PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: JeffDG on August 08, 2016, 05:57:10 PM
-
What do you guys think of this?
-
I'm in. Unfortunately, that debate style requires some intellectual prowess, and the two nominees have collectively about 25% of intellectual prowess of my two English Labs, Guinness and Bruin.
-
Best Idea I've Seen Yet:
http://cdn.twentytwowords.com/wp-content/uploads/19rum.jpg?5dcb05
-
What do you guys think of this?
It will never happen. The attention span of the average viewer...
what's with the muzak? was the speaker afraid that people wouldn't listen if there wasn't muzak assualting our ears?
-
I'd say let them fight tit out but Trump is 70 and the Hildebeast 68. Might not be the best TV.
-
Great idea, but sadly America isn't looking for substance. America just wants one liners, sound bites and a decided winner and loser at the end of the rumble.
-
I'd say let them fight tit out
You have a point.
I wouldn't want to watch that.
-
Better yet, lock them into individual sound proof rooms on stage, provide both the same 20 "what-if" type questions like...
1. What would you do if Russia were to invade "X"
2. GM just went belly-up - what would you do for save the car industry
3. Terrorists want to release "whatever" in the subway - what would be your first response
4. There is an asteroid heading towards earth - how would you address the nation
5. You are in London to attend their head of state funeral and terrorists attack because of something you did in question #1 !!!!
-
I like the proposal on how the debates should be held, but I don't think that would address the problem the GOP has had the past couple of cycles.
We have had just too many candidates on stage to be able to hold any sort of debate. And in a primary, most of the candidates hold the same basic beliefs, so they have to exaggerate their position and make shit up to make them look different or better than the other guy.
I think one of the things the GOP needs to do is to reduce the number of candidates allowed in the primary. That doesn't mean restricting anyone from attempting it. But make the entry requirements tougher.
How may signatures does it take to get on the ballot? Perhaps triple that.
Find some way to determine who really has no chance, and "flunk them out".
Get the number of debaters down, and let the remainders follow the procedures suggested in the video. In this past election, there were 16 virtual clones and Trump, so the voters really only had two choices: Trump or one of the others. In that scenario, Trump can't lose.
-
I like the proposal on how the debates should be held, but I don't think that would address the problem the GOP has had the past couple of cycles.
We have had just too many candidates on stage to be able to hold any sort of debate. And in a primary, most of the candidates hold the same basic beliefs, so they have to exaggerate their position and make shit up to make them look different or better than the other guy.
I think one of the things the GOP needs to do is to reduce the number of candidates allowed in the primary. That doesn't mean restricting anyone from attempting it. But make the entry requirements tougher.
How may signatures does it take to get on the ballot? Perhaps triple that.
Find some way to determine who really has no chance, and "flunk them out".
Get the number of debaters down, and let the remainders follow the procedures suggested in the video. In this past election, there were 16 virtual clones and Trump, so the voters really only had two choices: Trump or one of the others. In that scenario, Trump can't lose.
Debates shouldn't be run by MSM networks. Their only purpose is ratings and they attempt to turn the debates into a carnival show.
IMO the debates should be done in a studio with no audience and a moderator that is clearly neutral. Put out a network feed and let the channels that want to carry it do so with the stipulation they must show it in its entirety, no cutting to commercials when their not preferred candidate speaks and silly gamesmanship.
-
And in a primary, most of the candidates hold the same basic beliefs, so they have to exaggerate their position and make shit up to make them look different or better than the other guy.
And therein lies the problem with the DNC and GOP. A leader wouldn't need to exaggerate and make up shit. Doing so just highlights a lack of communication skill.
-
Debates shouldn't be run by MSM networks. Their only purpose is ratings and they attempt to turn the debates into a carnival show.
IMO the debates should be done in a studio with no audience and a moderator that is clearly neutral. Put out a network feed and let the channels that want to carry it do so with the stipulation they must show it in its entirety, no cutting to commercials when their not preferred candidate speaks and silly gamesmanship.
There are carnival shows regardless of what network hosts it, only this year we have the "Ring Master in Chief" up on the stage.
-
We have had just too many candidates on stage to be able to hold any sort of debate.
Find some way to determine who really has no chance, and "flunk them out".
Get the number of debaters down, and let the remainders follow the procedures suggested in the video. In this past election, there were 16 virtual clones and Trump, so the voters really only had two choices: Trump or one of the others. In that scenario, Trump can't lose.
This is why I proposed a long time ago that we hold the debates like a sporting event. Divide the candidates into two "leagues", then within those two leagues, have two candidate debate only each other. Later it would be determined who was the winner of the debate and who was the loser. The winners would move forward and debate another winner. Eventually it would be down to two winners from each league and they would go at it for the championship.
It would require 8 nights of debates, so it would be like "Wednesday Night Debates". Each night would feature one debate from each league. The length of the debates would have to be worked out. Maybe 45 minutes each and a half hour post debate wrap up commentary for a total of a two hour show. A scoring system would have to be worked out as well.
Americans love a competition and this might engage more Americans in politics and would give all the candidates a real shot to get their message and personality out. As it was this year, many of the 16 candidates never got much air time as the network decided who gets to go and who gets asked what. It's rigged, not fair and not really a debate.
-
I like the proposal on how the debates should be held, but I don't think that would address the problem the GOP has had the past couple of cycles.
We have had just too many candidates on stage to be able to hold any sort of debate. And in a primary, most of the candidates hold the same basic beliefs, so they have to exaggerate their position and make shit up to make them look different or better than the other guy.
I think one of the things the GOP needs to do is to reduce the number of candidates allowed in the primary. That doesn't mean restricting anyone from attempting it. But make the entry requirements tougher.
How may signatures does it take to get on the ballot? Perhaps triple that.
Find some way to determine who really has no chance, and "flunk them out".
Get the number of debaters down, and let the remainders follow the procedures suggested in the video. In this past election, there were 16 virtual clones and Trump, so the voters really only had two choices: Trump or one of the others. In that scenario, Trump can't lose.
Yep.
-
This is why I proposed a long time ago that we hold the debates like a sporting event. Divide the candidates into two "leagues", then within those two leagues, have two candidate debate only each other. Later it would be determined who was the winner of the debate and who was the loser. The winners would move forward and debate another winner. Eventually it would be down to two winners from each league and they would go at it for the championship.
It would require 8 nights of debates, so it would be like "Wednesday Night Debates". Each night would feature one debate from each league. The length of the debates would have to be worked out. Maybe 45 minutes each and a half hour post debate wrap up commentary for a total of a two hour show. A scoring system would have to be worked out as well.
Americans love a competition and this might engage more Americans in politics and would give all the candidates a real shot to get their message and personality out. As it was this year, many of the 16 candidates never got much air time as the network decided who gets to go and who gets asked what. It's rigged, not fair and not really a debate.
Survivor! I like it!