CDZ Presidential Debate Formats

[jwoodie]

I am almost always disappointed with the formats of Presidential debates, which seem more like a showcase for journalists "gotcha" questions than a forum for discussing issues relevant to the Presidency. For example, the question about supporting the eventual GOP nominee was disingenuously designed to imply that Trump might run as a third party candidate. If this was a legitimate question, none of the candidate should have taken the pledge: Would they really support David Duke if he were nominated?

Another bogus questions regarded abortions to save the life of the mother: Aside from the extreme rarity of this situation (akin to separating conjoined twins), it is not within a President's power to make this determination. Instead, this question was merely a pretense for promoting Megyn Kelly's personal views (a la Cindy Crowley). In addition, her feigned offendedness at Trump's alleged disrespect towards women clearly indicates her bias against Trump. Whether or not he is a serious candidate should not have been colored by her personal views.

Does anyone have a suggestion for a better format which minimizes journalistic interference? I don't want to just hear prepared questions and answers, but perhaps answers to specific questions could be solicited beforehand, with the debate focused on followup questions and more detailed explanations. Otherwise, these "debates" are little more than sound bite generators to be seized upon by journalists and spin merchants.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Aside from the extreme rarity of this situation (akin to separating conjoined twins)," is inaccurate. Conjoined children are far rarer than ending a pregnancy to save her life.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I am almost always disappointed with the formats of Presidential debates, which seem more like a showcase for journalists "gotcha" questions than a forum for discussing issues relevant to the Presidency. For example, Megyn Kelly's question about supporting the eventual GOP nominee was disingenuously designed to imply that Trump might run as a third party candidate. If this was a legitimate question, none of the candidate should have taken the pledge: Would they really support David Duke if he were nominated?

Another of her bogus questions regarded abortions to save the life of the mother: Aside from the extreme rarity of this situation (akin to separating conjoined twins), it is not within a President's power to make this determination. Instead, this question was merely a pretense for promoting her personal views (a la Cindy Crowley). In addition, her feigned offendedness at Trump's alleged disrespect towards women clearly indicates her bias against Trump. Whether or not he is a serious candidate should not have been colored by her personal views.

Does anyone have a suggestion for a better format which minimizes journalistic interference? I don't want to just hear prepared questions and answers, but perhaps answers to specific questions could be solicited beforehand, with the debate focused on followup questions and more detailed explanations. Otherwise, these "debates" are little more than sound bite generators to be seized upon by journalists and spin merchants.

Why?
The question has been asked more than once and Donald Trump has gone out of his way per TV, Radio and Social Media to keep the buzz about a possible independent run quite alive, ergo, he has made this into a very worthy debate question, one that should indeed interest Republicans.

Using David Duke as an example is silly, because David Duke was not on the stage last night, and very, very likely, one of those 10 gentlemen, for better or worse, is going to be your party's nominee in 2016.

 

[jwoodie]

"Aside from the extreme rarity of this situation (akin to separating conjoined twins)," is inaccurate. Conjoined children are far rarer than ending a pregnancy to save her life.

Stats?

 

[jwoodie]

Using David Duke as an example is silly, because David Duke was not on the stage last night, and very, very likely, one of those 10 gentlemen, for better or worse, is going to be your party's nominee in 2016.

Then the question should have been whether he would support any of those on stage vs. Hillary. But I agree that he didn't handle the question well and did not appear presidential.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Aside from the extreme rarity of this situation (akin to separating conjoined twins)," is inaccurate. Conjoined children are far rarer than ending a pregnancy to save her life.

Stats?

I am questioning your affirmation, friend, nicely. It is your duty to prove that ending a pregnancy to save a woman's life occurs with less frequency than separating conjoined twins. When you offer evidence, I can respond.

I will tell you right now, you will fail on your assertion.

 

[jwoodie]

I will tell you right now, you will fail on your assertion.

Akin means sharing certain properties, in this case rarity. It does not mean identical. Abortion to save the life of the mother is very rare; just because it may not be as rare as conjoined twins does not contradict the comparison.

Now, why not address the larger issue: Should there be a national policy on abortion established by nine unelected appointees, or should the people decide? The clear weight of public opinion is that, with limited exceptions, abortion should not be legal after the first trimester of pregnancy. To ignore this fact while concentrating on one of those rare exceptions is disingenuous as well as misleading.