It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

11 Secrets About Presidential Debates They'd Rather You Didn't Know.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 07:36 PM
link   
(11.) Debate Rules do not specifically bar earpieces. At least one debater was wearing an earpiece. Scroll down for more details.

(10.) They aren't debates!
(9.) The debates were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters in 1986.
(8.) The "independent and non-partisan" Commission on Presidential Debates is neither independent nor non-partisan.
(7.) The secretly negotiated debate contract bars Kerry and Bush from any and all other debates for the entire campaign.
(6.) The debate contract effectively excludes all other serious presidential candidates from participating in the debates.
(5.) All members of the studio audience must be certified as "soft" supporters of Bush and Kerry, under selection procedures they approve.
(4.) These "soft" audience members must "observe in silence."
(3.) The "extended discussion" portion of the debate cannot exceed 30 seconds.
(2.) Important issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control.
(1.) Fortune 100 corporations are the main funders of the CPD-sponsored debates, and the CPD's co-chairs are corporate lobbyists.

www.npr.org...

bellaciao.org...
These debates are great for, uhhh......uhhhh.......uhhhh......getting the two major party candidates in the same room together to rehash their website.

Once again, third parties are locked out, yet there is all the hubbub about the "debate."

These two guys are too similar for comfort, both want a stronger, more powerful government. Where does this power come from? You and me.

Vote Badnarik.

[edit on 2-10-2004 by Jamuhn]

[edit on 3-10-2004 by John bull 1]



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Debate...what debate...*rubs eyes*...
The only debating I've seen comes from the pundits and assorted others trying to decide who "won."
I cannot believe anyone makes their voting decision based on these "debates"


[edit on 1-10-2004 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Excellent, excellent find, Jamuhn! That would certainly explain why they came about as close to a real topic as Rosie O'Donnell will get to a health food store!
Jim was the one who chose the questions, he said. The questions, as has seemed to be in the past, were biased toward the Democratic party. Do you think this means that the CPD is controlled in such a manner?



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Yea, seriously, I cannot understand it either. That's what happens when you introduce the word debate though. It's another one of those 'new words,' double-think words, or whatever 1984 called them.

Truly amazing...



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Jim was the one who chose the questions, he said. The questions, as has seemed to be in the past, were biased toward the Democratic party. Do you think this means that the CPD is controlled in such a manner?


I'm not sure. Could you elaborate on this more?



posted on Oct, 1 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Those words you were refering to in George Orwells book 1984 was actually a whole new language, a subset of english. This language was called NewSpeak. Great book by the way.

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   


(9.) The debates were hijacked from the truly independent League of Women Voters in 1986.

"The League of Women Voters ran these debates with an iron hand as open, transparent, non-partisan events from 1976 to 1984," Rice says.

Umm, that's like an 8 year period. You make it sound like this had been going on for centuries until 1986.



Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the Debates

If it were a big secret, why is it on NPR?



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 01:12 AM
link   
The real trick is how the Democrats and Republicans have lulled the American people into believing they have a choice.

It is called the illusion of choice. Bush and Kerry, and their respective "machines" offer no real difference to America.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 05:38 PM
link   

The ’let me finish’ quip was clearly bush talking to someone (probably Rove) in his earpiece- saying ’let me finish’ (before you give me the next answer). He blows it 60 seconds into his 90 second reply- so no warning lights had gone off and the moderator had not motioned for him to end as there was plenty of time left.


bellaciao.org...

Do you think it was an earpiece he was wearing? If it is, is it a big deal, seeing these aren't really debates anyway? Or perhaps it was for national security reasons...



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
(11.) At least one debater was wearing in earpiece. Scroll down for more details.

I did not come across that in the article but I am certain that Bush wears a hearing piece at all speakings, that is why he messes up so much and delays his answers, because someone is feeding him the answers.

And if you notice in the first part of the debates when Bush was asked by Jim Lehrer what criteria he would use to bring US troops home from Iraq he had a full William Shatner/Kirk moment.

His answer: Let me......... First......... Tell you..........

It can be seen here about 3/4 way through on the clip marked Bush-Kerry Debate Pt. 2. It's funny as having Bush in office.


www.foxnews.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 05:57 PM
link   
[edit on 2-10-2004 by evecasino]



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   
bellaciao.org...

I edited my post, and had the article in the post right above yours.

[edit on 2-10-2004 by Jamuhn]



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Debate...what debate...*rubs eyes*...
The only debating I've seen comes from the pundits and assorted others trying to decide who "won."
I cannot believe anyone makes their voting decision based on these "debates"


[edit on 1-10-2004 by DontTreadOnMe]


Wait, 63 million Americans listening to the president speak, or stammer, about issues that are important to the country ISN'T a valid barometer to vote upon?

There's no "deciding" who won, Bush got whomped on. Seriously. Lots of conservatives just cannot understand that his performance thursday, as Commander and Chief, was simply abysmal. It was embaressing. Fox news did a fantastic job of trying to clean up the president's mess, but it didn't work. America saw the wizard behind the curtain.



posted on Oct, 2 2004 @ 06:56 PM
link   
So, what did Kerry add? Again I am reading more bashing of Bush, but no true support of the other candidate? No pointing out where he was better, only that BUsh was stomped. My god....

as far as earpieces to cheat, I vote no. I am a Bush supported, and even I can admit he rehashed alot of the same verbiage. At least he didn't contradict himslef in a 2 minute span as Kerry did though....

The debates should be a good judge however for ALL voters to watch. That said. were you serious?



I cannot believe anyone makes their voting decision based on these "debates":


HOw are people supposed to make an infomred decision? Watch FOXNEWS???



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 12:11 AM
link   
You got to admit that the presidential debates has gotten lame over the years. The Womens League of Voters should take control over it again.

Watching clips from past debates of Reaganand Mondale makes this last debate seem extremely dull in comparison.

Whoever's in charge of making these ridiculous rules needs to find another job.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 03:53 AM
link   
You're right, it isn't a debate at all when the guys can't even look each other in the face, or talk to each other directly! And the rules for these 'debates' -- even the ones the TV networks didn't ignore -- are ridiculous.

Whatever happened to the real debates, like Lincoln-Douglas, as one of many famous examples?



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 04:17 AM
link   

cannot believe anyone makes their voting decision based on these "debates"


I cant believe you wouldn't, you would rather take in all the spin and accusations as your voting aid.

It is the most important event in the entire campaign, because the people you plan to vote for are standing in front of a live audience and live TV cameras discussing the pro's and con's on each others policies. It shows you more about each candidates character, it shows you what each candidate is about in a realistic non-scripted changing environment, it shows you how each candidate can work under pressure.... etc Its important.... what you see is what you get...and I can bet you a large sum of money you wouldn't be criticising the debates if your favourite candidate came out the clear winner.



So, what did Kerry add? Again I am reading more bashing of Bush, but no true support of the other candidate?


Bush was on the defensive the entire night. He made weak arguments and appeared to be extremely (embarrassingly) weak in will and character.
The people saw Kerry as their next President that night. A strong communicator and a man capable of doing what ever is put in front of him. People could see, and picture him realistically as the next President of the United States. Debates get rid of all the spin and put things into perspective.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Multi-party system my arse. Such a shame that no other party can afford the advertising to actually compete with the 2 party system. This will never change because the 2 parties controlling us will not allow a system or laws to be put into place that could jeopardize 2 people from going to the final table. What a shame if other parties had the money to advertise and run like the Repubs and Democrats do. We might actually have a democracy then.

[edit on 10/3/2004 by infinite8]



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by electric squid carpet

cannot believe anyone makes their voting decision based on these "debates"


I cant believe you wouldn't, you would rather take in all the spin and accusations as your voting aid.

It is the most important event in the entire campaign, because the people you plan to vote for are standing in front of a live audience and live TV cameras discussing the pro's and con's on each others policies. It shows you more about each candidates character, it shows you what each candidate is about in a realistic non-scripted changing environment, it shows you how each candidate can work under pressure.... etc Its important.... what you see is what you get...and I can bet you a large sum of money you wouldn't be criticising the debates if your favourite candidate came out the clear winner.



So, what did Kerry add? Again I am reading more bashing of Bush, but no true support of the other candidate?


Bush was on the defensive the entire night. He made weak arguments and appeared to be extremely (embarrassingly) weak in will and character.
The people saw Kerry as their next President that night. A strong communicator and a man capable of doing what ever is put in front of him. People could see, and picture him realistically as the next President of the United States. Debates get rid of all the spin and put things into perspective.


I know you aren't responding to me, but....

I am not voting for either one. That's just one problem, the debate is only for two parties. They most definitely did receive the questions before hand. Your responses make me believe that you think there are only two candidates running for president...there are many more!

Read (2.) Important issues are locked out by the CPD debate rules and party control. Much of the time they bickered about whether we should have gone to Iraq....we already did it, get over it, debate on something you can change!

Yea, it shows how TV-friendly the candidates are. I could of seen such "debating" on the nightly updates of the R and D candidates on the campaign trail.



posted on Oct, 3 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
You have voted Jamuhn for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month

That's what I'm talking about. It don't believe this was truly the debate that our country needs, as it did not include all possible candidates. It is simply a dog and pony show design to ensure he monopoly held on our government by the two corporate sponsored parties.

I'm surprised that they didn't have Coca-Cola and Pepsi patches stiched into their lapels.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join