Question on presidential debates

[D-Dave]

Just a quick question about the procedure of the presidential debates:
Do the Candidates know the Questions before the debate starts?

(or even better, is there any place on the web where I can get the complete rules?)

Thanks for any feedback :)

[NiteFox]

The first rule of presidential debates is that you don't talk about presidential debates...

PleasefortheloveofGodAllahBuddha*deletewhereappropriateletmeberightonthatone...

[Jeunemaitre]

The "Rules" depend on who's running/moderating/sponsoring the debate. I don't know that there are specific rules governing debates, but there might be. Unfortunately, I'm no help in pointing you to them. If you see an ad for a network televising a debate, you might check their website for a description of the format, but that's the best I can think of.

The first rule of presidential debates is that you don't talk about presidential debates...

:lol:
Does that mean that John Kerry really is a figment of W's schizophrenic/dissociative imagination?

[kandrathe]

I had heard that they had agreed on three debates, but not on the format yet.

[Guest]

The first rule of presidential debates is that you don't talk about presidential debates...

The second rule of presidential debates is that you DO NOT TALK AOBUT PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES.

[Occhidiangela]

"No poofters." <_<

The second rule of presidential debates is that you DO NOT TALK AOBUT PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES.

The first rule of participation in this forum is that you read what you have typed before you hit the "Add Reply" button.

Occhi

[D-Dave]

I finaly found something over at cnn.com.

But does

No props, notes, charts, diagrams or other writings can be used by the candidates; however, they can take notes on the type of paper of their choosing.

imply that they do or do not know the questions beforehand?
Maybe my english has gotten realy bad lately but I just cannot find any more info on that topic...

BTW, why does one not talk about presidential debates?

[Count Duckula]

But does [this] imply that they do or do not know the questions beforehand?

BTW, why does one not talk about presidential debates?

I think the candidates can figure out the broad topics that will be discussed but have no idea the specifics. It's like a debate you'd do for a public speaking class. You know what kind of issues you'll raise with your opening speech, and you're going to get questioned on hot button issues. Other than that, it's all about listening to the other guy's speech and making better points or clearer points than the ones he made. (Debating 101. :D)

As for not talking about them, I think people don't want to open up another can of worms. :ph34r:

[Jeunemaitre]

BTW, why does one not talk about presidential debates?

I think we've been referencing the movie Fight Club in which Brad Pitt explains the rules of the group as
"Rule #1: You do not talk about Fight Club; Rule #2: You DO NOT TALK about Fight Club;" etc.

I think the mention of candidates taking notes refers to the advantage of being the second to answer a question. You get a chance to hear your opponents answer and can take notes on points he made, or points you want to make when it's your time to speak. As far a knowing the questions beforehand, most candidates have a large contingent of staff dedicated to preparing them for any subject that might arise, but the most expected questions are dictated by the state of the campaign and the current issues raised by the press. For example, it's easy to guess that there will be questions regarding the encouragement of economic recovery, and it's equally easy to guess that there will not be a question on the state of relations with Monaco.

edit: modified punctuation

[kandrathe]

Sort of like a real debate...

...only these candidates won't answer the questions asked, will take every opportunity to impune the character of the other (with ad hominem attacks), and will not get judged for failure to keep to the topic or answer the questions.

[kandrathe]

I think a short list of topics I would want to see discussed in the 3 debates should include a mixture of domestic and international issues;

1) National Security, Homeland Security, War on Terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq
2) Other military issues, maybe places like Kosovo, Sudan, Iran, North Korea, or over commitments, military pay and benefits
3) Economy, jobs, outsourcing, etc.
4) Healthcare, Medicare, Prescription Drugs, Social Security, Medical saving accounts, etc.
5) International relations, the state of US, UN relations and relationships with allies
6) Education, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), funding mandated programs
7) Energy policy, ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), conservation, renewable energy, etc.

[D-Dave]

I think we've been referencing the movie Fight Club in which Brad Pitt explains the rules of the group as
"Rule #1: You do not talk about Fight Club; Rule #2: You DO NOT TALK about Fight Club;" etc.

Ah, thanks, I knew I should have seen that movie. :unsure:

but another little tidbit:
Is it realy true that the candidates are spending approximately $ 200 Million each on their campaign?
(if so, I am wondering why no candidate came up with the idea of reducing the campaign cost and instead giving a large chunk of the money to 9/11 victims and/or Iraq Vets?)

[Sir_Die_alot]

if so, I am wondering why no candidate came up with the idea of reducing the campaign cost

There is no place like home. *click*click* There is no place like home. *click*click*

Seriously, campaigns take quite a bit of money. "Reduce" is a pretty vague word, perhaps you mean they should have no bumper stickers this year? :D When it comes to giving it to a charity I highly doubt that would be legal because a slick person would make their own charity. Who cares if you lose when you get to put the leftovers in your pocket. :P

[kandrathe]

Most of that money is "raised" for them from donations. The donors might just stop funneling money into politics and support some more worthy cause, but then how would their special interest get attention?

I was a bit heartened the other day when I listened to a congressional historian talking about our 200 year history of money in politics. It seems that it was the genious of Madison that allows minority special interests to have influence in our government to counter balance the popular majority. He also was debunking the idea that the US congress does not get enough done. It was his perpective that congress is intentionally a deliberative body that will get done those things that have sufficient importance to either motivate the popular majority, or fueled through legislative deal making with the minority special interests.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Did we crack tube yet?

*Edit: Say Occhi, are you back state-side? I wandered away whilst you were still chewing sandstorms.*

[eppie]

I think we've been referencing the movie Fight Club in which Brad Pitt explains the rules of the group as
"Rule #1: You do not talk about Fight Club; Rule #2: You DO NOT TALK about Fight Club;" etc.

Ah, thanks, I knew I should have seen that movie. :unsure:

but another little tidbit:
Is it realy true that the candidates are spending approximately $ 200 Million each on their campaign?
(if so, I am wondering why no candidate came up with the idea of reducing the campaign cost and instead giving a large chunk of the money to 9/11 victims and/or Iraq Vets?)

Yes they do spend all this money, and this is one of the most important things that are wrong with this way of elections/democracy.
Most of the big companies contribute to the campaign, and they ussually contribute to both parties. (so that whoever wins, you gave him money). Needless to say companies would very much appreciate to get something back for these contributions.
Because without TV commercials you don't stand a chance of becoming elected, you need this money. (people like TC commercials more than presedential debates)
To my opinion (which does not matter at all (e occhi ;) ) they should change that. Every party should get broadcasting time on TV (without paying for that), both parties would get the same amount of time of course.

Just like the criticism on Bush (many people say he invaded Iraq for his own profits) if it is true or not, you should not let there be any chance that people might think that companies who contribute to the campaigns of candidates get things back for that. There is too much chance that candidates look like they are corrupt. So I would favor a law which makes it impossible for companies to contribute to campaign funds.

[Occhidiangela]

For some reason, I was suddenly able to get through the web sense, when part of the games category stopped being blocked by our local sensor.

I have cracked a few tubes lately, though, with a few Aussies even. Had a couple of tubes of Spitfire Ale on Battle of Britain remembrance night with some RAF bubbas and bubbettes. The sunset ceremony was very nice, what with a Tornado roaring overhead and going into afterburner, (heading straight up) just as the last note of the bugel sounded. Perfect timing. Got a chill.


Occhi

[Jester]

"So I would favor a law which makes it impossible for companies to contribute to campaign funds."

But money talks. And talking is the same as speaking, as in "free speech".

You can't restrict people's right to buy politicians. That would be undemocratic, not to mention unconstitutional.

Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

You can't restrict people's right to buy politicians.

True. But we can ask for a little "Truth in Advertising". Big companies buy sports figures all the time, and the sports figures usually wear the logo of the companies that 'own' them. So how about this simple proposal: all politicians have to visibly wear the logo or name of all entities who've *ever* contributed 0.5% or more to their campaigns.

That they're 'owned' is given and boring. Just *who* owns them is much more interesting. ;)

--Pete

PS This reminds me of the definition of an 'honest' politician: one who remains bought.

[Brista]

While it's true that Bush is spending with panache Kerry seems to have a very flat campaign from my admittedly rather distant view

Maybe he decided to spend his $200 mill on EBay Diablo dupes instead ;)