Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
pepperonikkid

Debate Commission Changes Rules Again, Will Cut Mics for Two Minute Responses by Trump and Biden

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

pepperonikkid

Debate Commission Changes Rules Again, Will Cut Mics for Two Minute Responses by Trump and Biden

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/

By Kristinn Taylor
Published October 19, 2020

 

Article:

 

The Commission on Presidential Debates is at it again, making another last minute rule change to protect Joe Biden from being bested on stage by President Trump. This time the commission announced that each candidate’s microphone will be muted while the other responds for two minutes to a question by moderator Kristen Welker of NBC News at Thursday’s third scheduled debate in Nashville. During open discussion, Welker will be able to give a candidate more time to speak to make up for being interrupted.

The debate commission changed the rules for the second debate from an in-person townhall in Miami to a remote town hall after Trump came down with the COVID-19 Chinese coronavirus. Trump rejected the change, prompting the cancellation of the debate. Biden and a recovered and non-infectious Trump held dueling solo town halls last Thursday, the night planned for the second debate.

Trump was very aggressive against Biden in the first debate on September 29 in Cleveland, interrupting Biden numerous times to the point Biden snarled at Trump, “Will you shut up, man!”

Trump was only doing to Biden what Biden had done to Paul Ryan in their vice presidential debate in 2012 when Biden interrupted Ryan 82 times. There were no calls for mics cuts back then. In contrast to the present, Biden was cheered by the media for his performance (The Guardian: Joe Biden’s alpha-male display leaves Paul Ryan overwhelmed in VP debate.)

 

Full Story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental

So did they decide to add foreign policy to this debate? This seems to be a rather one sided negotiation process, and maybe its time this vaunted group got fired.

The reason they are going to shut off the mic's is so that Trump cannot bring up Hunter Biden and the fraud that is being perpetrated on the American people by these fascist thieves.

Edited by Taggart Transcontinental
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SinisterMrx

Biden needs to be allowed the opportunity to confuse himself with his own words. Trump simply lacks the self control to allow this to happen on his own. A two minute mute will help Trump. He can bring up whatever he needs to throw at Joe during his time allotment. I think you may see Trump being muted by the moderator if he embarrasses Biden.

If the mod is actually in controll of the mics she will reveal herself to be the Biden shill we know her to be by being overly protective of him.

Trump may walk off the stage at some point, once the fix has been made evident.

He may also choose to belittle the rule change and refuse the "new format".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeansToTheRight

I’ll preface this by saying that I do not condone changing the rules at this point in time.  The time for rules to be set were the first 2 weeks after the last convention.

If the silencing of the mics ONLY happens during the first 2-minutes of each segment, I’m fine with that.  (See my first sentence at the top of this post again regarding the timing of this rule change)

I don’t like the process for selecting the debate moderators.  I don’t like the fact that the moderators think they are so damned vital to the process.

If it was up to me, here’s how the debates would be conducted:

Debate 1 - end of August.  Debate 2 - late September.  Debate 3 - mid October.

Moderators are agreed to by the campaigns, each issuing a list of approved moderators to the other campaign and working towards a compromise.
Topics:  the economy, foreign relations, ad-hoc.  30 minutes allotted for each segment.  There’d be 4 questions each segment.  2 questions directed towards each candidate.

The candidate has 2 minutes to answer, followed by a 2 minute response from the other candidate.  Before moving on to the next question there would be 3 minutes allotted for the candidates to go back and forth with each other.  The moderator stays out of it during that time except to signal when the time is up and to move on to the next question.

The ad-hoc segment could be filled up with some issue-du-jour or rehashing more of the same things in the first 2 segment, or the candidates could bring up whatever they wanted to talk about.  This by design would be more of a free-for-all for the candidates to talk to each other and argue their points with each other.

This is probably far from perfect, but it’s got to be better than what we have now.

 

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin

tired of it all

Edited by Howsithangin
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
3 hours ago, pepperonikkid said:

Debate Commission Changes Rules Again, Will Cut Mics for Two Minute Responses by Trump and Biden

making another last minute rule change to protect Joe Biden from being bested on stage by President Trump.

Lets get real, if anything the rule was implemented to save Trump from himself and America from having to witness him devolving the debate into a shouting free for all.

 

After the first debate I said here that the simple fix is to cut the mics for two min intial question response, great to see them actually do the obvious.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
5 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

Lets get real, if anything the rule was implemented to save Trump from himself.

Unreal. 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T
6 hours ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

So did they decide to add foreign policy to this debate?

Actually they removed foreign policy for race relations, climate change, and COVID19

  • Haha (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

What a bitch move.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger

If I were Trump, I'd say eff it and tell the debate commission to stuff it. No more debates.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
8 hours ago, SinisterMrx said:

Biden needs to be allowed the opportunity to confuse himself with his own words. Trump simply lacks the self control to allow this to happen on his own. A two minute mute will help Trump. He can bring up whatever he needs to throw at Joe during his time allotment. I think you may see Trump being muted by the moderator if he embarrasses Biden.

If the mod is actually in controll of the mics she will reveal herself to be the Biden shill we know her to be by being overly protective of him.

Trump may walk off the stage at some point, once the fix has been made evident.

He may also choose to belittle the rule change and refuse the "new format".

Really? Do you believe that any of your assessment means much? The President being silenced once again by some random individual claiming the mantle of knowledge and truth above him? Do you really even understand what you are saying? The man is the leader of our nation and the defender of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If some random individual can silence him then what do you think your freedom of speech means? Incidentally freedom of speech was based on the concept of free political speech, not just the right to say I like lamp.

When the moderator silences the POTUS is that OK?

We can already assume that the "moderator" will protect Biden, she's a damn surrogate for the Biden campaign, this has already been shown as a fact.

If the POTUS walks off the stage he will be claimed to be weak, same with talking over or any other thing, they will characterize it as weak and claim Biden won by standing up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
8 hours ago, LeansToTheRight said:

I’ll preface this by saying that I do not condone changing the rules at this point in time.  The time for rules to be set were the first 2 weeks after the last convention.

If the silencing of the mics ONLY happens during the first 2-minutes of each segment, I’m fine with that.  (See my first sentence at the top of this post again regarding the timing of this rule change)

I don’t like the process for selecting the debate moderators.  I don’t like the fact that the moderators think they are so damned vital to the process.

If it was up to me, here’s how the debates would be conducted:

Debate 1 - end of August.  Debate 2 - late September.  Debate 3 - mid October.

Moderators are agreed to by the campaigns, each issuing a list of approved moderators to the other campaign and working towards a compromise.
Topics:  the economy, foreign relations, ad-hoc.  30 minutes allotted for each segment.  There’d be 4 questions each segment.  2 questions directed towards each candidate.

The candidate has 2 minutes to answer, followed by a 2 minute response from the other candidate.  Before moving on to the next question there would be 3 minutes allotted for the candidates to go back and forth with each other.  The moderator stays out of it during that time except to signal when the time is up and to move on to the next question.

The ad-hoc segment could be filled up with some issue-du-jour or rehashing more of the same things in the first 2 segment, or the candidates could bring up whatever they wanted to talk about.  This by design would be more of a free-for-all for the candidates to talk to each other and argue their points with each other.

This is probably far from perfect, but it’s got to be better than what we have now.

 

What you are actually saying is you would like to see an actual DEBATE. Not a moderated info-mercial like we currently have for one side while it's an attack ad on the other.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
5 hours ago, AntonToo said:

Lets get real, if anything the rule was implemented to save Trump from himself and America from having to witness him devolving the debate into a shouting free for all.

 

After the first debate I said here that the simple fix is to cut the mics for two min intial question response, great to see them actually do the obvious.

You really are a beta, do you wear a man bun and drink soy milk? Real men have arguments, shouting matches and at the end of those arguments go on about their lives. That's how alpha's work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
2 hours ago, Moderator T said:

Actually they removed foreign policy for race relations, climate change, and COVID19

Yeah because you know it's important, and we need to pretend Biden's hand isn't in the pockets of every foreign nation he's been to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
1 hour ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

If I were Trump, I'd say eff it and tell the debate commission to stuff it. No more debates.

That's what they want, then they can claim he fled the field of battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger
2 minutes ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

That's what they want, then they can claim he fled the field of battle.

They will lie and claim something negative no matter what or why anyhow.

We all know the truth. No sense in participating in a rigged game.

 

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
Just now, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

They will lie and claim something negative no matter what or why anyhow.

We all know the truth. No sense in participating in a rigged game.

 

Nah, he's going there to show them up, like when he asked how many he was debating. It's important to go into the den of the lion and kill it on it's own ground. It sends a message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
3 hours ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

You really are a beta, do you wear a man bun and drink soy milk? Real men have arguments, shouting matches and at the end of those arguments go on about their lives. That's how alpha's work.

...damn man, I'm sad for you.

There is nothing "Alpha" about blatant disregard of the agreed to rules of engagement. It's just plain ol' weasley cheating.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Confused 1
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian
3 hours ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

You really are a beta, do you wear a man bun and drink soy milk? Real men have arguments, shouting matches and at the end of those arguments go on about their lives. That's how alpha's work.

First engineering firm I was employed by was definitely "alpha," meetings were almost blood sports. You did NOT want to be unprepared or to hem and haw. I think the experience was good for me, it taught me to be prepared and to argue hard for what I thought was the right approach, but also to not take things personally. We'd be at each other's throats over some design issue, then when the meeting was over would all find ourselves across the street at the pizza place for lunch with no lingering problems.

But this debate stuff is total BS. The parties agreed, with the debate commission, to a set of rules and approaches, to me this is a contract that the debate commission is breaching. I expect Biden to show up in bubble wrap they are protecting him so much. It's a crap show but you're damned if you participate in them and you're damned if you don't, the press will shaft you either way.

Fourth Estate my ass, Fifth Column, yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
3 hours ago, AntonToo said:

...damn man, I'm sad for you.

There is nothing "Alpha" about blatant disregard of the agreed to rules of engagement. It's just plain ol' weasley cheating.

 

But the whole point is that these AREN'T the "agreed to" rules. Neither side "agreed" to mute buttons. 

Now don't misunderstand - I think it's a very good idea (and yes I know I'll catch hell for that around here.) Last time Trump shot himself in the foot with all those constant interruptions. He should've allowed Biden to speak freely and demonstrate how feeble-minded he is. The mute buttons will definitely work in Trump's favor. But the fact remains that the mute buttons AREN'T part of the "agreed to" rules. So as usual you have no point at all.

And what have you got against Ron Weasley?

B) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

I would like the format where the candidates ask each other questions, the moderator is only a referee with no content or opinion to contribute, and there is no debate committee. 

  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
7 hours ago, AntonToo said:

...damn man, I'm sad for you.

There is nothing "Alpha" about blatant disregard of the agreed to rules of engagement. It's just plain ol' weasley cheating.

Awwww, what is a debate?

The Definition of Debate is: a contention by words or arguments. That means two men enter the intellectual ring and one man is left standing. This concept of moderation by a disinterested party is a farce. The moderator is INTERESTED in the outcome of the election and in both of them this time it was the Moderator debating Trump. Biden and Trump should be forcefully advocating their positions and challenging each other. That's the point of this, it's not a infomercial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
4 hours ago, zurg said:

I would like the format where the candidates ask each other questions, the moderator is only a referee with no content or opinion to contribute, and there is no debate committee. 

Yeah I would like an actual debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian
1 hour ago, Taggart Transcontinental said:

Yeah I would like an actual debate.

I'd like Thunderdome personally. Two candidates enter, one candidate leaves.

Which kind of speaks to the health of leaders. In ancient Egypt at one time the Pharaoh had to do a yearly demonstration of his ability in order to keep his crown, which included running a set distance and other physical tests, as he was expected to lead troops into battle. Obviously that requirement went away, Rameses the Great ruled for 66 years, so I doubt he was running an 5ks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...