What are your thoughts on the Presidential Debate ?

[MigL]

I've never actually seen one, but have heard of them …
You know those YouTube videos where they get two old men to fight while they film it ?
You kind of feel sorry and embarrassed for both of them.
One is angry ( or mad ) and has no respect for anyone, while the other is a nice grandfatherly type but is beginning to mix up his words.

Kudos to the moderator for trying to keep the angry disrespectful one under control.

 

 

 

Edited September 30, 2020 by MigL

[CharonY]

I think Biden was not too bad relatively speaking. I think if seen for the first time and compare him to, say, Obama, it is pretty bad. But if you know that he has got a stutter it ain't that bad.  I think Trump actually knows that, as he tried aggressively to interrupt Biden to keep him off track.

Trump was his usual self, unable to face reality or condemn white supremacy among other stuff.

[iNow]

There’s never been a “debate” like this in the history of our country. It wasn’t a debate. It was a debacle.

Was like playing chess with a pigeon. He just flew in, knocked over all the pieces, shit all over the board, and strutted around claiming victory at the end. Biden should say, enough of this malarkey, withdraw from the next 2 debates, and say... “just go vote, people. This charade is a waste of all of our time. Vote now. Vote today”and be done with it.

[CharonY]

That is true. I did not watch it i one go as it was just a shit show. I expected Biden to be more rattled. 

I think no one expected policies from Trump, including Wallace.

Also I am not sure why, but I find it hilarious that Trump thinks that folks in Europe live in forests and call them forest villages.

[Externet]

Why the moderator does not have a fifty cent microphone-off switch for who is not supposed to talk that moment ?

[StringJunky]

It was on too late for me. I read the AP News reeport just now. He  ran true to type then. He epitomizes the saying: never argue with an an idiot because he'll beat you down with experience.

[Ten oz]

If one views the way the U.S electoral system operates as Tweedism the debate spoke to the angriest among a narrow demographic. The majority of voters, their hopes & interests, were ignored. 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Externet said:

Why the moderator does not have a fifty cent microphone-off switch for who is not supposed to talk that moment ?

I'm guessing Trump would just walk over to Bidens mic and 'carry on regardless' (strangely similar to those, cringetastic, Ealing comedies).

[Area54]

I got up at some indeterminate time in the morning, GMT, to watch it live. I sat through an interesting half hour preamble of BBC political pundits, but switched off the debate a couple of minutes into Biden's first offering. I found his delivery uncertain and embarrassing. I had hoped, having read what an accomplished debator he was, that he would provide an astute, dignified alternative to Trump's style. I decided I couldn't face the probable reality of an unconvicing fumble. I switched to Netflix and watched two episodes of the Big Bang Theory, which allowed me to pretend all was right with the world.

American international policies over the last several decades have often been characterised as a form of Imperialism. No matter how true that is/was I doubt you deserved this unpalatable choice berween a deceitful narcicist and a bumbling septagenarian.

[John Cuthber]

6 hours ago, iNow said:

and strutted around claiming victory at the end.

I gather he was emailing supporters to claim victory before the end.

[QuantumT]

The orange menace had a strategy: Interrupt, interrupt, interrupt. Attack, attack, attack. He was not there to talk politics, but to disrupt Biden.

Biden tried very hard to stay on the topics, but was too well mannered to keep talking despite of the interruptions. I guess he figured no one could hear what he said anyway.

Trump lost the argument at his first interruption, but unfortunately his supporters see that as a victory. Their hero is a bully.

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Area54 said:

American international policies over the last several decades have often been characterised as a form of Imperialism. No matter how true that is/was I doubt you deserved this unpalatable choice berween a deceitful narcicist and a bumbling septagenarian.

Indeed, I just wonder why anyone would choose "a deceitful narcicist" who is a bumbling septagenarian.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Externet said:

Why the moderator does not have a fifty cent microphone-off switch for who is not supposed to talk that moment ?

A nice idea, but room for improvement exists. I'd recommend a remote operated shock collar next time. 

26 minutes ago, QuantumT said:

The orange menace had a strategy: Interrupt, interrupt, interrupt. Attack, attack, attack. He was not there to talk politics, but to disrupt Biden. <...> unfortunately his supporters see that as a victory. Their hero is a bully.

Agree that was his strategy. Biden has a history of stuttering that he's worked tremendously hard to overcome through the decades.

Regularly interrupting someone who struggles with stuttering is a simplistic way to throw them off and completely disrupt their rhythm. I believe it was very much planned... like flashing a strobe light into the eyes of a person with light sensitivity... and Biden did remarkably well staying composed(ish). 

[MigL]

OK, but I have to question J Biden's judgement...

Is it really considered good manners/respectful to tell the POTUS to "shut up" ?

 

[iNow]

9 minutes ago, MigL said:

OK, but I have to question J Biden's judgement...

Is it really considered good manners/respectful to tell the POTUS to "shut up" ?

 

He's received some bad press for sinking to Trump's level, but also it's energized many of his supporters since he actually punched back. Frankly, if someone supports Trump because Biden happened to say shut up once, then they're not arguing in good faith and can be rightfully dismissed.

On another note, Biden raised nearly $4 million within one hour of the debate concluding. That's a really massive haul given it all happened within 60 minutes

[MigL]

I would still prefer age limits for Presidential nominees.
Say 62 for the first term, 66 for the second or a single.
No President should be over 70.
( although J Carter is still very lucid at his age; must be the clean farm living )

[swansont]

If they can be 66 for their second term, why couldn't they be 66 for their first, and not seek a second term?

2 hours ago, MigL said:

OK, but I have to question J Biden's judgement...

Is it really considered good manners/respectful to tell the POTUS to "shut up" ?

 

  Why is that the standard for respectful/good manners, but interruption and talking over the other isn't?

 

[Area54]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

I would still prefer age limits for Presidential nominees.
Say 62 for the first term, 66 for the second or a single.
No President should be over 70.
( although J Carter is still very lucid at his age; must be the clean farm living )

I would be a crap President at any age, but I'd definitely be better now, in my seventies, than I would have been ten or twenty years ago.

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

I would still prefer age limits for Presidential nominees.
Say 62 for the first term, 66 for the second or a single.
No President should be over 70.
( although J Carter is still very lucid at his age; must be the clean farm living )

Would you consider David Attenborough too old at 94? He's still sharp and knocking out programmes. Ginsberg at 87 on the SC. Chronological age doesn't mean much.

[CharonY]

6 hours ago, Area54 said:

I had hoped, having read what an accomplished debator he was,

This is something that I have not heard. I never found Biden to be very good in debates (not like, say Obama could be). His appeal to many was his ability to project empathy and just being human (you can see some of it when Trump attacked him on the drug addiction of one of his sons). On the formal side, he was more known as a gaffe machine. For the most part it was more about Biden not screwing up. He had the added bonus that in contrast to Clinton and Obama, he was actually allowed to show more emotion.

That all being said, I think the US politics is polarized to a degree where these kind of things play no role anymore. They could have just sat there and throw pillows at each other (which, face it, would have been more entertaining and just as informative) and there would be little movement in decisions. 

I mean the media made a big show about the fact that Trump did not only fail to condemn white supremacy and extremism and gave kind of a shout out to an extremist group. But on the other hand, this was one of the consistent things he did, so the surprise is utterly misplaced.

[StringJunky]

9 hours ago, Externet said:

Why the moderator does not have a fifty cent microphone-off switch for who is not supposed to talk that moment ?

From AP. For the next debates they are considering:

Quote

One possibility being discussed is to give the moderator the ability to cut off the microphone of one of the debate participants while his opponent is talking, according to a person familiar with the deliberations who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-chris-wallace-campaigns-04ee2e8d54f456ee6cafdc5fe53a5d28

 

[CharonY]

My suspicion is that at least the Trump campaign won't agree to that. It was basically the only arrow in their quiver.

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

My suspicion is that at least the Trump campaign won't agree to that. It was basically the only arrow in their quiver.

The ability to disrupt and distract?

[koti]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

OK, but I have to question J Biden's judgement...

Is it really considered good manners/respectful to tell the POTUS to "shut up" ?

 

He also said "Stop yappin", "Shush" etc.
I think this is largely how Trump wins his arguments - He pisses you off and then takes advantage of it. Biden did a horrible job in this debate, he should have been ice cold and destroy POTUS with merritt but he fell into his emotional traps instead. 

Edited September 30, 2020 by koti

[iNow]

47 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The ability to disrupt and distract?

Also likely a major part of his game plan... distract. 

Notice how everyone is talking about what a fuster cluck this debate was instead of covid deaths, his failure to pay taxes, his fraudulent funneling of money to his kids, him being a failed businessman, their hypocritical and rushed lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court, continued Russian election meddling, etc...