jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (15 posts)

Does a debate really matter?

  1. nightwork4 profile image60
    nightwork4posted 5 years ago

    Does a debate really matter?

    when I watch political debates, most times I think that whomever wins is just better at lying quickly.it's not always the case but i'd rather a leader who thinks before they speak then one who seems to have an answer for everything right away.

  2. profile image0
    matama ellieposted 5 years ago

    Depends on what kind of debate and within which settings.Debates done the right way allow for the airing of issues that no one wants to face and forces people to look deeper for solutions to certain problems.
    If the debate is all about inflaming passions however, it can cause wars, literally.

  3. GNelson profile image77
    GNelsonposted 5 years ago

    A political debate is nothing more than a few moments of yapping.  I look at their records.  Their records show who they are and what they will do in the future.

    1. lone77star profile image85
      lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I hope you see it clearly. If you're only looking at the Corporate Party media, then you're missing the bigger picture.

  4. Express10 profile image88
    Express10posted 5 years ago

    I also value someone who thinks before they speak and has the facts. As far as debates, I think that in undecided voter's minds, it may make a difference. It appears that when people make up their minds on this, they aren't going to flip flop. If voters change their minds it would be due to be an enormous screw up that came out of the candidate's mouth. I prefer to vote on the issues that are important to me while looking at each candidate's records, ALL candidates records.

    1. lone77star profile image85
      lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Too bad the Corporate Party media controls how you perceive our politicians. The only flaw in their "armor" is the Internet.

  5. Mahmo profile image61
    Mahmoposted 5 years ago

    In other countries the people who watch it on TV call it  the  '' peacock fight ''

    1. lone77star profile image85
      lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      A peacock fight would be more interesting. At least you know that the peacocks are genuine in their fighting. Obama and Romney are both working for the new Corporatocracy -- both are Goldman-Sachs stooges.

  6. kathleenkat profile image81
    kathleenkatposted 5 years ago

    I don't think it matters who wins. But I do think it's a great chance to see our potential leaders thinking on their feet, and hearing what they have to say with their own words. It seems more real to me than visiting their Facebook pages, or listening to their press statements, to give examples. These are things that are premeditated and thought-through; chances are, they practice and rehearsed what they said. And who knows if it's actually Obama posting on Obama's Facebook? To me, this is real, concrete proof of who they are as people.

  7. Jynzly profile image72
    Jynzlyposted 5 years ago

    Political debates should be formal debates in which downgrading an opponent is a "no-no". It should be statements of facts in black and white and devoid of opinions and hear-says. The opposing parties should drop all intents and objectives of getting most of the votes from the populace in order to win; wise voters would detect such mentality through the manner of speaking and the behavior of the persons in question.
    My answer would then be; A debate matters so much because it shows the personality, intellect, and integrity of the opposing parties; then I will have basis to make my decision. But, if the debate is "non-sense" and does not follow standard procedures then that would be such a joke. Jokes will have its proper place and time, not in politics where lives of the electorate should be taken seriously by the leaders.

  8. Mom Kat profile image81
    Mom Katposted 5 years ago

    When I watch debates I notice that none of them answer questions directly, they all dance around the subject and give some long winded response that barely touches on the actual answer.
    It's like watching kids being questioned by their parents "Now I noticed that there is a cookie missing from the jar.  Can you tell me exactly what happened to it?"

    Political response "Well, I think what needs to be done is to look at the surrounding cookies to determine how large of an impact the space left by this alleged missing cookie has left.  Perhaps by sampling another cookie we could then determine the texture and flavor to better understand what might provoke someone to take a cookie.  Your other child will tell you that we need to look at this in a different way, he'll tell you that..."

    That's NOT an answer!  DUDE!!!
    An answer would be "Yes, I know what happened to the cookie.  Sam took it and ate it under the table.  I told him not to but he did it anyway."
    OR "Yes, I know what happened to the cookie.  I ate it because it looked good."

    Can we get a direct answer here people?

    1. lone77star profile image85
      lone77starposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Watch the 3rd Party debates online, October 23.

  9. tussin profile image58
    tussinposted 5 years ago

    they don't change the minds of people who've already decided, but they do pull in high ratings which allows networks to charge advertisers more.  This year we've had two presidential and one vice presidential debates, three total.  That's not about keeping the public informed, that's about milking sponsors for all they're worth.

  10. lone77star profile image85
    lone77starposted 5 years ago

    On debates in general, I think debate really matters only when the discussion is honest and open. I've learned a great deal from such debates.

    As for the political debates on television for the presidential race, I think it's garbage. Both Rombama and Obamney are puppets for the Corporate Party -- both Goldman-Sachs stooges. Count on either one of them to go along with another bailout or two or some equally inane policy.

    If Romney gets elected, I think he'll continue in Obama's insane legacy of murder by Executive Order (including American citizens), signing laws that allow for the indefinite detention of American citizens without charges, wars of corporate greed, ignoring the Constitution. In fact, I'm getting rather fed up with politicians marginalizing and even demonizing the Constitution -- effectively committing treason.

    I love the honesty of Dr. Ron Paul. The worst thing about him is a couple of articles that someone else wrote and unscrupulous news reporters try to shackle him with. Such is the "spin" mentality of today's Corporate Party media whores.

    There is one debate coming up for the 3rd Party candidates. Now that could prove interesting. October 23, online. I've avoided the Demopublican vs. Republicrat farce, but the 3rd Party debates have my interest. They're not puppets on a script.

    If you didn't catch both halves of the Corporate Party presidential conventions, you should see the following two clips. Politics has died and the body politic has become a putrid stench on the land.

    RNC Scripted:

    DNC Scripted:

    America used to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    Now, Americans are, for the most part, blind and enslaved cowards.

  11. jonnycomelately profile image84
    jonnycomelatelyposted 5 years ago

    Is it the case that the "media" are trying to promote each Presidential candidate as a sort of Hollywood star?   Is that a good way to select a President?  I.e., on the basis of their looks, glamor appeal, photogenicity?   What about that person's education, ability to peruse a Balance Sheet, apply good discipline and honor to all of his/her work, regardless of whether the decisions are politically popular or not?
    Who does anyone in the electorate believe?   Do you believe what this newspaper or TV station says, or that magazine, or that person over the saloon bar?
    How do you make your decision on whom to vote for?