What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

​ 🐘 ​​ 🐴 ​2020 Presidential Debates thread - 2nd Debate October 15 (2 Viewers)

So voting for Biden but had no interest in watching his town hall.  Really watched Trump’s. 
 

my only takeaway is that Savanah Guthrie is a National treasure.

 
Juxtatarot said:
I have mixed feelings about the performance of Savannah Guthrie in the town hall.  The questions she asked were more combative (when did he last test negative, white supremacy and QAnon questions, etc.) than designed to allow Trump to share his priorities and vision for America. I generally think moderators should try to be in the background for these things as much as possible. Frankly, I don’t know why moderators need to ask questions at all during a town hall but that was NBC’s format.

On the other hand, Trump did this to himself. He constantly lies, does and says stupid stuff, and rarely answers questions from the media other than from his Fox friends. Should Guthrie just ignore all that? I think probably not.
Click to expand...
In general yes.  But when someone is stating flat out lies, her calling him out on it is 100% appropriate.

He got called on his BS and she did a great job of being respectful while not letting him just make #### up (or when he did she pointed it out).

 
The worst part of the ratings - imo - more people watched trump for the train wreck aspect than watched Biden for the train wreck.

bidens viewers were likely more serious voters waiting to choose a candidate - and the results say choosebiden

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Debate Topics for Thursday

  • fighting Covid-19
  • American families
  • race in America
  • climate change
  • national security
  • leadership
Have we ever had a Presidential Election with less talk about Foreign Policy than the current one?

The Heritage Foundation defines national security is the safekeeping of the nation as a whole; its highest order of business is the protection of the nation and its people from attack and other external dangers by maintaining armed forces and guarding state secrets. So defense spending, intelligence....I would imagine Trump will want to expand this to include border security. 

The other thing that strikes me about this list of topics is how often Trump will, by default, be on the defensive. Now some of that should be expected for any incumbent; after all, you're mostly running on your record, not promises. But think about it:

  • Covid-19 is going to be a discussion of the poor response and how Biden's plan will differ, while Trump will try to maintain in fact his response was a 10/10.
  • American families - I would give the GOP the edge here? Because family values? Not even sure what this means. The disintegration of nuclear families? The shaky economic frailty so many feel? Help me out here.
  • Race - again, Trump will be defending his position (and am I wrong to think this has been covered ad nauseum the first two debates?), contrasting his law & order policy with "the radical left", et al.
  • Climate change - defending outliers versus trusting science. Again, I feel like Trump by default is going to look defensive.
  • Leadership - the disrupter versus Mr Rogers. Should be fun.
Bad take? Or do you agree somewhat?

@Sinn Fein - could we please have a thread title update?

 
massraider said:
If I'm Biden, I say my piece on Covid, and climate change, and on every other subject, lean in real close to the mic, and go:

I yield my time to the president
Click to expand...
Do they have a mute button this time around?  If not...this doesn't matter.  If they do, I'd absolutely do exactly this, step back and watch the word salads of incoherence erupt from his mouth.  I watched a couple questions from his townhall and good Lord it was bad...especially on ACA and healthcare.

 
Drunken Cowboy said:
The topics mean nothing. This is going to go way off the rails.
Click to expand...
After whichever of Trump's answers is the worst (I'll take Race Relations, if there's a pool), Joe should say,

"Maybe poker's just not your game, Ike. I know, let's have a SPELLING CONTEST!"

He'd get a two point bump in the Southwest, and Trump would have no idea what he was talking about

 
BobbyLayne said:
Find out who wrote the first paragraph, have them reword the last five, resend.

Seriously, the first part was my exact reaction: I thought #3 was supposed to be the Foreign Policy debate?
Click to expand...
Agreed, the campaign has legitimate grounds for complaint. But this is just the ravings of a lunatic.

 
BobbyLayne said:
Find out who wrote the first paragraph, have them reword the last five, resend.

Seriously, the first part was my exact reaction: I thought #3 was supposed to be the Foreign Policy debate?
Click to expand...
Dear POTUS,

The debate currently scheduled for October 22 will be the second debate, not the third.  It is not our fault you refused to attend one of the debates, nor it is our fault you can't count to three. 

 
Looks like they’re objecting to the possibility that mics can be cut off, too. If Trump isn’t allowed to just bulldoze his way through by constantly interrupting and ranting nonstop, then what’s the point?

 
BobbyLayne said:
Find out who wrote the first paragraph, have them reword the last five, resend.

Seriously, the first part was my exact reaction: I thought #3 was supposed to be the Foreign Policy debate?
Click to expand...
Agreed.  The first paragraph is well written, but then it goes downhill from there.  The point is valid, but it'll be hard to win an argument for any changes when they're already tipping their hand to the sort of exaggeration and distortion they intend to pursue. Biden, though, should be open to a foreign policy debate - prepare sharp, crisp responses to the criticisms already raised, and let Trump continue with his embarrassing antics. 

 
tri-man 47 said:
Agreed.  The first paragraph is well written, but then it goes downhill from there.  The point is valid, but it'll be hard to win an argument for any changes when they're already tipping their hand to the sort of exaggeration and distortion they intend to pursue. Biden, though, should be open to a foreign policy debate - prepare sharp, crisp responses to the criticisms already raised, and let Trump continue with his embarrassing antics. 
Click to expand...
This will be in someone’s book one day. The President was fine with the first paragraph of the memo, which merely framed the purpose of the lettter. But he objected to every supporting argument, saying it “sounds weak, put some teeth in there.”

 
I heard that as an alternative to a debate focused solely on foreign policy, the Trump team will accept a debate if the topics are as follows:

  • Hunter Biden
  • Antifa
  • Black unemployment circa 2017-2019
  • Media bias
  • Bad hombres
  • Russia hoax
  • Mail-in voter fraud
 
caustic said:
Mike Balsamo @MikeBalsamo1

WASHINGTON (AP) — Debate commission adopts new rules to mute microphones to allow Trump, Biden 2 minutes of uninterrupted time per segment.

6:43 PM · Oct 19, 2020
Click to expand...
There’s the out Trump was looking for; their spokesperson told the NY Post they wouldn’t agree to it. Guess we’ll see if they meant it or just blustering.

 
caustic said:
Mike Balsamo @MikeBalsamo1

WASHINGTON (AP) — Debate commission adopts new rules to mute microphones to allow Trump, Biden 2 minutes of uninterrupted time per segment.

6:43 PM · Oct 19, 2020
Click to expand...
I know folks (somewhat rightly) will cry foul and that this is just meant to thwart Trump.  But for many of us, we've wanted this implemented long before 2016.  It's annoying to listen to these people talk over each other and interrupt each other.  I like it.

 
BobbyLayne said:
There’s the out Trump was looking for; their spokesperson told the NY Post they wouldn’t agree to it. Guess we’ll see if they meant it or just blustering.
Click to expand...
As if the first time the mic cuts out on him, he doesn't just keep going while raising the volume of his voice to a dull roar.

 
I have a serious question that will sound trolly but it's not.

I've rarely watched any debates or follow politics. In fact I literally just registered to vote and I'm almost 50.

Have these debates/rallies/Town Halls always been so " jerry springery", or is this a Trump phenomenon?

 
AAABatteries said:
I know folks (somewhat rightly) will cry foul and that this is just meant to thwart Trump.  But for many of us, we've wanted this implemented long before 2016.  It's annoying to listen to these people talk over each other and interrupt each other.  I like it.
Click to expand...
Please cut as soon as time is up also

 
belljr said:
I have a serious question that will sound trolly but it's not.

I've rarely watched any debates or follow politics. In fact I literally just registered to vote and I'm almost 50.

Have these debates/rallies/Town Halls always been so " jerry springery", or is this a Trump phenomenon?
Click to expand...
Absolutely the latter.

Go to YouTube and pull up the Obama/McCain debate to get an idea, for example.

You only need to watch the first 5 minutes. Just watch the civility from the handshake to start and the first question to see how it's supposed to be.

ETA  -- I think McCain would have been a good President as well. It's a shame, for his sake, he chose Palin, because I think that truly cost him a good shot at winning. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
AAABatteries said:
I know folks (somewhat rightly) will cry foul and that this is just meant to thwart Trump.  But for many of us, we've wanted this implemented long before 2016.  It's annoying to listen to these people talk over each other and interrupt each other.  I like it.
Click to expand...
Let’s hope this is the rule for all future presidential debates. 

 
It's a great idea, and also makes Thursday must see TV. 

Chance of train wreck just went up 500%

 
Last edited by a moderator:
gianmarco said:
Absolutely the latter.

Go to YouTube and pull up the Obama/McCain debate to get an idea, for example.

You only need to watch the first 5 minutes. Just watch the civility from the handshake to start and the first question to see how it's supposed to be.

ETA  -- I think McCain would have been a good President as well. It's a shame, for his sake, he chose Palin, because I think that truly cost him a good shot at winning. 
Click to expand...
It cost him my vote

 
Jeff Mason @jeffmason1

Breaking: @realDonaldTrump says he will participate in the debate against @JoeBiden. “I will participate but it’s very unfair that they changed the topics and it’s very unfair that again we have an anchor who’s totally biased,” he told reporters on Air Force One.

10:28 PM · Oct 19, 2020

 
belljr said:
I have a serious question that will sound trolly but it's not.

I've rarely watched any debates or follow politics. In fact I literally just registered to vote and I'm almost 50.

Have these debates/rallies/Town Halls always been so " jerry springery", or is this a Trump phenomenon?
Click to expand...
In terms of having to cut mics and just blathering about, that's new.  Debates have always had that feeling of "southern politeness" and "coyness" to them, so that's new.  However, in the end, it's always been a bunch of non-answers or "I'm going to answer the question I want to, even if it's not the one I was asked".  They've been fruitless endeavors for a long time.

 
The Commish said:
In terms of having to cut mics and just blathering about, that's new.  Debates have always had that feeling of "southern politeness" and "coyness" to them, so that's new.  However, in the end, it's always been a bunch of non-answers or "I'm going to answer the question I want to, even if it's not the one I was asked".  They've been fruitless endeavors for a long time.
Click to expand...
That’s a change I would be in favor of too - cutting their mic off if they don’t answer the question.

I have no idea how that could work but if somebody could convince me of a fair approach sign me up.

 
AAABatteries said:
That’s a change I would be in favor of too - cutting their mic off if they don’t answer the question.

I have no idea how that could work but if somebody could convince me of a fair approach sign me up.
Click to expand...
Cutting the mic isn't the (long term) answer. It's necessary right now, but the solution isn't regulation. It's better candidates. 

 
AAABatteries said:
That’s a change I would be in favor of too - cutting their mic off if they don’t answer the question.

I have no idea how that could work but if somebody could convince me of a fair approach sign me up.
Click to expand...
We don't need to cut them off for non-answers.  All it takes is a moderator with balls to say to each and every non-answer, "Ok, I'll put you down as not wanting to give an answer that has anything to do with my question....moving on...." and then going to the next question which will likely not be answered either.

 
massraider said:
https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1318526476837359622
Click to expand...
A mic cut debate would help Trump if he decided he wanted to go into the debate with the strategy of actually laying out his case. I think the idea of "letting Biden ramble" is a bit overblown; because Biden unchecked can bloviate and spin yarn as good as any older career politician can.  You're not going to give Biden enough rope to hang himself with in an unchecked debate.  But, if Trump is forced to back away from his full court "Trumpitude" and actually A) lay out his accomplishments  and B) look Presidential and non confrontational......it would be a better look than what we got from him in the first debate.

Neither side particularly wants the post debate analysis to be "same as the first debate....embarassing"......but (IMO) Trump should be striving for "uneventful", " calmer", "a little boring".  

 
MAC_32 said:
Cutting the mic isn't the (long term) answer. It's necessary right now, but the solution isn't regulation. It's better candidates. 
Click to expand...
You are right but the trend is very much in the wrong direction there.  I’d be ok using it like a dog collar to shock the candidates back to “good behavior”.

 
15 minute periods. 2 minutes Trump. 2 minutes Biden. Trump still has nine whole minutes to fling poo. 

I think Joe can do fine for 2 minutes. He'll be prepared. Can Trump speak coherently for 2 minutes on policy?  

Welker's follow ups will be interesting. Will it be jungle rules like the first debate or fact checking like the town halls? 

 
The mic silencing is for the first two minutes after the question is offered.  Really, one could say that every candidate in every debate should get two minutes of uninterrupted time.  Even if they are lying.  

I think this mic silencing thing, the first time trump tries to interrupt, and realizes no one can hear him, it's the only thing he'll fixate on.  Would not surprise me if he brings it up, repeatedly, during the debate. Just randomly inserts complaints about the mics, while rambling. We may need a running tally.  

Between the mic thing, and the female moderator that Trump is already complaining about, I think it's going to go really well on Thursday.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
​ 👨🏻‍🦳👩🏾 ​ 2020 Vice Presidential Debate - October 7 - 9:00PM ET
12 13 14
Replies
650
Views
12K
gianmarco
gianmarco
GordonGekko
Will The GOP Push For A Nation Wide Federal Abortion Ban When It Attains Needed Majorities? (7/2/22 12:11 PST)
Replies
0
Views
250
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Newsweek: "Democrats Have Forgotten The Working Class. It Will Cost Them" (7/14/22 14:39 PST)
Replies
19
Views
937
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top