U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 08-20-2008, 07:56 PM
 
Location: Alvarado, TX
2,915 posts, read 3,972,575 times
Reputation: 789

Advertisements

It appears, rather loudly, some certain posters cannot get beyond the fact that the "Saturday night debate" was not a debate at all, nor was it a finality at all. This morning a poster has brought up something about first amendment violations. I swear, I know it hurts to not be in the catbird seat, but this is getting a little ridiculous, don't you think?

So, my thoughts turned inward, to attempt to determine what or where would be a "neutral location," and who would be a natural, "neutral moderator."

Personally, I had no problems with the church house, but I do think there should have been no "audience." No clapping, no giggling, no boos, no hisses (if there were any boos or hisses). But obviously a lot of folks do have a problem with the location being in a church house. So, what does that leave to use? A lot of places: A courtroom, a dance hall, a parking lot. A park setting could work. Out in the open, no trees, under a pergola or arbor for protection from the elements, if nothing else. One "candidate" at a time, with the candidate not being interviewed being held in place within sight, but not within hearing distance, back turned from the process, no headphones because who knows what is being piped in to the headphones. They ARE available in a cordless, digital format nowadays. Perhaps in a glass cube with an a/c unit in the wall, running, so as to mask whatever sound may infiltrate. No radio, no television. Just a chair and maybe a table. Nothing to write with, nothing to write on. In fact, let's strip the candidate down to his underwear at least, so that nothing visible can be discerned other than the body. I think something on that order would be a "cube of silence" rather than a "cone of silence." What, exactly, does a "cone of silence" even look like, anyway?

Now comes the requirements for a moderator. Should this moderator be black or white or brown or yellow or even red? Should this moderator be male or female? Should this moderator be a member of the press corps, a church-goer, an atheist, an agnostic, a preacher, a pauper, a butcher, a baker, a candlestick maker, a city official, a day-laborer, a funeral director, a prisoner, a CEO, a janitor, what or who? While I'm typing this, I'm thinking along these lines. Take the questions to be asked, have them read into a recorder, and then digitize the recording so that no gender can be recognized, no ethnicity can be recognized, no age can be recognized, something like is used in a courtroom for a protected witness so the witness cannot be identified.

Lastly, each "candidate" should have submitted to the moderator a signed, sworn statement that s/he has agreed to this "debate", "interview", whatever it will be called, maybe "forum" would be a better word, with the candidate's signature firmly attached in black, indelible ink.

What would it take to satisfy both sides of the political spectrum? What would make YOU happy?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-21-2008, 04:40 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
7,529 posts, read 13,241,024 times
Reputation: 18345
Unless Bubba Ho's little lemmings see ratings that indicate he "won", they will keep crying "foul" and want "overs"....kinda reminds you of kids on the playground when they don't get their way....too bad the office of the President of the United States of America is allowed all those same priviledges when it comes time to make the tough decisions.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-21-2008, 10:42 AM
 
7,136 posts, read 12,367,394 times
Reputation: 2296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta Planter View Post
It appears, rather loudly, some certain posters cannot get beyond the fact that the "Saturday night debate" was not a debate at all, nor was it a finality at all. This morning a poster has brought up something about first amendment violations. I swear, I know it hurts to not be in the catbird seat, but this is getting a little ridiculous, don't you think?

So, my thoughts turned inward, to attempt to determine what or where would be a "neutral location," and who would be a natural, "neutral moderator."

Personally, I had no problems with the church house, but I do think there should have been no "audience." No clapping, no giggling, no boos, no hisses (if there were any boos or hisses). But obviously a lot of folks do have a problem with the location being in a church house. So, what does that leave to use? A lot of places: A courtroom, a dance hall, a parking lot. A park setting could work. Out in the open, no trees, under a pergola or arbor for protection from the elements, if nothing else. One "candidate" at a time, with the candidate not being interviewed being held in place within sight, but not within hearing distance, back turned from the process, no headphones because who knows what is being piped in to the headphones. They ARE available in a cordless, digital format nowadays. Perhaps in a glass cube with an a/c unit in the wall, running, so as to mask whatever sound may infiltrate. No radio, no television. Just a chair and maybe a table. Nothing to write with, nothing to write on. In fact, let's strip the candidate down to his underwear at least, so that nothing visible can be discerned other than the body. I think something on that order would be a "cube of silence" rather than a "cone of silence." What, exactly, does a "cone of silence" even look like, anyway?

Now comes the requirements for a moderator. Should this moderator be black or white or brown or yellow or even red? Should this moderator be male or female? Should this moderator be a member of the press corps, a church-goer, an atheist, an agnostic, a preacher, a pauper, a butcher, a baker, a candlestick maker, a city official, a day-laborer, a funeral director, a prisoner, a CEO, a janitor, what or who? While I'm typing this, I'm thinking along these lines. Take the questions to be asked, have them read into a recorder, and then digitize the recording so that no gender can be recognized, no ethnicity can be recognized, no age can be recognized, something like is used in a courtroom for a protected witness so the witness cannot be identified.

Lastly, each "candidate" should have submitted to the moderator a signed, sworn statement that s/he has agreed to this "debate", "interview", whatever it will be called, maybe "forum" would be a better word, with the candidate's signature firmly attached in black, indelible ink.

What would it take to satisfy both sides of the political spectrum? What would make YOU happy?

Sounds like the ever-meddling lawyers would be getting involved! Maybe just a tape-recorded generic "voice" could give out some very generic questions from now on..... Nothing like keeping in blase.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top