Biden release 14 second challenge to debate Trump - takes 5 times to get it right

rambot said:

I'm not sure how the poll is in any way tied to the content of the OP, but I have to wonder, given Trump's reported history of perscription drug abuse, I'm not sure how a drug test is going to HELP him....

Click to expand...

I want them BOTH to get a drug test. I'm guessing both of them are on some powerful drugs, most likely prescribed by doctors working with their handlers. I would like to know. just what they're taking. Both of them will have motive to refuse a drug test, I'm guessing.

I want them to debate. A long and probing debate that makes them both uncomfortable. One that pushes them both to their limits. I hope they both make fools of themselves. But it probably won't influence the election as nobody watching is going to leave their silo.

For the record, as far as my silo, I'm not voting for Biden. Never did. Not going to start now. And I'm not voting, ever, for Trump. Never did either. I don't want to throw away my vote on either of them.

The choices for VP will be significant.

GoldenBoy89 said:

Demanding a crowd be present is just more evidence that some people don’t actually want a debate, they want WWE.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Debate audiences are vetted. They are instructed not to participate in any way, including applauding. If you go back through history, with very few exceptions, the audiences chosen to attend debates abide by those rules.

Hank77 said:

At their last debate, Trump interrupted Biden 128 times.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming you're referencing this Slate article:


This article also states that Biden interrupted "dozens of times" (I guess the exact count is only relevant for Trump).

Maybe both of them should shut their yappers when someone else is talking.

rambot said:

Biden has demands..."oh yeah...real tough guy".
Trump has demands "I love that Trump always gets what he wants".

This isn't you.....just a common refrain in comparing the two candidates.

Click to expand...

I think this refrain exists primarily in the fantasy land of your mind.

probinson said:

What are you talking about? Debate audiences are vetted. They are instructed not to participate in any way, including applauding. If you go back through history, with very few exceptions, the audiences chosen to attend debates abide by those rules.

Click to expand...

Then, what do you believe they add to the debate?

GoldenBoy89 said:

Then, what do you believe they add to the debate?

Click to expand...

Even though the audience cannot participate, they add a human element. Anyone who has spoken in front of a live crowd of people knows that it's quite different than if you're just speaking to a camera.

Presidential debates have had live audiences for 47 years. Why do you think it's not a good idea to have a live audience now?

probinson said:

Even though the audience cannot participate, they add a human element. Anyone who has spoken in front of a live crowd of people knows that it's quite different than if you're just speaking to a camera.

Presidential debates have had live audiences for 47 years. Why do you think it's not a good idea to have a live audience now?

Click to expand...

I don’t think the debates are a good idea all around. They don’t actually “debate” anything. It’s just a shouting match and the respective sides only see what they want to see in their candidates while ignoring everything they don’t.

GoldenBoy89 said:

I don’t think the debates are a good idea all around. They don’t actually “debate” anything. It’s just a shouting match and the respective sides only see what they want to see in their candidates while ignoring everything they don’t.

Click to expand...

That's true for voters who have already decided, but some studies have shown that debates do matter to voters. There actually are "undecided" voters and hearing the candidates responses to policy questions in the debates plays a role, however small, in helping them decide. Some studies have shown that as many as 10% of voters may change their mind based on a candidate's debate performance (and the subsequent media coverage of who "won" and "lost").

Vambram said:

I am curious if Biden and Trump will be able to effectively debate without any notes in front of them and also without any helpful information being given to them via ear pieces.

Click to expand...

If they debate, it will likely be a very sad display from both parties.

Mayzoo said:

If they debate, it will likely be a very sad display from both parties.

Click to expand...

That is a possibility.

probinson said:

I'm assuming you're referencing this Slate article:

Click to expand...

No, I never saw this article. I've very seldom read anything in Slate. I heard it just recently hopefully I remember where. I don't like making statements without the source linked.

probinson said:

Maybe both of them should shut their yappers when someone else is talking.

Click to expand...

I agree. But that doesn't happen and so there should be an outside control over that such as mics that are turned off when they run out of time.

Hank77 said:

No, I never saw this article.

Click to expand...

That may be, but that's absolutely where it originated from.

Hank77 said:

I've very seldom read anything in Slate.

Click to expand...

Ditto.

Hank77 said:

I heard it just recently hopefully I remember where. I don't like making statements without the source linked.

Click to expand...

The thing is, even if you heard it somewhere else, it originated from Slate, a decidedly left-wing publication that couldn't even be bothered to count the exact number of times that Biden interrupted. If their point was how annoying it is when someone interrupts in a debate, they would have counted all interruptions. But that wasn't the point at all. The point was Trump's interruptions. Biden's notwithstanding.

Hank77 said:

I agree. But that doesn't happen and so there should be an outside control over that such as mics that are turned off when they run out of time.

Click to expand...

We'll see how it plays out. I don't think there is any harm going slightly over time. For example, if someone is making a point and needs an extra 30 seconds to complete their thoughts, I'm OK with that. That's why there is a moderator, to give equal time to the candidates.

As I said earlier, if the mic cutoff is done equitably, I'm all for it. Although I think it's sad commentary for both candidates that they can't abide by the simple rules of debate.

probinson said:

The thing is, even if you heard it somewhere else, it originated from Slate,

Click to expand...

I just read the posted link and I see that. Is it true? I suspect that it is, seeing I watched both of those debates. I watched and was very frustrated with Trump's continuous interruptions. It appeared to me that he was afraid to let Biden speak. He was afraid of facts. He wanted to make the whole conversation based on emotions, fear, anger, chaos...

probinson said:

a decidedly left-wing publication that couldn't even be bothered to count the exact number of times that Biden interrupted. If their point was how annoying it is when someone interrupts in a debate, they would have counted all interruptions

Click to expand...

Dozens... they counted them alright but they didn't give the exact number in the article and they should have.

probinson said:

But that wasn't the point at all. The point was Trump's interruptions. Biden's notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

I agree.

probinson said:

We'll see how it plays out. I don't think there is any harm going slightly over time. For example, if someone is making a point and needs an extra 30 seconds to complete their thoughts, I'm OK with that. That's why there is a moderator, to give equal time to the candidates.

Click to expand...

They can get a warning light about 30 seconds before the mic turns off. It seems to me that there are timers that each one can see counting down the minutes. I'm pretty sure I've seen these used in some debates in the past.

Hank77 said:

I just read the posted link and I see that. Is it true? I suspect that it is, seeing I watched both of those debates. I watched and was very frustrated with Trump's continuous interruptions. It appeared to me that he was afraid to let Biden speak. He was afraid of facts. He wanted to make the whole conversation based on emotions, fear, anger, chaos...

Click to expand...

There's no question that Trump likes to hear himself talk.

Hank77 said:

Dozens... they counted them alright but they didn't give the exact number in the article and they should have.

Click to expand...

Right. One might ask why. "Dozens" is pretty vague, while 128 is pretty exact. Why the different standards for counting the candidates' interruptions?

Hank77 said:

They can get a warning light about 30 seconds before the mic turns off. It seems to me that there are timers that each one can see counting down the minutes. I'm pretty sure I've seen these used in some debates in the past.

Click to expand...

Yes, they do have those lights. But as much as we'd all love it if everything could fit into a neat, tidy, 3-minute response, sometimes that's just not the case. If someone is consistently going considerably over their time, that's an issue, but the human moderator can use some common sense if someone is just closing out their thoughts and goes a bit over their time. Hopefully that will be the case with the mic cutoff as well.

Veteran moderator Chris Wallace agrees with a no audience debate format:

Wallace noted the 1960s debates between former Presidents Kennedy and Nixon did not have crowds and were hosted in a television studio.

“I think it’ll make it a cleaner, purer experience,” Wallace said. “But in terms of the candidates, I don’t think it makes much difference because you are so focused on what you’re saying and what the other guy is about to say and what the moderator is going to ask, that you’re not sitting there playing to the crowd like it’s a rally.”

https://thehill.com/elections/4666149-chris-wallace-no-audience-will-make-biden-trump-debate-cleaner-experience/

I agree....

Having a "free-flowing conversation" is simply impossible as the 2020 "debate" demonstrated. IMO, the moderator should simply ask the same question to each candidate sequentially, and turn off the mic when the other candidate is answering.


Wallace hosted a 2020 presidential debate between Trump and Biden, which set out to maintain an open discussion between the two candidates but ultimately grew very frenetic and unruly. Wallace, who was then a Fox News anchor, later described the debate as “a mess” and noted that Trump interrupted them more than 100 times that night.


Asked Wednesday what would be the best approach for whoever ends up moderating the debate, Wallace raised the prospect of “when it’s not your time, when you’re not talking, that your mic will be cut off.”

“The problem is that when you have, as you saw in that debate, a free-flowing conversation, it isn’t like, ‘I’m getting two minutes to talk and then you get two minutes,’” Wallace said. “It’s pretty hard to turn the mic on and off because you’re hoping to engage them.”
https://thehill.com/elections/46661...l-make-biden-trump-debate-cleaner-experience/

As long as Biden and also Trump ain't reading from note cards or being given helpful hints via an earpiece, then I believe that allowing each one of them to speak without any interruption from each other AND the moderators is the best way to get a good debate.