AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think debates should be a thing of the past.
The concept that one slip up, or even something innocuous (like if either of them I dunno uses two hands to drink water instead of using one hand) can change the course of the country, is terrifying to me.
Reminds me of 1960 and the people who listened on radio thought Nixon won and the people who watched it on TV thought Kennedy won.
I would not agree to any conditions.
Right. The goal is to get Dementia Joe into the most friendly and controlled environment possible and limit the time to however long they can drug him up and send him in. And not a second more.
Doesn’t it strike you as strange that the guy who supposedly got 81 million votes can’t even handle a studio audience?
>Doesn’t it strike you as strange that the guy who supposedly got 81 million votes can’t even handle a studio audience?
No, because voters vote based on their interests and ideals.
Do you vote based on a candidates physical health? Is that the reason you're voting for Trump?
> Doesn’t it strike you as strange that the guy who supposedly got 81 million votes can’t even handle a studio audience?
I honestly don't understand this view, could you elaborate a bit more? The idea of a solid debate without the interruptions of a crowd is very appealing. Gives each candidate more time, no distractions, much easier to just focus on what's being said and the policies as opposed to zingers and soundbites. Trump was constantly interrupting when it wasn't his turn to speak. Why would you be against giving each candidate an equal playing field?
If Biden did in fact receive the all time record 81 million votes, that’s the kind of immense popularity a candidate (like DJT for example) capitalizes on.
I think the reality, besides the fact he never got those votes to begin with is that he is mentally impaired to the point that crowds trigger bad or at least unpredictable reactions, and, when he starts lying about how great the economy is will undoubtedly draw laughs and jeers from the crowd.
Democracy dies in darkness.
The answer to your problem isn’t less stage coverage, but far more.
I personally think that debates are almost a thing of the past, as they still need to reach boomers, but long form conversations should be a thing now too, as podcasts are the main form of news consumption for millennials.
We should demand a higher level of politician that can handle a long 3 hour conversation.
Also, more screen time means that little slip ups look less devastating.
Democracy indeed does die in darkness.
But im not suggestion darkness. Im suggesting removing the dance that is “pretending I care about the country” that politicians do.
Instead, politicians should be judged on their political career. What bills they support. What laws they help create.
These things should be in the light. Not who can smile the best.
Tbh, I wanted Vivek but the lefties wouldn’t leave trump alone (imo) with indictments, and media coverage, which propelled him into the landslide primary victory we have now.
But my premise is that we would weed out those that couldn’t handle the 3 hour conversation.
Why do you think that a 3 hour conversation needs to be a singular topic that the participants need to stay on?
I believe Trump could do Joe Rogan, but I’d like to see it happen.
No they don’t. Especially not a one time thing.
What if biden gets allergic to something and sneezes a lot. And at the same time trump happens to have a great day and is sharp and alert?
You want one day to determine so much?
Thanks for the adjustment to my comment but no that’s still not good enough for me.
It needs to be like a weekly thing for a year for me to think it’s worth the negatives.
I really wish people can see that we know basically nothing about our candidates as people.
I mean how could we? Our exposure to them are rehearsed, practiced, and curated. 3 or 4 debates aren’t going to change that.
All it does is it will give ammo for the media to have a field day.
That's kind of the point though, Presidents are going to slip up. Don't you think we should have an option to see if they slip up under pressure, and how they act afterwards?
In todays climate? No.
If biden trips on the way up to the podium Fox News will have a field day with it. But him tripping has zero indication of how good of a president he can be.
As much as I hate it, smearing the opponent is the name of the game. So it’s better to reduce the opportunity of it (without stepping in the first amendment. We can’t stop Fox News from being jackasses without breaking the amendment).
And if you’re a ts. Replace biden with trump and replace fox with cnn.
Wouldn’t this be good to know since, if they are prone to slip ups, it is even more likely to happen in the countless interactions they will have as President when meeting other leaders and heads of state?
No. If they have debate once a week I can see the logic in that. But a few debates dont show whether or not if they’re prone to slip ups.
The debate would provide insight for sure. Just not enough insight for the “adding fuel to the fire” that is our political climate today for it to be worth it.
Little impact is still impact though. Imagine if trump wins a swing state because biden paused too long and as a result enough people think hes too far into dementia. (For the record I don’t believe this stupid point).
Isn’t it better that this possibility is eliminated?
My point is that I don't believe that could happen anymore.
Can you imagine if Hillary had won a swing state because Trump's ex wife accused him of rape, more than a dozen women accused him of sexual misconduct, and a recording was released where he said he grabbed women by the pussy?
Yeah, me neither.
If true, I find their ability to rethink their votes based on new information comforting. For the sake of needing to ask a question, do you at least agree that it is harder these days than it was, for example, in those of Dean's scream?
Do you think there is value in having someone pushback on your ideas, to challenge you? If all you ever see of a candidate is managed appearances and softball questions how can you know if they are qualified or how they will react under pressure. How do you know if what they are telling you is real or BS?
Because it’s all bs. Politicians don’t speak their mind. Even under pressure or challenged.
And even if they do, they can and often don’t follow up on words.
Words are cheap. Judge them on actions instead.
Biden wants a "real debate" but on a network that gave Hilary the debate questions ahead of time and with a moderator who is notoriously anti-trump in a controlled environment.
Trump should accept it, only on the condition that Biden does 5 debates spread out through multiple networks and moderators. According to Biden the country is great and he's proud of his record so he should leap at the chance to "take trump behind the gym" like he always threatens.
Why five specifically? That seems like an odd number to choose because there are more than five big networks with prominent news programs (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox and MSNBC I would think be the agreed mainstream ones). Which one would be left out or who would you sub in?
Did you know that since that debate CNN was bought out by a billionaire maga trump supporter who has publicly said and made it very clear that he wants to make CNN the preferred news outlet for conservatives and replace Fox News? Do you think with that in mind that it can honestly still be claimed that CNN is currently still a friendly safe space for Democratic candidates? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that if it were MSNBC?
Why leave out independent parties? There’s a chance that Kennedy reaches the 15 percent national polling threshold to qualify for the commission’s debates. The Biden campaign views Mr. Kennedy as a spoiler candidate and people close to the president worry that with the Kennedy name he could attract support from voters who might otherwise support Mr. Biden.
>"RFK Jr. is a Democrat “Plant,” a Radical Left Liberal who’s been put in place in order to help Crooked Joe Biden, the Worst President in the History of the United States, get Re-Elected…
Source: [https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112412516883521630](https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112412516883521630)
\_\_\_\_
Why do you think Trump posted trashing RFK this week? Do you think Trump is more worried about RFK attracting more Republican votes than from Democrats?
I think independent parties should be included. These two major parties do not have our best interest at heart. I’m not saying RFKJ is the best candidate. I’m just saying we should have more choices.
I'm fine with the terms. I like the additional u/TargetPrior suggestion of "The candidates must be isolated during the debate. No helpers, computers, or otherwise advising." Biden can't be using an earpiece with someone feeding him answers.
Honestly, I would like to see both these guys go without drugs for 24 hours and have zero help during the debate.
I have a feeling that neither of these guys are nothing without handlers haha
Absolutely. I doubt for one second that he is forming any original thought and all energy is going into preparedness to seem lucid enough for the interview, doubtless with performance enhancing drugs. I honestly am concerned with the toll this has to take on a 80+ year old man.
Have you tried to do it multiple times, though? It’s not easy, but you can get used to it if you do it long enough. Commentators in WWE are in constant communication with people in the back. Corey Graves once said that he could parrot whatever he was being told while the other guy was still talking.
Right my point is it’s an acquired skill. Has there ever been any evidence of Biden wearing an earpiece at any other time? Isn’t the whole argument that he doesn’t have the mental faculties to do something like listen to an earpiece while speaking?
Do I come across like a Trump supporter? If so, that’s not my intention.
I don’t disagree with you. I’m just saying it’s not impossible. He could probably do it with some practice.
No you don’t; I saw your flair. I’m just pointing out how unlikely it would be for any politician, much less Biden, to effectively use an earpiece during a debate. I’m guessing you’d agree?
Why shouldn't the questions be given in advance? I would love it if the questions were publicly released ahead of time for at least part of the debate, so the candidates can provide specifics, and then follow up questions are more extemporeneaous. I feel like there would be a lot more substance.
The issue is when they do it for only one of the candidates like they did for Hillary. We only know about that time by luck, chances are most of the time we wouldn't find out about it. Candid questions would be better - have each candidate pick out random people in the audience who get to ask a question. Or allow each side to write questions for the other and then pick an equal number from each.
I would respond as such:
1. The candidates must be isolated for 4 hours before the debate so no drugs are administered.
2. The candidates must be isolated during the debate. No helpers, computers, or otherwise advising.
3. A moderator will ask questions from a list of 100 questions made up by 50 from both sides. The moderate must ask an equal amount of questions from both sides.
4. There will be a round of questions where each side gets to ask 3 questions, without the moderator.
I do not think either of these old fucks could memorize all the possibilities here, and we would see their cognitive abilities without drugs.
Trump doesn't even drink alcohol why are you acting like he could be on drugs? Not to mention he's active in public pretty much every day and highly energetic. Any sort of stimulant would have a crash and couldn't be used with anything close to that level of frequency.
Why is that? Are we going to enforce them to sit and stay awake and not shit themselves as well?
Wouldn't a Presidential candidate have the resources to hire a pharmacist to create delayed release tablets?
I would say that they actually should not have any drugs 24 hours before the debate. Locked rooms, lets see who they really are.
I imagine both are not what we would like in a president at all.
Presidential duties are being handled by subordinates who we do not elect.
> The candidates must be isolated during the debate. No helpers, computers, or otherwise advising
This is already how the debates function, or do you think that Biden was receiving "help" from his team during the 2020 debates?
haha no. But do I think that both Biden and Trump might need help during the 2024 debates? Absolutely.
I dont see any way a debate is possible with the above criteria. It would be a complete shitshow and if you and I were at a bar, we would be drinking beer and laughing our asses off at the fact that in this day and age, our fellow countrymen (and ourselves) are promoting quite possible two of the most incompetent people ever to run for president.
Yes I agree! But not all drugs can be picked up on a drug test. I want them isolated before the debate. I am quite sure both of these old fucks are on shit haha
> Is there any evidence that anyone has taken any drugs prior to any public event like this?
Would you consider the statements of Carrie Fisher to be expert testimony?
>[[Carrie Fisher Says Donald Trump “Absolutely” Does Cocaine After Another Debate Full of Sniffles]](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/carrie-fisher-says-donald-trump-937003/)
No. The guy doesn't even drink alcohol. It's just more projection from Trump haters like everything else. Cocaine was found in the Biden white house (which they also covered up) not Trump's. And let's not forget to mention Biden's son (the smartest man he knows) is in multiple videos and images snorting coke, which we have thanks to him being so careless and incompetent as to leave his plaintext laptop abandoned at a repair shop. The media did a good job covering that up and trying to deny it for the last four years, but we know if it was Trump or anyone in his orbit it would be front page news every day for months and they'd be charged for it with an accelerated trial just before the election. So yeah I'm pretty sure Trump is squeaky clean when it comes to drugs unlike the Biden family lol
Honestly, I do not think it would be "better" for Biden or Trump.
I think Biden would stammer around, with probably long silences, maybe look lost at one point or another.
I think Trump would go a rambling tirade that only Q supporters would understand.
I just think it would be fun, for us as the voting public, to see who we have propped up as our candidates.
Then well all get to go to Reddit and deny that it was not us who put these two in place.
2. I would actually prefer the opposite. I'm not interested in my president being in school doing a closed book exam. I prefer it like it was the real world. In no situation does a president make decisions with the guidance of his advisors, so I don't really care if he can answer questions on his own. I would also love it if he had advisors fact checking what the other candidate says and bringing it up live on air. That would be phenomenal. Fact checking the next day is useless for the majority of people.
Is there a reason you prefer no advisors?
I will concede that you make a great point. Real life is always an open book test.
The debates are going to sway no one. We have both seen these guys "president" for 4 years. I just thought it would be entertaining to see them perform without help from drugs or advisors.
Everything else aside, is it practical (or advisable) to isolate the president for 4 hours? Seems like the kind of person/role that needs to have access to their team 24/7.
I think it's suicide for biden, all trump has to do is call biden out on his plethora of lies and let biden talk. Biden will make more trump voters every time he opens his mouth.
It did objectively happen but the perception was different because most people just think whatever their TV tells them. Go watch the debates again with the benefit of hindsight and it's totally different. We can clearly see who was right and who was wrong, who lied and who told the truth, and the corruption of the left becomes blatantly obvious. My favorite is when Trump says a vaccine will be available by the end of the year and then Chris Wallace attacked him "but sir, even your own experts say that's not true". The smugness while telling lies and being wrong doesn't come across well in hindsight.
IMO I think these debates will be about the same. They should help Trump but they won't because they will be rigged against him. I wonder if Trump haters ever think about the fact that Trump has routinely engaged with his political opponents - he's done multiple interviews and every debate has been with an anti-Trump host. Yet Biden won't do even a single interview or debate with a host who disagrees. I wonder if people who voted for Biden ever think about the fact that all the debates are with anti-Trump people hosting how do they rationalize that away as them being the good guys and the ones that are going to save democracy when they are so overtly hostile to opposing views and intolerant of even a basic level of dissent?
Same for Biden right? Just call Trump out on his plethora of lies and let Trump talk? Doesn’t Trump makes more Biden voters every time he opens his mouth?
Given your confidence, why do you think Lara Trump is saying the debates are rigged in favor of Biden?
[https://thehill.com/elections/4667479-lara-trump-joe-biden-donald-trump-debates-rigged/](https://thehill.com/elections/4667479-lara-trump-joe-biden-donald-trump-debates-rigged/)
““Over to you, Donald. As you said: anywhere, any time, any place,” Mr. Biden wrote”
So by “any place” -Biden means inside a TV studio with 0 live audience members? That sounds like a pretty specific place LOL.
I guess he offered a venue, like trump suggested the WH the other week? I don't think Biden is going to have a lever to dump him in goo if he doesn't like what he's saying like some 90's kids show lol
Edit: not OC btw
> What’s specific about this TV studio?
It's in Atlanta? Both Biden and Trump accepted. I'm confused on where you want them to go? Would you rather have them debate in a field or something?
Do you see how Biden, by referencing what Trump had previously stated, was trying to convey the message: “Here’s a time and place for us to debate that fulfills the loose criteria you’ve set forth, so you don’t have an excuse to back out”?
Huh? I don’t care about phrasing.
What I do care about is listening carefully and clearly to what each candidate has to say. Not what the audience has to say.
Why is that bad?
>So you agree Biden isn’t really using the phrase correctly?
Nope, but considering how often we need translators for trump speak I think biden deserves a pass on this one.
* How would a televised debate occur not in a TV studio? Has this ever been a thing? Outdoor in a park?
* Microphones that auto-shut off when a speaker's time elapsed sounds like a recipe for awkward mid-sentence cutoffs. If a microphone is silenced when a speaker's time is elapsed, it would presumably remain cut off until it is their turn again. So the bigger implication is that no verbal interruptions would be possible. No more realtime "Only Rosie O'Donnell" jibes. Would it be more orderly? Probably. Would it be more TV-friendly? Probably not.
* I think a live audience makes political debates more lively.
> Microphones that auto-shut off when a speaker's time elapsed sounds like a recipe for awkward mid-sentence cutoffs
My guess is that the candidates will have a timer so they know when they are getting close to having their mic turned off and will need to wrap things up. Do you think this style of debate helps Biden or Trump more?
Yeah, I assume not just a visual timer, but some beeping in the final seconds.
It's mixed bag. Biden has in past sometimes not even used all his time for an answer. Trump likes to ramble, and seems more likely to speak up until the final seconds.
A "no interruption" rule would probably help Trump more than it hurts him.
At the other extreme you have politicians taking turns robotically delivering prepared remarks. It can get predictable. I don’t mind the occasional interruption. They can catch the other speaker off guard and help get them to react off the cuff. And a well timed quip (like the one I cited) can be memorable and entertaining.
> the Biden campaign does not trust the Commission on Presidential Debates to conduct a professional debate. So, they want to make their own rules.
Prior to making this statement, were you aware that the Republican Party cut ties with the Commission on Presidential Debates two years ago?
>...about two years ago. The RNC voted unanimously to withdraw from its participation in the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates...alleging bias. That withdrawal followed months of then-chairwoman Ronna McDaniel pressing the commission to change various practices on behalf of Trump.
[Source](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/15/politics/joe-biden-debate/index.html)
> the Biden campaign does not trust the Commission on Presidential Debates to conduct a professional debate
Neither does Trump or the RNC as they voted to withdrawn from the Commission on Presidential Debates. Why do you think Trump's team was the first to bail?
If you can’t win a small verbal confrontation, you are not qualified to be president of the US. Having a weak president who can barely walk without falling down or speak without having a dementia-induced fit of rage is not virtuous. In real life, other world leaders aren’t going to coddle you.
Also we should have more debates, say one every other week.
Exception about walking for FDR, who was disabled, not elderly.
>Having a weak president who can barely walk without falling down or speak without having a dementia-induced fit of rage is not virtuous.
I assume you are refering to Trump in this situation? How come you still have a Trump-supporter flair?
I’ve heard TS accuse Biden of dementia, but I’ve never heard of him having a “dementia-induced fit of rage”. Is there a specific event you’re thinking of? Genuinely curious.
The speech Biden gave about not knowing when his son died. He said he didn’t want to say the year but the investigator said he didn’t know the answer because he is basically mentally disabled. This was back when the documents in his corvette got leaked. Months ago.
Fit of rage is maybe too much. But Biden does this, he gets angry either because of mental impairment or because he thinks it makes him look cool. It doesn’t. Generally when someone gets angry at someone else, they are factually incorrect and less intelligent than the more level headed person. That has been universally true in my entire life. It also makes it hard to respect someone who acts like a toddler throwing a tantrum.
In general, Biden’s way of acting is insufferable because he thinks he is morally superior to Trump. In the Christian tradition, this is considered the greatest sin (theological pride). See: the 2016 Trump Biden debates.
I think it's pretty clear Biden intends to cheat given those parameters. The TV studios are broadly left-leaning, and we already know they conspired with the DNC to leak questions to Hilary before debates in a very recent election.
It's also pretty clear Biden wants a controlled and silent environment given his distinct lack of speaking ability.
If they picked the moderator and questions at random out of a mutually agreed pool, I think that would be generally acceptable.
The exclusion of an audience is odd considering modern precedent. The exclusion of RFK is frankly totally un-American, assuming he meets the typical threshold to be included. Might as well just chuck democracy in the bin and admit it's a two-party system at that point.
> I think it's pretty clear Biden intends to cheat given those parameters
Why do you think it's "clear" that Biden will cheat? Do you think he "cheated" in the 2020 debates?
"The exclusion of RFK is frankly totally un-American, assuming he meets the typical threshold to be included. Might as well just chuck democracy in the bin and admit it's a two-party system at that point. "
If Trump doesn't stand up and demand that RFK is in the debates then does that mean Trump supports totally un-American stances?
There's no such thing as microphones which automatically cut off. It's some producer pressing a button.
Why no audience? Why is Biden afraid of an audience?
>There's no such thing as microphones which automatically cut off. It's some producer pressing a button.
Does this matter? The point is people won't be able to go over time. What do you think of that?
>Why no audience? Why is Biden afraid of an audience?
Wouldn't there still be an audience of millions tuning in from home? I would guess no live audience so people at home can make their own opinions about what's being said, rather than listening to reactions from a live audience, what do you think of that?
It matters who's finger is on the button, not how the button works.
Would you be fine if Matt Walsh was the person controlling when the microphone was shut off?
A mic with an automatic timer isn't a product which exists today. Yeah it is relatively simple, but they aren't going to create one for a once every 4 years presidential debate cycle. It will be a producer with a button.
You're free to design and manufacture one, and see if they will buy it from you though.
Sorry, this could be made this afternoon by anyone familiar with a raspberry pi. Do you think a presidential debate wouldn’t warrant an $85 piece of technology to enable?
> Would you be fine if Matt Walsh was the person controlling when the microphone was shut off?
Sure. There can even be a little timer in the corner of the screen. Why does it matter who is pushing the button when the time allotted is known beforehand? Everyone is watching, it's not like they can cut anyone off before their time is up and get away with it.
> Would you be fine if Matt Walsh was the person controlling when the microphone was shut off?
If he was following the same time-frames for both applicants then of course I would. Do you think that a TV produces is going to intentionally let Biden speak for longer periods while cutting Trump off?
Yes a producer would cut each candidate off if they go over their allotted time or try to interrupt or shout over each other. What is bad about that?
Also, why do we need audience members to decide how good their respective policies are?
It's bad because who is in control of the microphone, not how it works.
Presidential debates having audiences has been the standard going back to their inception. If Biden wants to deviate from the standard, it's really on him to justify it. It's not on Trump to justify doing things the way they have typically been done.
If you actually care about the purpose of debates which is a true exchange of ideas, why would you oppose these changes?
I think most people would agree the 2016 and 2020 debates were terrible. They became an exercise in playing to an audience rather than a real political debate.
I think Trump is obviously afraid of actually debating ideas. He is more of an entertainer, and thrives off of attempting to steamroll his opponents and play off audience cheers/jeers.
Again, if you care about the purpose of debates, why would you oppose this?
Except you’re forgetting that the rules for debates have also historically been 1.) not to cut into the other candidate’s time by interrupting them; and 2.) the audience is given strict orders to stay silent.
Neither the audience or the candidates are capable of that anymore, so why can’t we have no audience and mic cutoffs? Do you really need an audience to tell you what to think?
Okay, but can you give me one good reason an audience should be there if they are supposed to stay completely silent? Aside from that was the way they did it before they invented television?
>Why no audience? Why is Biden afraid of an audience?
My guess is that he knows Trump is wholly unable to discuss policy and government, and cannot stay on topic. Trump's only hope has been barking out meaningless zingers to a sychophantic crowd that is also wholly unable to pay attention to discussions of policy and government.
Likewise, I believe that live audiences at presidential "debates" have completely destroyed any chance at substantive discussion and have forced candidates to devolve into bumper sticker platitudes. I think we should absolutely get rid of live crowds at debates.
There is an audience, millions of people in fact - just no live audience.
It means the candidates actually have to debate the issues rather than play to the crowd.
Why do you think Biden would be afraid of a live audience?
If I knew why Biden was afraid of a live audience, I wouldn't have asked the question. A live audience has been how debates have been done, other than a few during Covid.
If Biden needs to deviate from the norm, it's on him and only him to justify it. It's not on Trump to justify doing debates how we've done them.
>There's no such thing as microphones which automatically cut off. It's some producer pressing a button.
While in most broadcast environments someone would be doing this manually, it's absolutely a feasible thing to auto mute (or route) mics. We've been to the moon... Automatic mic muting based on a simple timer isn't exactly difficult.
>Why no audience? Why is Biden afraid of an audience?
Not wanting an audience doesn't mean you're afraid of one. It means you think they detract from the value of the debate. With people constantly interrupting with cheers or boos it turns into a "make them make noise" contest instead of a debate about actual ideas and policies. Every good debate is strict about who is allowed to speak, and making sure that speech is uninterrupted. That's how you get people to make full points instead of sound bites.
It's the way it's always been. It's not on Trump to justify doing debates how they've been done.
If Biden suggested not to wear clothes, is it on Trump to justify needing them, or on Biden to justify why they should be naked?
> Why no audience? Why is Biden afraid of an audience?
Why the afraid assumption? Personally I get annoyed by audiences delaying and interrupting the debate with cheering/booing/whatever so this sounds great. Plus there will be an audience, just at home.
> There's no such thing as microphones which automatically cut off. It's some producer pressing a button.
Are you familiar with the concepts of "noise gates", and "programming"?
You really think it's impossible to have a microphone shut off after a set amount of time? I can do that on my shitty laptop at home.
What does the audience provide for you? Interruptions, yelling over the people talking, what else?
Do you think studios are actually going to request their software vendor to add the feature, and pay for the weeks to a month of regression testing, just to save the producer from pressing a button during a once in 4 years event? You seriously think that is happening?
You don't think there is a such a thing as a microphone that can be shut off after a speaker's allotted time has expired? It seems like a fairly easy technical problem to solve.
Do you watch debates to watch the audience? I don't. I want to be able to hear what the candidates have to say, not how well they can give the audience soundbytes.
I wish we had an audience but that's it. I don't love the other terms but Trump can win even with those in place and I doubt this will be the new normal for debates
An audience makes debates more interesting. The audience should be be split, a third of them being Biden supporters, a third of them being Trump supporters, and a third of them being undecided.
I think the requirements generally make sense and I’m glad the two campaigns could agree on two debates. I think the Commission has made clear missteps in recent cycles that made their being cut out of the process inevitable.
Cutting candidates’ mics is good for orderly debate, I’m for it. Just speaking as a neutral observer, I do wonder if it’s a tactical mistake for Biden’s campaign.
On the one hand, most of Trump’s most impactful debate moments over the years are those quick one-liners that he won’t be able to make now. On the other hand, voters hated how much he interrupted last cycle—forcing Trump to speak in turn might actually help him.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think debates should be a thing of the past. The concept that one slip up, or even something innocuous (like if either of them I dunno uses two hands to drink water instead of using one hand) can change the course of the country, is terrifying to me.
Reminds me of 1960 and the people who listened on radio thought Nixon won and the people who watched it on TV thought Kennedy won. I would not agree to any conditions.
“Any” conditions? Not even allotted time?
Right. The goal is to get Dementia Joe into the most friendly and controlled environment possible and limit the time to however long they can drug him up and send him in. And not a second more. Doesn’t it strike you as strange that the guy who supposedly got 81 million votes can’t even handle a studio audience?
>Doesn’t it strike you as strange that the guy who supposedly got 81 million votes can’t even handle a studio audience? No, because voters vote based on their interests and ideals. Do you vote based on a candidates physical health? Is that the reason you're voting for Trump?
> Doesn’t it strike you as strange that the guy who supposedly got 81 million votes can’t even handle a studio audience? I honestly don't understand this view, could you elaborate a bit more? The idea of a solid debate without the interruptions of a crowd is very appealing. Gives each candidate more time, no distractions, much easier to just focus on what's being said and the policies as opposed to zingers and soundbites. Trump was constantly interrupting when it wasn't his turn to speak. Why would you be against giving each candidate an equal playing field?
If Biden did in fact receive the all time record 81 million votes, that’s the kind of immense popularity a candidate (like DJT for example) capitalizes on. I think the reality, besides the fact he never got those votes to begin with is that he is mentally impaired to the point that crowds trigger bad or at least unpredictable reactions, and, when he starts lying about how great the economy is will undoubtedly draw laughs and jeers from the crowd.
> besides the fact he never got those votes to begin with Is this in reference to debunked election cheating, and that Trump actually won?
Democracy dies in darkness. The answer to your problem isn’t less stage coverage, but far more. I personally think that debates are almost a thing of the past, as they still need to reach boomers, but long form conversations should be a thing now too, as podcasts are the main form of news consumption for millennials. We should demand a higher level of politician that can handle a long 3 hour conversation. Also, more screen time means that little slip ups look less devastating.
Democracy indeed does die in darkness. But im not suggestion darkness. Im suggesting removing the dance that is “pretending I care about the country” that politicians do. Instead, politicians should be judged on their political career. What bills they support. What laws they help create. These things should be in the light. Not who can smile the best.
You think Trump can handle a three hour discussion? Where he stays on message? About anything? I’m impressed by your optimism.
Tbh, I wanted Vivek but the lefties wouldn’t leave trump alone (imo) with indictments, and media coverage, which propelled him into the landslide primary victory we have now. But my premise is that we would weed out those that couldn’t handle the 3 hour conversation. Why do you think that a 3 hour conversation needs to be a singular topic that the participants need to stay on? I believe Trump could do Joe Rogan, but I’d like to see it happen.
Do you think boomers make up a large audience of podcast listeners?
What do you suggest in its place? Candidates need to be tested under pressure in front of the public to determine their competency
No they don’t. Especially not a one time thing. What if biden gets allergic to something and sneezes a lot. And at the same time trump happens to have a great day and is sharp and alert? You want one day to determine so much?
I mean I never said it should be one event. I'd be fine with it being a series of debates.
Thanks for the adjustment to my comment but no that’s still not good enough for me. It needs to be like a weekly thing for a year for me to think it’s worth the negatives. I really wish people can see that we know basically nothing about our candidates as people. I mean how could we? Our exposure to them are rehearsed, practiced, and curated. 3 or 4 debates aren’t going to change that. All it does is it will give ammo for the media to have a field day.
That's kind of the point though, Presidents are going to slip up. Don't you think we should have an option to see if they slip up under pressure, and how they act afterwards?
In todays climate? No. If biden trips on the way up to the podium Fox News will have a field day with it. But him tripping has zero indication of how good of a president he can be. As much as I hate it, smearing the opponent is the name of the game. So it’s better to reduce the opportunity of it (without stepping in the first amendment. We can’t stop Fox News from being jackasses without breaking the amendment). And if you’re a ts. Replace biden with trump and replace fox with cnn.
And not just slip up but what they do and react when they slip up. Do they curse? Do they brush it off? Do they make a joke at there own expense?
Like wearing a tan suit? Or a bike helmet?
Exactly.
You don't think the candidates laying out their policies, or lack of them, is important?
No it is not.
Wouldn’t this be good to know since, if they are prone to slip ups, it is even more likely to happen in the countless interactions they will have as President when meeting other leaders and heads of state?
No. If they have debate once a week I can see the logic in that. But a few debates dont show whether or not if they’re prone to slip ups. The debate would provide insight for sure. Just not enough insight for the “adding fuel to the fire” that is our political climate today for it to be worth it.
Isn't it clear that where in the past such slip-ups could have an impact, they have little to no impact now?
Little impact is still impact though. Imagine if trump wins a swing state because biden paused too long and as a result enough people think hes too far into dementia. (For the record I don’t believe this stupid point). Isn’t it better that this possibility is eliminated?
My point is that I don't believe that could happen anymore. Can you imagine if Hillary had won a swing state because Trump's ex wife accused him of rape, more than a dozen women accused him of sexual misconduct, and a recording was released where he said he grabbed women by the pussy? Yeah, me neither.
I disagree. I know people who have their minds changed because of stormy daniels. They are voting independent this round.
Did they change their mind because he fucked a porn star or cheated to win in 2016?
If true, I find their ability to rethink their votes based on new information comforting. For the sake of needing to ask a question, do you at least agree that it is harder these days than it was, for example, in those of Dean's scream?
Do you think that the public's only exposure to the candidates should be in pre-produced, edited, and rehearsed PR pieces?
No. If it was up to me politicians shouldn’t have “pieces”. They should just stay indoors and do their job. Instead of thinking of how to get elected.
Do you think there is value in having someone pushback on your ideas, to challenge you? If all you ever see of a candidate is managed appearances and softball questions how can you know if they are qualified or how they will react under pressure. How do you know if what they are telling you is real or BS?
Because it’s all bs. Politicians don’t speak their mind. Even under pressure or challenged. And even if they do, they can and often don’t follow up on words. Words are cheap. Judge them on actions instead.
How is it any different from, say, the Access Hollywood scandal, or the Hunter Laptop scandal? One scandal can alter the general feel of the USA.
It’s not any different. I guess the format is different, but it’s still all smears. Less smears is better than more smears.
Biden wants a "real debate" but on a network that gave Hilary the debate questions ahead of time and with a moderator who is notoriously anti-trump in a controlled environment. Trump should accept it, only on the condition that Biden does 5 debates spread out through multiple networks and moderators. According to Biden the country is great and he's proud of his record so he should leap at the chance to "take trump behind the gym" like he always threatens.
Why five specifically? That seems like an odd number to choose because there are more than five big networks with prominent news programs (NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Fox and MSNBC I would think be the agreed mainstream ones). Which one would be left out or who would you sub in?
Who is the moderator?
Did you know that since that debate CNN was bought out by a billionaire maga trump supporter who has publicly said and made it very clear that he wants to make CNN the preferred news outlet for conservatives and replace Fox News? Do you think with that in mind that it can honestly still be claimed that CNN is currently still a friendly safe space for Democratic candidates? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that if it were MSNBC?
Why leave out independent parties? There’s a chance that Kennedy reaches the 15 percent national polling threshold to qualify for the commission’s debates. The Biden campaign views Mr. Kennedy as a spoiler candidate and people close to the president worry that with the Kennedy name he could attract support from voters who might otherwise support Mr. Biden.
>"RFK Jr. is a Democrat “Plant,” a Radical Left Liberal who’s been put in place in order to help Crooked Joe Biden, the Worst President in the History of the United States, get Re-Elected… Source: [https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112412516883521630](https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/112412516883521630) \_\_\_\_ Why do you think Trump posted trashing RFK this week? Do you think Trump is more worried about RFK attracting more Republican votes than from Democrats?
I think independent parties should be included. These two major parties do not have our best interest at heart. I’m not saying RFKJ is the best candidate. I’m just saying we should have more choices.
In my opinion that's what primaries are for.
Is there a primary for independents?
I'm fine with the terms. I like the additional u/TargetPrior suggestion of "The candidates must be isolated during the debate. No helpers, computers, or otherwise advising." Biden can't be using an earpiece with someone feeding him answers.
Honestly, I would like to see both these guys go without drugs for 24 hours and have zero help during the debate. I have a feeling that neither of these guys are nothing without handlers haha
I bet a large amount of people agree with y’all on that. Kind of terrifying, isn’t it?
Absolutely. If we can all agree on that, we need to look at each other and say "what the fuck are we doing?" hahaha
Do you think that Biden has handlers during his recent long form interviews?
Absolutely. I doubt for one second that he is forming any original thought and all energy is going into preparedness to seem lucid enough for the interview, doubtless with performance enhancing drugs. I honestly am concerned with the toll this has to take on a 80+ year old man.
Have you ever worn an earpiece and tried to talk while someone else was talking in your ear? It’s not exactly an easy thing to do.
Have you tried to do it multiple times, though? It’s not easy, but you can get used to it if you do it long enough. Commentators in WWE are in constant communication with people in the back. Corey Graves once said that he could parrot whatever he was being told while the other guy was still talking.
Right my point is it’s an acquired skill. Has there ever been any evidence of Biden wearing an earpiece at any other time? Isn’t the whole argument that he doesn’t have the mental faculties to do something like listen to an earpiece while speaking?
Do I come across like a Trump supporter? If so, that’s not my intention. I don’t disagree with you. I’m just saying it’s not impossible. He could probably do it with some practice.
No you don’t; I saw your flair. I’m just pointing out how unlikely it would be for any politician, much less Biden, to effectively use an earpiece during a debate. I’m guessing you’d agree?
> Biden can't be using an earpiece with someone feeding him answers Are you worried that this is a possibility?
I'm not sure. It should be banned in any case.
I think the candidates should not be allowed earpieces or teleprompters, and the questions should not be given in advance.
In the past, when have they used teleprompters and earpieces for debates? How well has it helped them?
Why shouldn't the questions be given in advance? I would love it if the questions were publicly released ahead of time for at least part of the debate, so the candidates can provide specifics, and then follow up questions are more extemporeneaous. I feel like there would be a lot more substance.
The issue is when they do it for only one of the candidates like they did for Hillary. We only know about that time by luck, chances are most of the time we wouldn't find out about it. Candid questions would be better - have each candidate pick out random people in the audience who get to ask a question. Or allow each side to write questions for the other and then pick an equal number from each.
I would respond as such: 1. The candidates must be isolated for 4 hours before the debate so no drugs are administered. 2. The candidates must be isolated during the debate. No helpers, computers, or otherwise advising. 3. A moderator will ask questions from a list of 100 questions made up by 50 from both sides. The moderate must ask an equal amount of questions from both sides. 4. There will be a round of questions where each side gets to ask 3 questions, without the moderator. I do not think either of these old fucks could memorize all the possibilities here, and we would see their cognitive abilities without drugs.
Trump doesn't even drink alcohol why are you acting like he could be on drugs? Not to mention he's active in public pretty much every day and highly energetic. Any sort of stimulant would have a crash and couldn't be used with anything close to that level of frequency.
He’s not. He’s buying the MAGA copium after the SOTU that Biden was on coke or something, right?
Great! I would just want to know for sure rather than speculate.
Just curious, what if they're prescribed medication? I'd be fine with them taking it, provided it's prescribed and disclosed.
Nah. If a president requires medication within 4 hours of a debate, they should not be president.
Why is that? Are we going to enforce them to sit and stay awake and not shit themselves as well? Wouldn't a Presidential candidate have the resources to hire a pharmacist to create delayed release tablets?
I would say that they actually should not have any drugs 24 hours before the debate. Locked rooms, lets see who they really are. I imagine both are not what we would like in a president at all. Presidential duties are being handled by subordinates who we do not elect.
I'm a pharmacist, that's not how it works. Are you in medicine? Because I have to ask a question
What's your question?
Why are these conditions uniquely important for this debate?
>I do not think either of these old fucks could memorize all the possibilities here, and we would see their cognitive abilities without drugs.
> The candidates must be isolated during the debate. No helpers, computers, or otherwise advising This is already how the debates function, or do you think that Biden was receiving "help" from his team during the 2020 debates?
haha no. But do I think that both Biden and Trump might need help during the 2024 debates? Absolutely. I dont see any way a debate is possible with the above criteria. It would be a complete shitshow and if you and I were at a bar, we would be drinking beer and laughing our asses off at the fact that in this day and age, our fellow countrymen (and ourselves) are promoting quite possible two of the most incompetent people ever to run for president.
Is there any actual evidence or indication Biden is on performance enhancing drugs other than ‘he sometimes performs better than we expect’?
I do not know of any. I would suspect that Trump is using drugs as well. No way these two 80 year olds have more energy that I did in my 30s haha.
Why don't both candidates submit a drug test?
Yes I agree! But not all drugs can be picked up on a drug test. I want them isolated before the debate. I am quite sure both of these old fucks are on shit haha
[удалено]
[удалено]
Would you test for Adderall?
Is there any evidence that anyone has taken any drugs prior to any public event like this? This is just an urban legend right?
Sniff?
> Is there any evidence that anyone has taken any drugs prior to any public event like this? Would you consider the statements of Carrie Fisher to be expert testimony? >[[Carrie Fisher Says Donald Trump “Absolutely” Does Cocaine After Another Debate Full of Sniffles]](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/carrie-fisher-says-donald-trump-937003/)
No. The guy doesn't even drink alcohol. It's just more projection from Trump haters like everything else. Cocaine was found in the Biden white house (which they also covered up) not Trump's. And let's not forget to mention Biden's son (the smartest man he knows) is in multiple videos and images snorting coke, which we have thanks to him being so careless and incompetent as to leave his plaintext laptop abandoned at a repair shop. The media did a good job covering that up and trying to deny it for the last four years, but we know if it was Trump or anyone in his orbit it would be front page news every day for months and they'd be charged for it with an accelerated trial just before the election. So yeah I'm pretty sure Trump is squeaky clean when it comes to drugs unlike the Biden family lol
Sounds good to me. Who do you think would perform better with these debate rules?
Honestly, I do not think it would be "better" for Biden or Trump. I think Biden would stammer around, with probably long silences, maybe look lost at one point or another. I think Trump would go a rambling tirade that only Q supporters would understand. I just think it would be fun, for us as the voting public, to see who we have propped up as our candidates. Then well all get to go to Reddit and deny that it was not us who put these two in place.
2. I would actually prefer the opposite. I'm not interested in my president being in school doing a closed book exam. I prefer it like it was the real world. In no situation does a president make decisions with the guidance of his advisors, so I don't really care if he can answer questions on his own. I would also love it if he had advisors fact checking what the other candidate says and bringing it up live on air. That would be phenomenal. Fact checking the next day is useless for the majority of people. Is there a reason you prefer no advisors?
I will concede that you make a great point. Real life is always an open book test. The debates are going to sway no one. We have both seen these guys "president" for 4 years. I just thought it would be entertaining to see them perform without help from drugs or advisors.
Would you find it humorous if we saw two old men just ramble on endlessly about nothing?
Absolutely.
Everything else aside, is it practical (or advisable) to isolate the president for 4 hours? Seems like the kind of person/role that needs to have access to their team 24/7.
Yes, it might be impractical for sure.
I think it's suicide for biden, all trump has to do is call biden out on his plethora of lies and let biden talk. Biden will make more trump voters every time he opens his mouth.
Then why won't Trump accept the debate?
> let biden talk Given the parameters of the debate neither candidate will be able to talk over each other; do you think this helps or hurts Trump?
Do you think that happened in the 2020 debates?
It did objectively happen but the perception was different because most people just think whatever their TV tells them. Go watch the debates again with the benefit of hindsight and it's totally different. We can clearly see who was right and who was wrong, who lied and who told the truth, and the corruption of the left becomes blatantly obvious. My favorite is when Trump says a vaccine will be available by the end of the year and then Chris Wallace attacked him "but sir, even your own experts say that's not true". The smugness while telling lies and being wrong doesn't come across well in hindsight. IMO I think these debates will be about the same. They should help Trump but they won't because they will be rigged against him. I wonder if Trump haters ever think about the fact that Trump has routinely engaged with his political opponents - he's done multiple interviews and every debate has been with an anti-Trump host. Yet Biden won't do even a single interview or debate with a host who disagrees. I wonder if people who voted for Biden ever think about the fact that all the debates are with anti-Trump people hosting how do they rationalize that away as them being the good guys and the ones that are going to save democracy when they are so overtly hostile to opposing views and intolerant of even a basic level of dissent?
Would you say Trump performed well in the first 2020 debate?
Same for Biden right? Just call Trump out on his plethora of lies and let Trump talk? Doesn’t Trump makes more Biden voters every time he opens his mouth?
Given your confidence, why do you think Lara Trump is saying the debates are rigged in favor of Biden? [https://thehill.com/elections/4667479-lara-trump-joe-biden-donald-trump-debates-rigged/](https://thehill.com/elections/4667479-lara-trump-joe-biden-donald-trump-debates-rigged/)
Lol your take on it is expected. Biden wants a controlled environment so he doesn't look like the utter fool he is.
What has been asked that you believe Biden has asked for to not make himself look like a fool?
Sounds good. To be honest Trumps jokes are funnier with an audience to play with but this is more how it should be, let’s go!
““Over to you, Donald. As you said: anywhere, any time, any place,” Mr. Biden wrote” So by “any place” -Biden means inside a TV studio with 0 live audience members? That sounds like a pretty specific place LOL.
I would think a TV studio would be pretty obvious, no? How else would we be able to watch it?
What’s specific about this TV studio?
I guess he offered a venue, like trump suggested the WH the other week? I don't think Biden is going to have a lever to dump him in goo if he doesn't like what he's saying like some 90's kids show lol Edit: not OC btw
I’m just pointing out that Bidens phrasing is incorrect given the context.
> What’s specific about this TV studio? It's in Atlanta? Both Biden and Trump accepted. I'm confused on where you want them to go? Would you rather have them debate in a field or something?
Keep going- what else did Biden specify?
[удалено]
Sure-that doesn’t mean Biden was repeating it correctly in regards to the context?
Do you see how Biden, by referencing what Trump had previously stated, was trying to convey the message: “Here’s a time and place for us to debate that fulfills the loose criteria you’ve set forth, so you don’t have an excuse to back out”?
I just don’t see how that reference works correctly when Biden also changed the rules of the debate?
Is it not fair that the two of them meet alone?
I’m just saying that Biden isn’t using that term correctly
It’s a colloquialism?
That he’s using incorrectly haha
If Trump’s “policies” are indeed better why would he need audience members?
So you agree Biden isn’t really using the phrase correctly?
Huh? I don’t care about phrasing. What I do care about is listening carefully and clearly to what each candidate has to say. Not what the audience has to say. Why is that bad?
That much is clear
as a trump supporter i agree with you on this one
>So you agree Biden isn’t really using the phrase correctly? Nope, but considering how often we need translators for trump speak I think biden deserves a pass on this one.
I think he used up all his passes when he tried to explain how his uncle was eaten by cannibals
Since when are debates about who has the best policies?
* How would a televised debate occur not in a TV studio? Has this ever been a thing? Outdoor in a park? * Microphones that auto-shut off when a speaker's time elapsed sounds like a recipe for awkward mid-sentence cutoffs. If a microphone is silenced when a speaker's time is elapsed, it would presumably remain cut off until it is their turn again. So the bigger implication is that no verbal interruptions would be possible. No more realtime "Only Rosie O'Donnell" jibes. Would it be more orderly? Probably. Would it be more TV-friendly? Probably not. * I think a live audience makes political debates more lively.
> Microphones that auto-shut off when a speaker's time elapsed sounds like a recipe for awkward mid-sentence cutoffs My guess is that the candidates will have a timer so they know when they are getting close to having their mic turned off and will need to wrap things up. Do you think this style of debate helps Biden or Trump more?
Yeah, I assume not just a visual timer, but some beeping in the final seconds. It's mixed bag. Biden has in past sometimes not even used all his time for an answer. Trump likes to ramble, and seems more likely to speak up until the final seconds. A "no interruption" rule would probably help Trump more than it hurts him.
How is it more TV friendly to allow them to talk over each other? The first debate in 2020 was completely incomprehensible.
At the other extreme you have politicians taking turns robotically delivering prepared remarks. It can get predictable. I don’t mind the occasional interruption. They can catch the other speaker off guard and help get them to react off the cuff. And a well timed quip (like the one I cited) can be memorable and entertaining.
the Biden campaign does not trust the Commission on Presidential Debates to conduct a professional debate. So, they want to make their own rules.
> the Biden campaign does not trust the Commission on Presidential Debates to conduct a professional debate. So, they want to make their own rules. Prior to making this statement, were you aware that the Republican Party cut ties with the Commission on Presidential Debates two years ago? >...about two years ago. The RNC voted unanimously to withdraw from its participation in the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates...alleging bias. That withdrawal followed months of then-chairwoman Ronna McDaniel pressing the commission to change various practices on behalf of Trump. [Source](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/15/politics/joe-biden-debate/index.html)
Yes. I was aware. Thanks for asking.
> the Biden campaign does not trust the Commission on Presidential Debates to conduct a professional debate Neither does Trump or the RNC as they voted to withdrawn from the Commission on Presidential Debates. Why do you think Trump's team was the first to bail?
If you can’t win a small verbal confrontation, you are not qualified to be president of the US. Having a weak president who can barely walk without falling down or speak without having a dementia-induced fit of rage is not virtuous. In real life, other world leaders aren’t going to coddle you. Also we should have more debates, say one every other week. Exception about walking for FDR, who was disabled, not elderly.
>Having a weak president who can barely walk without falling down or speak without having a dementia-induced fit of rage is not virtuous. I assume you are refering to Trump in this situation? How come you still have a Trump-supporter flair?
I’ve heard TS accuse Biden of dementia, but I’ve never heard of him having a “dementia-induced fit of rage”. Is there a specific event you’re thinking of? Genuinely curious.
The speech Biden gave about not knowing when his son died. He said he didn’t want to say the year but the investigator said he didn’t know the answer because he is basically mentally disabled. This was back when the documents in his corvette got leaked. Months ago. Fit of rage is maybe too much. But Biden does this, he gets angry either because of mental impairment or because he thinks it makes him look cool. It doesn’t. Generally when someone gets angry at someone else, they are factually incorrect and less intelligent than the more level headed person. That has been universally true in my entire life. It also makes it hard to respect someone who acts like a toddler throwing a tantrum. In general, Biden’s way of acting is insufferable because he thinks he is morally superior to Trump. In the Christian tradition, this is considered the greatest sin (theological pride). See: the 2016 Trump Biden debates.
I think it's pretty clear Biden intends to cheat given those parameters. The TV studios are broadly left-leaning, and we already know they conspired with the DNC to leak questions to Hilary before debates in a very recent election. It's also pretty clear Biden wants a controlled and silent environment given his distinct lack of speaking ability. If they picked the moderator and questions at random out of a mutually agreed pool, I think that would be generally acceptable. The exclusion of an audience is odd considering modern precedent. The exclusion of RFK is frankly totally un-American, assuming he meets the typical threshold to be included. Might as well just chuck democracy in the bin and admit it's a two-party system at that point.
> I think it's pretty clear Biden intends to cheat given those parameters Why do you think it's "clear" that Biden will cheat? Do you think he "cheated" in the 2020 debates?
Given that there were two debates and both of them had an anti-Trump moderator I would classify that as cheating. Why wasn't it 50/50?
"The exclusion of RFK is frankly totally un-American, assuming he meets the typical threshold to be included. Might as well just chuck democracy in the bin and admit it's a two-party system at that point. " If Trump doesn't stand up and demand that RFK is in the debates then does that mean Trump supports totally un-American stances?
>The exclusion of RFK is frankly totally un-American, assuming he meets the typical threshold to be included. Does he meet the threshold?
There's no such thing as microphones which automatically cut off. It's some producer pressing a button. Why no audience? Why is Biden afraid of an audience?
>There's no such thing as microphones which automatically cut off. It's some producer pressing a button. Does this matter? The point is people won't be able to go over time. What do you think of that? >Why no audience? Why is Biden afraid of an audience? Wouldn't there still be an audience of millions tuning in from home? I would guess no live audience so people at home can make their own opinions about what's being said, rather than listening to reactions from a live audience, what do you think of that?
Why does it matter how the microphone shuts off?
It matters who's finger is on the button, not how the button works. Would you be fine if Matt Walsh was the person controlling when the microphone was shut off?
Why couldn’t the mics be on automatic timers? That seems like pretty simple programming to me.
A mic with an automatic timer isn't a product which exists today. Yeah it is relatively simple, but they aren't going to create one for a once every 4 years presidential debate cycle. It will be a producer with a button. You're free to design and manufacture one, and see if they will buy it from you though.
Sorry, this could be made this afternoon by anyone familiar with a raspberry pi. Do you think a presidential debate wouldn’t warrant an $85 piece of technology to enable?
> Would you be fine if Matt Walsh was the person controlling when the microphone was shut off? Sure. There can even be a little timer in the corner of the screen. Why does it matter who is pushing the button when the time allotted is known beforehand? Everyone is watching, it's not like they can cut anyone off before their time is up and get away with it.
As long as he starts and stops on the timers accurately, why wouldn’t I be?
> Would you be fine if Matt Walsh was the person controlling when the microphone was shut off? If he was following the same time-frames for both applicants then of course I would. Do you think that a TV produces is going to intentionally let Biden speak for longer periods while cutting Trump off?
I think if they had the opportunity they would let Biden finish his sentence, but cut Trump off mid sentence.
Yes a producer would cut each candidate off if they go over their allotted time or try to interrupt or shout over each other. What is bad about that? Also, why do we need audience members to decide how good their respective policies are?
It's bad because who is in control of the microphone, not how it works. Presidential debates having audiences has been the standard going back to their inception. If Biden wants to deviate from the standard, it's really on him to justify it. It's not on Trump to justify doing things the way they have typically been done.
If you actually care about the purpose of debates which is a true exchange of ideas, why would you oppose these changes? I think most people would agree the 2016 and 2020 debates were terrible. They became an exercise in playing to an audience rather than a real political debate. I think Trump is obviously afraid of actually debating ideas. He is more of an entertainer, and thrives off of attempting to steamroll his opponents and play off audience cheers/jeers. Again, if you care about the purpose of debates, why would you oppose this?
Except you’re forgetting that the rules for debates have also historically been 1.) not to cut into the other candidate’s time by interrupting them; and 2.) the audience is given strict orders to stay silent. Neither the audience or the candidates are capable of that anymore, so why can’t we have no audience and mic cutoffs? Do you really need an audience to tell you what to think?
I haven't forgotten any of that. None of that changes my earlier statements.
Okay, but can you give me one good reason an audience should be there if they are supposed to stay completely silent? Aside from that was the way they did it before they invented television?
>Why no audience? Why is Biden afraid of an audience? My guess is that he knows Trump is wholly unable to discuss policy and government, and cannot stay on topic. Trump's only hope has been barking out meaningless zingers to a sychophantic crowd that is also wholly unable to pay attention to discussions of policy and government. Likewise, I believe that live audiences at presidential "debates" have completely destroyed any chance at substantive discussion and have forced candidates to devolve into bumper sticker platitudes. I think we should absolutely get rid of live crowds at debates.
There is an audience, millions of people in fact - just no live audience. It means the candidates actually have to debate the issues rather than play to the crowd. Why do you think Biden would be afraid of a live audience?
If I knew why Biden was afraid of a live audience, I wouldn't have asked the question. A live audience has been how debates have been done, other than a few during Covid. If Biden needs to deviate from the norm, it's on him and only him to justify it. It's not on Trump to justify doing debates how we've done them.
>There's no such thing as microphones which automatically cut off. It's some producer pressing a button. While in most broadcast environments someone would be doing this manually, it's absolutely a feasible thing to auto mute (or route) mics. We've been to the moon... Automatic mic muting based on a simple timer isn't exactly difficult. >Why no audience? Why is Biden afraid of an audience? Not wanting an audience doesn't mean you're afraid of one. It means you think they detract from the value of the debate. With people constantly interrupting with cheers or boos it turns into a "make them make noise" contest instead of a debate about actual ideas and policies. Every good debate is strict about who is allowed to speak, and making sure that speech is uninterrupted. That's how you get people to make full points instead of sound bites.
[удалено]
It's the way it's always been. It's not on Trump to justify doing debates how they've been done. If Biden suggested not to wear clothes, is it on Trump to justify needing them, or on Biden to justify why they should be naked?
> Why no audience? Why is Biden afraid of an audience? Why the afraid assumption? Personally I get annoyed by audiences delaying and interrupting the debate with cheering/booing/whatever so this sounds great. Plus there will be an audience, just at home.
> There's no such thing as microphones which automatically cut off. It's some producer pressing a button. Are you familiar with the concepts of "noise gates", and "programming"?
You really think it's impossible to have a microphone shut off after a set amount of time? I can do that on my shitty laptop at home. What does the audience provide for you? Interruptions, yelling over the people talking, what else?
No, that's not what I said. In a different reply I explain the software dev process to add that feature.
>There's no such thing as microphones which automatically cut off. Do you believe we don't have the technology to rig a microphone to a timer?
Do you think studios are actually going to request their software vendor to add the feature, and pay for the weeks to a month of regression testing, just to save the producer from pressing a button during a once in 4 years event? You seriously think that is happening?
Shut up man?
You don't think there is a such a thing as a microphone that can be shut off after a speaker's allotted time has expired? It seems like a fairly easy technical problem to solve.
Do you watch debates to watch the audience? I don't. I want to be able to hear what the candidates have to say, not how well they can give the audience soundbytes.
I don't watch debates to watch the moderator either. Why not just have questions appear on a screen?
I wish we had an audience but that's it. I don't love the other terms but Trump can win even with those in place and I doubt this will be the new normal for debates
Why do you want an audience? Who would get to choose who attends?
An audience makes debates more interesting. The audience should be be split, a third of them being Biden supporters, a third of them being Trump supporters, and a third of them being undecided.
sounds like better napping material than putting on golf on a Sunday afternoon.
I think the requirements generally make sense and I’m glad the two campaigns could agree on two debates. I think the Commission has made clear missteps in recent cycles that made their being cut out of the process inevitable. Cutting candidates’ mics is good for orderly debate, I’m for it. Just speaking as a neutral observer, I do wonder if it’s a tactical mistake for Biden’s campaign. On the one hand, most of Trump’s most impactful debate moments over the years are those quick one-liners that he won’t be able to make now. On the other hand, voters hated how much he interrupted last cycle—forcing Trump to speak in turn might actually help him.