Why do we even call these things DEBATES? They are nothing more than Dog and Pony shows

[Justice wanted]

playing to the audience. UNLIKE the debates in the past where the candidates actually talked about and seriously debated the issues and ways to solve them our degenerate shows are nothing more than one lines that have been tested to make people happy and actually tell you nothing about the candidate.

Now Newt's demanding for the audience to act like "trainned seals" and basically appauled and laughed and shout out when the one liner calls for it just shows how stupid this exercise is to the nation.


So in there present state why the freak don't we BAN these "DEBATES"?

[zipplewrath]

1. Never have been

Simultaneous press conferences is about the best we've ever had. These things have been taken over by the "news as entertainment" industry and they are turning them into "game shows".

[Justice wanted]

5. Once upon a time in this country we had true debates than they started putting them on

TV and limiting time so that sponsors could be credited (like in the Nixon Kennedy debates) Or the candidates "Research" staff figured out about one liners.


Audiences where also smarter.


Look at the great debates in History like Lincoln Douglas Debates.

[zipplewrath]

10. Lincoln Douglas were probably the exception

At least at the presidential level. It would have been interesting to been in the pubs and saloons when they were hammering out this country. The discussions in Boston alone would have been fascinating. Being at Franklins house in Philly when the Constitution was being written. These might have been fascinating.

[GoneOffShore]

2. More like Amoeba and Virus show.

[onenote]

3. I'm curious. How do you propose to "ban" the "debates"?

No one is making you watch them.

[Justice wanted]

7. NO true No one is making ANYONE watch! But why call these things Debates when they aren't really

debates?


The question is jonathan Swiftian to make one think.

BUT we are the people IF enough of us do not watch. Are they really going to continue putting them on the air?


You in a sense "Ban" it by not watching it. You in a sense let these broadcasters know you are not going to fall prey to this Dog and pony show they have renamed a DEBATE

[onenote]

11. between 3 and 6 million are watching

(with the exception being the debate that was on Bloomberg Channel that most people probably couldn't find. I doubt that getting DUers not to watch (to the extent that they do) would substantially impact those numbers.

[Justice wanted]

13. I'm saying in general. Next time someone complains about the debates make the suggestion

look what the powers the American people can do when being used... The stopping of PIPA and SOPA -yeah I know it's being re-formualated into another bill-but when the American people put their mind to it they can bring about change.

[onenote]

14. The folks that I know who complain about the debates already don't watch them

I think most of the folks watching are partisans who prefer one candidate or the other. They're not complaining about them.

[Enrique]

4. the last one was really bad, imo

hardly any substance at all. Brian Williams seemed terrible to me, if I remember correctly the only substantial questions came from the other moderators.

[Scuba]

6. Because "Red-light window shopping" sounds tawdry.

[Justice wanted]

8. LMAO!!!! BUT it is the truth! They are pimping themselves out.

[liberal N proud]

9. It's a circus and they are the clowns

Debates are the clown acts between the rest of the circus.

[libodem]

12. What?

You know who those dogs and ponies are messing around with?

No outrage?