13th October 2016, 5:34 AM
That view of political debates is where you and I differ. First of all, the people "analyzing" the debate have NO actual studies to back up any analysis of who "presented" better, because they didn't actually bother with nationwide polls to determine how the actual voters interpreted the debate. What few limited polling exists indicates neither side really "won" in that sense.
More to the point, why are we determining "winning" in terms of who influenced the most voters? The sole determining factor of who "wins" a debate should be who had the most convincing argument, but heck, most "debates" these days don't even take a form that could be remotely considered to be two sides arguing about an issue. What exactly DID Trump and Clinton debate, in specific terms? If nothing else though, moderators should be fact checkers. They should be calling out both candidates when they say things that are factually incorrect, and that didn't really happen either. Clinton said some things that were wrong, and Trump said a LOT more things that were wrong, but you had to wait until after the debate to find that out.
This isn't some impossible challenge. They can and SHOULD have researched what was likely to be discussed beforehand and have people in the background who can research any curve ball statements. If that means there's some pauses in the debate while the "judges" come back with the facts, so be it. Further, let's stick a giant screen behind the candidates. The very few times they would actually point out Trump's inaccurate statements, Trump flatly denied it. Stick a TV up there with video clips of the candidates at the ready, montage style, so when they are caught claiming they never said this or that, they can run the clip right in front of them and HUMILIATE THEM IN REAL TIME. This needs to happen. This needs to become the standard way of doing this stuff.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on the Bill Clinton scandal, and it's a fact that not only is Bill not the candidate in question, but Trump has done the same stuff if not worse. However, don't let politics blind you into a double standard. This scandel is, ultimately, no different than any of the other rape allegation scandals and should be treated identically. Forget that the republicans have been trying to slander the Clintons for decades. That's all true, but irrelevant to the specific claims of these women. You can't have a double standard of saying THIS person's rape allegations should be taken seriously but THAT person's rape allegations are probably just machinations of political opponents and shouldn't be taken seriously, not when actual real women are making the claims. Either you support potential rape victims or you don't. There is no middle ground.
More to the point, why are we determining "winning" in terms of who influenced the most voters? The sole determining factor of who "wins" a debate should be who had the most convincing argument, but heck, most "debates" these days don't even take a form that could be remotely considered to be two sides arguing about an issue. What exactly DID Trump and Clinton debate, in specific terms? If nothing else though, moderators should be fact checkers. They should be calling out both candidates when they say things that are factually incorrect, and that didn't really happen either. Clinton said some things that were wrong, and Trump said a LOT more things that were wrong, but you had to wait until after the debate to find that out.
This isn't some impossible challenge. They can and SHOULD have researched what was likely to be discussed beforehand and have people in the background who can research any curve ball statements. If that means there's some pauses in the debate while the "judges" come back with the facts, so be it. Further, let's stick a giant screen behind the candidates. The very few times they would actually point out Trump's inaccurate statements, Trump flatly denied it. Stick a TV up there with video clips of the candidates at the ready, montage style, so when they are caught claiming they never said this or that, they can run the clip right in front of them and HUMILIATE THEM IN REAL TIME. This needs to happen. This needs to become the standard way of doing this stuff.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on the Bill Clinton scandal, and it's a fact that not only is Bill not the candidate in question, but Trump has done the same stuff if not worse. However, don't let politics blind you into a double standard. This scandel is, ultimately, no different than any of the other rape allegation scandals and should be treated identically. Forget that the republicans have been trying to slander the Clintons for decades. That's all true, but irrelevant to the specific claims of these women. You can't have a double standard of saying THIS person's rape allegations should be taken seriously but THAT person's rape allegations are probably just machinations of political opponents and shouldn't be taken seriously, not when actual real women are making the claims. Either you support potential rape victims or you don't. There is no middle ground.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)