI. The audience could be all of the bots on the web trying to influence the twitter mob. Everyone else can spend a few hours on a vigorous walk.
It is too bad we will not get a Kamala Harris debate. She is very likely to become president via Presidential succession in case Biden wins.
I hope the debate is savage, cruel, mean-spirited and destructive to Joe Biden. I hope he suffers. I hope the moderator suffers. But I hope that Biden suffers the most. I hope that he is humiliated on the world-stage and that his supporters and anyone who voted for him feel pangs of remorse, regret and shame...
I am looking forward to the "debate"... and then, all the clever, "nuanced" bullshit to follow when it is over...
The debates will be designed by both CNN and ABC to both boost Biden and deflate Trump, Biden will be alllowed to lie incessantely and Trumps truths, when he forms anything resembling articulate, will be turned off by the network in the name of not broadcasting mis-information. Will be a total sham. Plus Biden will have all the questions ahead of time, be knocked up on drugs beyong belief and probably be allowed to have a micro earpiece so his staff can help keep him on track. I also fiture the network will use their video magic to make Biden look 70 and Trump 83 which is why we'll have no audience.
I like the format proposed but I don’t think most Americans have an attention span that would allow for a three hour debate.
I don’t think either candidate could manage 3 hours either!
Because everything Biden says is a lie, and Trump is given to hyperbole, we would need an “objective” fact-checker, one with impeccable credentials. The Free Press, Matt Taibbi, and Walter Kirk come to mind.
I don't see the purpose of this debate.
Trump is a terrible debater - he can't stay on topic and he makes assertions more tuned to campaign rally than debate. He interrupts. He turns red. He sniffles like a small child with a cold.
Biden is in advanced old age and it's sad seeing him try. He can only read scripts at this point, and can no longer determine which pieces of his script are instructions for him and which are actually part of a speech.
Add to that the fact that CNN is choosing a moderator with a long, long history of partisan behavior, and we know the questions will be designed to help Biden and hurt Trump. We know CNN will use its chyron to back Biden.
No audience? Ordinarily, I'd think that's OK, but the fact Biden wants it means his handlers know that his mental issues have reached the point where applause and other random noises will disorient him. Plus, it gives CNN the opportunity to edit the debate without anyone seeing it. Which they'll undoubtedly do if they think they can get away with it.
Kennedy thinks, strangely, that trying to debate the actual issues is what anyone wants at this point. It's theater. People want TikTok bits. CNN wants Biden to win. Trump is obviously losing his marbles, too, or he'd never agree to do this on CNN.
Excellent proposal! However, this is totally unrealistic in today's short attention span world. As an alternative, they could follow the format of competitive High School debates. Surely, we could expect presidential candidates to perform at the level of ordinary High School students.
The Free Press is disappointingly like other media in generally ignoring RFK, Jr. and specifically ignoring his exclusion from these debates. To partially rectify that, Kennedy's on-the-nose comment:
"Presidents Trump and Biden are colluding to lock America into a head-to-head match-up that 70% say they do not want. They are trying to exclude me from their debate because they are afraid I would win. Keeping viable candidates off the debate stage undermines democracy.
Forty-three percent of Americans identify as independents. If Americans are ever going to escape the hammerlock of the two-party system, now is the time to do it. These are the two most unpopular candidates in living memory.
By excluding me from the stage, Presidents Biden and Trump seek to avoid discussion of their eight years of mutual failure including deficits, wars, lockdowns, chronic disease, and inflation."
I love RFK's focus on chronic disease, talk about something that we all can agree on!
The question with this proposed format is why have them together at all ? Just print there scripts or each make it's own youtube , and one response youtube , done . If there not going to at least make hand jesters at each other , there is no fun in it . It's a well know fact that many are attracted to debates for the fun !