?????

I mean talking back and forth in an open conversation, explaining their positions and DEBATING the merits of these positions.

10/8/2008 6:57:33 PM

two words.

PUGEL STICKS!

10/8/2008 6:58:44 PM

fuck you

i win

/thread

10/8/2008 7:00:42 PM

^^^ because the majority of the electorate is too stupid and uninformed to digest more than sound bytes and slogans.

[Edited on October 8, 2008 at 7:01 PM. Reason : ^^^]

10/8/2008 7:01:31 PM

I think that perception is a reason many are put off by politics. Weren't open format debates common in history?

10/8/2008 7:03:11 PM

^^

/thread

10/8/2008 7:03:23 PM

the campaigns are the ones that set the rules for the debates.

neither campaign wants their candidate "thrown to the wolves" and make a critical mistake that could cost them the election. they prefer a tightly controlled environment which cuts down on surprises.

10/8/2008 7:05:23 PM

But, if there were open debates during preliminaries, the resulting candidate should be able to coupe.

10/8/2008 7:07:13 PM

if there were open debates, the politicians would show themselves to be just as ignorant as the majority of the masses are.

but, at least Obama wouldn't be a candidate...

10/8/2008 7:11:56 PM

And McCain would be?

10/8/2008 7:13:22 PM

Quote :

"Weren't open format debates common in history?"

no. Nixon/Kennedy was the first ever Presidential debate

10/8/2008 7:13:54 PM

I thought that was the first televised...

10/8/2008 7:14:59 PM

Lincoln/Douglas, what?

^^ glad to see that you and your extreme intelligence will be voting.

[Edited on October 8, 2008 at 7:16 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2008 7:15:44 PM

nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates#History

Lincoln/Douglas were not candidates for President, and the radio debates were for primaries

10/8/2008 7:16:46 PM

well, fuck me sideways

[Edited on October 8, 2008 at 7:18 PM. Reason : ]

10/8/2008 7:17:26 PM

That was a senatorial debate.

10/8/2008 7:17:43 PM

because they would be constantly interrupting each other, and it's not like they listen to each other anyway

if Democrats and Republicans actually listened to each other and tried to make sense of things, the two-party system would become obsolete and would be far more sensible

10/8/2008 7:18:54 PM

Ok, while presidential debates are recent, debates aren't.....

10/8/2008 7:19:04 PM

u mad?

10/8/2008 7:20:11 PM

FURIOUS

nope

10/8/2008 7:22:40 PM

this would be why:

message_topic.aspx?topic=540848

10/8/2008 9:29:38 PM

OP: Because that would invariably lead to the winner having declared, "[argument] times infinity plus one".

10/8/2008 10:18:53 PM

BUT THEN THE OTHER PERSON COULD COUNTER WITH "[ARGUMENT] TIMES INFINITY PLUS INFINITY SON."

10/8/2008 10:22:06 PM

We can't have a debate like that because if we do the media can't shield Obama from the issues that would crush him.

10/8/2008 10:22:58 PM

Quote :

"because they would be constantly interrupting each other, and it's not like they listen to each other anyway if Democrats and Republicans actually listened to each other and tried to make sense of things, the two-party system would become obsolete and would be far more sensible "

10/8/2008 10:34:05 PM

The next day any gaffes would become sound bites for attack commercials. Eventually enough people would get burned by having their views distorted that we'd be back to where we are now.

10/8/2008 10:55:08 PM

Fucking politics.

10/8/2008 10:56:36 PM

The lincoln-douglas debates were also to an audience of the state legislatures, not the public. The smarter audience probably cared more about rational arguments.

10/8/2008 11:00:06 PM

Quote :

"We can't have a debate like that because if we do the media can't shield Obama from the issues that would crush him."

10/8/2008 11:11:38 PM

btt

11/2/2008 12:56:19 AM

Quote :

"We can't have a debate like that because if we do the media can't shield Obama from the issues that would crush him. "

THIS IS WHAT THE TRUTH LOOKS LIKE SON!

11/2/2008 1:16:09 AM