No. I'm just observing that it's something else that could be taken out of context if somebody wanted to.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Watching the debate tonight?
- Thread starter Trebuchet
- Start date
No. I'm just observing that it's something else that could be taken out of context if somebody wanted to.
The reliability and reputation of the reporter and the publication are themselves evidence.
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2001
- Messages
- 16,443
I was living in Fairmount at the time of the visit and made a thread about it. Weird times
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=296286
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Tim Murtaugh? What scumbag.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
You've made this same claim before. This is, once again, a case of Trump's credibility vs The Atlantic's credibility. Kelly's silence is deafening.
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
The best part of relying on the evidence is we don't have to assess anyone's credibility.
I was surprised Biden didn't respond with something like "Donald, I promise to never use the word 'smart' about you!"
I note that some commentators advised that Biden should always address Trump as "Donald" because he hates it. But I don't think Biden got the tip.
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 40,988
I think there may be a better solution than muting an interrupter -- and since what I'm about to suggest doesn't call for muting anyone during the debate, it may be a change that could be made without requiring Trump's agreement.
What I suggest is that for the debate the two debaters' microphone sound levels be set to half the moderator's sound level, and that will be considered the standard sound level for the debate. Since it will be the standard level for both candidates, I think there's no need to get any special agreement from the debaters or their parties about this; as far as I know, the sound level of the microphones is something that's normally chosen by the people setting up the stage for the debate to make sure the tv broadcast sounds right.
Half-volume* should be loud enough to be heard (if no one else is talking at the time) but not loud enough to override someone whose sound level is at full (unless the interrupter were to yell rather loudly). So successfully interrupting the moderator when the mod is speaking would be very difficult, and a person trying to do so would come off as a bit of a loser.
(In order to successfully interrupt the moderator, a debater at half volume would need to do something to get the mod's attention, such as waving their hand and saying something like Excuse me, could I ask a question? If the moderator stops talking they'd be able to be heard clearly; otherwise, if they continue trying to speak over the moderator, the mod will be heard fairly clearly and their interruption will be simply an annoying background noise).
Well, you may be thinking, that keeps the moderator from getting talked over, the way Chris Wallace was, but it's no help at all for keeping the candidates from interrupting and talking over each other. Ah, but that's where the next part comes in.
Throughout the debate the moderator will choose and state clearly whose turn it is to speak, and how long they have for their turn. And when it is one of the candidates' turns to speak, the moderator turns that candidates' volume up to full for the duration of their speaking time (and then restores it to the standard level of half-volume when their speaking time is up).
Muting a candidate could be considered a penalty or punishment, so creating a system where the moderator is allowed to do that could be seen as something which would require the candidates' agreement. But increasing the volume so a candidate can be heard more clearly during their speaking time is a benefit that's being given to both candidates during their speaking times, not a penalty that's being imposed at the mod's discretion, so as long as the benefit is impartially awarded to both candidates I don't see any reason why the candidates or their parties should be upset by this or get to have a say in this.
The current arrangement makes it possible for both candidates to speak at any time during the debate (whether it's their turn or not) and it sounds like Trump's people are not willing to agree to a change in that. But what I'm suggesting doesn't change that. Trump and Biden would both continue to be able to speak at any time they want to during the debate regardless of whose turn to speak it is.
If they feel that the other candidate has just said something they need to respond to immediately, they're still free to do so. And if they think the point they're trying to make is important enough, they may even be able to raise their voice loud enough to get their point heard. But it will take a lot more effort and it won't be nearly as effective for the interrupter, whose voice will sound weak in comparison to the person they're trying to talk over, so it's not something either candidate would be likely to do routinely during the debate.
Telling Trump he's breaking the rules, as Wallace did, clearly doesn't work. Trump doesn't mind being seen as a rule-breaker; indeed, I think he likes being seen as a rule-breaker and sees it as a good selling point to his followers. But he doesn't like the idea of being seen as weak or as a loser, and that's what he'd look like if he tried to interrupt under the system I'm suggesting.
* NOTE: "Half-volume" may not be the right level; I'm not a sound expert, so I just used "half-volume" as a simple term for what I'm talking about. But it shouldn't be hard for people who actually do have experience with sound systems to find the right level for what I'm suggesting.
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2004
- Messages
- 7,686
I would think that Hillary Clinton is the incumbent and that I was watching a Saturday Night Live sketch.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Which is good because Trump has zero credibility. If Trump had not said it, don't you think Kelly would have said so? He has not.
SezMe
post-pre-born
No doubt but they're not going to sit this one out because of it.
Of course you do. If a named source was one of the ex-officials who have spoken out -- Miles Taylor, Elizabeth Neumann, Olivia Troye, not to mention John Bolton, Anthony Scaramucci, Michael Cohen, etc., etc. -- you still have to decide whether you believe them. The Trumpers claim they're all lying. When somebody like Bob Woodward says "This is what insiders told me," he's more credible than anybody who works for Trump.
BobTheCoward
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
- Messages
- 22,789
Yes, I would prefer their names are associated with it so everyone can assess credibility rather than relying on a individual claimer who refused to release their evidence.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Or, from a different POV, the Sanders' followers don't understand why they can't yet sell their democratic socialism. Gee, when they go to rallies or hang out with other Bernie Bros it seems like the only way Sanders can lose is if the old guard in the Democratic Party are stacking the deck against him.
Notice any similarities there to Trump thinking the only way he'll lose the election is if the Democrats cheat?
I have been a Progressive Democrat for more than three decades, long before the Sanders movement really started. I said it 4 years ago and I'm saying it now, the American public is not going to vote in major change like that. You have to have more patience.
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
SezMe
post-pre-born
Are you high up in the Democratic party hierarchy so that you have access to the "inside baseball"? If so, then tell us more. If not, then by definition you know nothing about "inside baseball" in the Dem Party. Which is it?
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
I'll say this about the debate: Trump has debased the office of the presidency for almost 4 years but last night he outdid himself. And to watch the Republicans defend the ****show that he put on last night, well....Reagan must be rolling over in his grave. They truly have no shame.