106 points

Which is exactly how we should hold debates. There’s absolutely no reason to allow a bunch of screaming people and candidates to interrupt each other constantly. Debates are to scrutinize candidates, not see who can get the most attention.

permalink
report
reply
23 points

Almost exactly. They really should be hosted by a non-partisan service. I agree with the rest.

permalink
report
parent
reply
91 points

No crowd, mics muted… Trump has zero intention of showing up for these debates. 10 to 1 he weasels out.

permalink
report
reply
21 points

I like those odds. Put me down for 100 on the weasel weasling out.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

I would add that the candidates can’t hear each other’s responses and no rebuttals. Just ask the question and let them give their answers and hopefully have a fact checker because you know trump will just spew out lie after lie after lie after lie like he does daily.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

That’s not a debate. Why even have them together? These piss poor excuses for a “debate” are already: take your questions, give your talking points and go home. Let them press each other on shit, not water it down even more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Zero chance he doesn’t.

permalink
report
parent
reply
30 points

Mute buttons on timers.

permalink
report
reply
21 points

Except instead of muting, a voice changer that pitch shifts up an octave or two.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Every second it just goes higher until it’s out of human range.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

Play their own voice back with a directional microphone, delayed a fraction of a second, to make it impossible to speak.

Keeps them from yelling and distracting the person who’s turn it js

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

People acted all surprised they agreed to debates…

But I don’t know how people think they’ll manage to actually agree to the terms. Especially when there’s no neutral third party organizing it. That’s one thing they did both agree on, kicking them out of the equation.

permalink
report
reply
11 points

From the article:

…and that the hosts weren’t from outlets with an ideological bent toward Trump.

At this stage I think it will be very difficult to find someone unbiased when it comes to Trump. The best you can hope for outside an assiduous hermit, is someone who is ethically committed to fairness.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

Or a non-American. Obviously not possible for the jury selection which is why that was so difficult, but perfectly possible here. (Will probably still have some opinion, but not a strong/religious one).

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Imagine if all the US had to tune in to the Vietnamese public broadcaster for this.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 332K

    Comments