Re: [TV orNotTV] Debate II

2016-10-11 Thread PGage
I don't think we wand the moderators to control what kind of information the candidates offer. It is up to the voters to reward or punish candidates who choose to offer less information. Indeed, I think we are seeing evidence that this is what is happening; most observers thought that Trump spent

Re: [TV orNotTV] Debate II

2016-10-10 Thread Kevin M.
On Monday, October 10, 2016, PGage wrote: > Again, I think the information content in a typical presidential debate is > chronically underestimated. Clearly there is a lot of BS - but that is true > in every phase of the process. If all an othwise informed US voter knew > about

Re: [TV orNotTV] Debate II

2016-10-10 Thread PGage
Again, I think the information content in a typical presidential debate is chronically underestimated. Clearly there is a lot of BS - but that is true in every phase of the process. If all an othwise informed US voter knew about these two candidates was what they learned from watching the debates,

RE: [TV orNotTV] Debate II

2016-10-10 Thread Brad Beam
From: tvornottv@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Marti Lawrence >In the future, the moderators should be allowed to fit a shock collar on both >nominees, and zap them whenever there is an interruption or continued talking >past time allotted. And of course

Re: [TV orNotTV] Debate II

2016-10-10 Thread Kevin M.
Instead of a shock collar, hook them up to lie detectors On Monday, October 10, 2016, Marti Lawrence wrote: > >> > In the future, the moderators should be allowed to fit a shock collar on > both nominees, and zap them whenever there is an interruption or continued >

Re: [TV orNotTV] Debate II

2016-10-10 Thread Marti Lawrence
> > > In the future, the moderators should be allowed to fit a shock collar on both nominees, and zap them whenever there is an interruption or continued talking past time allotted. And of course Trump was sniffling because he is a cocaine addict, and Hillary is a robot from Westworld because

Re: [TV orNotTV] Debate II

2016-10-10 Thread Doug Eastick
I liked that Merriam Webster tweeted that one of the top five searches during the debate was "what's a lepo". On Mon, Oct 10, 2016, 2:32 AM Henry Fung wrote: > Martha Raddatz specifically interjected several times to force Trump to > answer on Syria. Other than ringing a

Re: [TV orNotTV] Debate II

2016-10-10 Thread Henry Fung
Martha Raddatz specifically interjected several times to force Trump to answer on Syria. Other than ringing a loud buzzer or repeating "your time has expired" repeatedly like what happened in the California senate debate, both candidates are going to keep talking past the limit. The debates really

Re: [TV orNotTV] Debate II

2016-10-09 Thread PGage
Well, I think it has been established a long time ago that we use the term "debate" to refer to these events, even if they are not quite Oxford style. I was part of a debating team in my youth, but I don't sweat the terminology. But I disagree with the claim that viewers did not get much

Re: [TV orNotTV] Debate II

2016-10-09 Thread Kevin M.
It was not a debate. The moderators didn't moderate. Candidates were not made to answer the questions asked. Candidates (one significantly more than the other) interrupted each other. The audience interrupted repeatedly. As theater, I suppose it was entertaining; as a debate, voters would've