Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   "Group secretly trying to rework Presidential Debate rules." You hope for a Lincoln/Douglas slugfest, you prepare yourself for a Sarah Palin Fortune Cookie Hour   (politico.com) divider line 69
    More: Interesting, Commission on Presidential Debates, Presidential General Election Debates, Mike McCurry, Anita Dunn, independent candidates, Joel Benenson, Ron Klain  
•       •       •

1326 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2013 at 8:37 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-27 09:36:12 AM  

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Yeah, it turns out that the more Republicans speak, the more independents are repelled. And women. And minorities. And young people. And smart people.


problem solved
www.filmjunk.com
 
2013-11-27 09:37:49 AM  

Hobodeluxe: odinsposse: Hobodeluxe: how about we have them wired up to lie detectors and voice stress analyzers with visible results on screen? also it should give them a good electrical shock when they lie or dodge the question.

Ineffective. Being a career politician makes you psychopathic enough that you can easily beat a lie detector. Hooking up someone like Romney to that machine would just create pages and pages of a perfectly straight line.

the threat of electric shock should make that trickier. they're not used to instant consequence.


Psychopaths have explicitly demonstrated no ability to fear or anticipate electric shocks, even when they know they are coming:

For his first paper, now a classic, Hare had his subjects watch a countdown timer. When it reached zero, they got a "harmless but painful" electric shock while an electrode taped to their fingers measured perspiration. Normal people would start sweating as the countdown proceeded, nervously anticipating the shock. Psychopaths didn't sweat. They didn't fear punishment -- which, presumably, also holds true outside the laboratory. In Without Conscience, he quotes a psychopathic rapist explaining why he finds it hard to empathize with his victims: "They are frightened, right? But, you see, I don't really understand it. I've been frightened myself, and it wasn't unpleasant."
 
2013-11-27 09:48:09 AM  

A Cave Geek: Open Forum.  No scripted questions.  Audience composition should be as follows:

15% University Professors
15% Large business Leaders (Determined by annual revenue, not by # of employees)
10% Stay-at-home parents or single parents
10% Church Leaders
10% Kids between 6th and 12th grade
10% Union Leaders
10% Small Business owners (Determined by annual revenue, NOT by # of employees)
10% Primary and/or secondary school teachers
and 10% some drunk hobos they round up from under bridges (just for the comedy factor)

And prior to gaining a seat at the table, they have to pass a verbal test about basic math, science and history, to prove they're not as dumb as Palin or Ryan.


fixed that for the good of the people.
 
2013-11-27 09:51:20 AM  

xxcorydxx: fixed that for the good of the people.


What's funny is that even though the Republicans claim both religious leaders and Big Business, those two groups don't really like each other very much.

Church:  Love of money is the root of all evil
Business Leaders:  Oh, go get bent, you libby hippie.
 
2013-11-27 10:03:54 AM  

A Cave Geek: xxcorydxx: fixed that for the good of the people.

What's funny is that even though the Republicans claim both religious leaders and Big Business, those two groups don't really like each other very much.

Church:  Love of money is the root of all evil
Business Leaders:  Oh, go get bent, you libby hippie.


Lol, you think religion thinks that money is the root of all evil. Religion is big business, if they didn't care about money, they would pay taxes.
 
2013-11-27 10:07:44 AM  

A Cave Geek: Church:  Love of money is the root of all evil


img.fark.net
img.fark.netimg.fark.net
img.fark.net
img.fark.net

How humble of them.
 
2013-11-27 10:10:33 AM  

Hobodeluxe: how about we have them wired up to lie detectors and voice stress analyzers with visible results on screen? also it should give them a good electrical shock when they lie or dodge the question.


I was thinking that their should be real-time fact checking.
 
2013-11-27 10:14:44 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: A Cave Geek: Church:  Love of money is the root of all evil

[img.fark.net image 500x309]
[img.fark.net image 600x401][img.fark.net image 600x450]
[img.fark.net image 670x460]
[img.fark.net image 850x478]

How humble of them.


Fair enough point...condeded.
 
2013-11-27 10:16:11 AM  

EyeballKid: monoski: I like the idea of a game show style score board in front of them to indicate a negative point for each lie.

"Uh, Senator Paul, this is like golf, remember? You want the lower score."


How do we score positive points? Oh-snap, you got told moments?
 
2013-11-27 10:16:15 AM  
Sounds well-intentioned, but probably doomed to fail a few times. On one hand you'll have the rule makers, old people like me, casting about with ideas on how to appeal to young hep cats and being 'with it', and we all know how well that works. On another hand you'll have campaigns threatening to boycott the whole process if there's something they think will make their own guy look bad, like happens every four years.


DrD'isInfotainment: Low Intellegence debaters like Sister Sarah , and Brothers Ted and Rand



I'm pretty sure I read that Cruz was a college debating champ. Never having watched one I don't know exactly how those debates compare to Presidential debates, but the skillsets probably overlap somewhat. Judging is going to be way different -- a couple smartypantses vs. pundits plus the public.

Technically speaking he might debate well enough, but if he only has Tea Party dogma to bring to the party, it's gonna be a tough room.
 
2013-11-27 10:28:39 AM  

BunkoSquad: I hope one of the GOP primary debates has no questions and no turn-taking; just let all of them yell simultaneously for 90 minutes


We elect far to many lawyers whose raison-etre is to find mercilessly for one position without giving in one iota.  They thrive on process and games-man-ship rather than outcome or solutions.

I always wanted to see a debate which showed people's ability to negotiate, compromise and develop solutions.

I don't know how you would do that but it would involve splitting the candidates into teams and asking them to solve something not to politically loaded.  For instance, have the teams decide on formats for upcoming debates.  Watch how they work together.
 
2013-11-27 10:50:25 AM  
You actually want people to watch? Let someone other than a Republican and a Democrat on the stage.
 
2013-11-27 10:56:05 AM  
Presidential debates were of questionable quality before, but ever since the major parties took over the debates (via the Commission on Presidential Debates, which consists of an equal number of Republicans and Democrats) it's become a total sham. The League of Women Voters used to run them, but then they let Perot on stage in '92 and that upset the major-party applecart, so they couldn't have that happen again. You will have exactly two choices, and you will like it. 

Anyone on enough ballots to win should be on the debate stage. In 2012, that would have given us 3-5 candidates.
 
2013-11-27 11:02:06 AM  

markfara: Candidates #1, #2, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15, #16, #17, #18: NUH-UH!!!!!


Sounds like someone caught the SC HoR District 1 debate last year, subtitled "Let's See Who Can Espouse The Greatest Love For Reagan Before Losing To Famous Scoundrel Mark Sanford."
 
2013-11-27 12:06:29 PM  
What the fark does 'blue-ribbon' even mean? Did everyone on the panel grow so big they can be used as a landmark by commercial aircraft? Are they surrounded by people who still perform hoedowns unironically? Do they come from a world where all is deep-fried?
 
2013-11-27 01:16:54 PM  
American Gladiators, The Eliminator course.  Just get to gether all the old gladiators and rename them things like Welfare State and Theocracy and have the candidates battle the gladiators through the event.
 
2013-11-27 04:13:31 PM  
I'd love a Clinton, Perot, Bush debate again.
 
2013-11-27 06:50:15 PM  
Have the candidates answer in writing, and a third party reads the responses verbatim.
 
2013-11-27 07:14:39 PM  

Colour_out_of_Space: Have the candidates answer in writing, and a third party reads the responses verbatim.


Three rounds, read by Ben Stein, Garrison Keillor and Fran Drescher. Only those who can sit through all six readings are allowed to vote.
 
Displayed 19 of 69 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report