New type of debate.

Jerry said:

I would like to end all the debates and go back to Congress voting only.

Click to expand...

Since when did Congress elect the President?

wolfman24 said:

Since when did Congress elect the President?

Click to expand...

That's the way it's set up in the Constitution and is how it was originally don.

I like the idea of not letting them off the hook without answering the question. If they won't answer then they have to say either, "I cannot answer your question" or "I refuse to answer your question."

I would get around the moderator problem by having TWO moderators -- a liberal partisan to deal with Romney and a conservative partisan to handle Obama. Say, for example, Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly.

Your Star said:

I'd like to propose a new type of debate, and wondering what people here think. I think at least 1 debate should be have a rule where each candidate can't talk about their opponent, where they can only talk about what they would do as president, and their own ideals.

What say you?

Click to expand...

So what you're saying is: "Don't talk about my guy's (tragically feeble) previous four years on the job. Let's just move forward."



...No. It doesn't work that way.

Your Star said:

I'd like to propose a new type of debate, and wondering what people here think. I think at least 1 debate should be have a rule where each candidate can't talk about their opponent, where they can only talk about what they would do as president, and their own ideals.

What say you?

Click to expand...

Sure, but all they would do is just be incredibly vague, and even then they'll make promises they can't keep, since during Presidential elections everybody forgets that Congress is a branch of the federal government too.

Your Star said:

I'd like to propose a new type of debate, and wondering what people here think. I think at least 1 debate should be have a rule where each candidate can't talk about their opponent, where they can only talk about what they would do as president, and their own ideals.

What say you?

Click to expand...

Well, as we've experienced more and more over the last couple of centuries. Debates aren't really debates. They turn into: Who can distort, distract, and tell half truths, fairy tales, and outright lies the best...WINS contest! So that might not do anything more than exacerbate the incredible narcissistic sides of politicians who know that if they can't impress you with their pseudo-intelligence...then slay you with their incredible talents to bull****.

It's obvious, to me, at least, that people just love bull****...and/or pseudo intelligence. Our political system is loaded with these types of folks who are completely aware that people love bull**** or pseudo-intelligence.

It's impossible to get facts and truths out of people who don't experience consequences for their inappropriate behaviors getting into elected seats...or trying to maintain those elected seats.

I would like to think that people who prefer bull**** over substance are not the likely voters out there.

I would like to think that those who vote are voting for something other than bribes or skin color or from something other than a place of greed or fear.

I don't always get what I like, but I can hope that there are more voters who vote out of principle and common sense than there are those who vote based on bull**** or for a bribe or due to skin color or from a place of greed or fear.

I do agree that debates are more theater and to evoke response than for any real effort to inform. However, have been effective in destroying the left's efforts to paint Romney as some stiff, hateful, lying rich guy.

Your Star said:

I'd like to propose a new type of debate, and wondering what people here think. I think at least 1 debate should be have a rule where each candidate can't talk about their opponent, where they can only talk about what they would do as president, and their own ideals.

What say you?

Click to expand...

I think it would be a great idea... AND... the second they do speak about their opponent they cede their time... immediately.
If they do it in the dying seconds, they cede 2-minutes of their time, or the opponent gets to go last in closing arguments.

I am all for it because Libs never tell us what they want to do... it would be fun to watch them squirm.

NOW... you would require an honest and swift moderator.

But where are you going to find one of those that both campaigns would accept?

Your Star said:

I'd like to propose a new type of debate, and wondering what people here think. I think at least 1 debate should be have a rule where each candidate can't talk about their opponent, where they can only talk about what they would do as president, and their own ideals.

Click to expand...

I'm guessing this idea was born of the reality that O has a 4 year record he'd rather hide from, as would his supporters.