|
|
Post by matt on Oct 4, 2012 10:18:06 GMT 10
The Americans have an independent Presidential Debate Commission, which organises all three Presidential debates.
They don't seem to have the squabbles we do in Australia over the debates, it is just expected that there will be three debates which are held in different locations and each having a slightly different format.
They don't have unsophisticated bullshit like the 'worm' and the debates are a big deal and treated seriously by the candidates.
Why can't we have such a format here?
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 4, 2012 13:21:42 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Oct 4, 2012 19:08:22 GMT 10
 Yes, I believe we should. Media and politicians haver their own agenda. We've seen what happened with 'the worm' that dove within 1.09 of a second any time a coalition leader (Howard/Abbott etc) spoke, berfore they could even get a syllable out. 'the worm's audience is as 'neutral' as the audience in Q and A.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt on Oct 4, 2012 19:53:33 GMT 10
I like the three debate platform, with each debate having a different focus.
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 4, 2012 20:01:22 GMT 10
The problem with debates is that the best speaker wins every time. That does not mean that the same person is the best for the job.
Keating would win any day over anyone in the Liberal Party.
Howard would win any day over Beazley, Crean.
Gillard would win over Abbott (just listen to parliament).
|
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Oct 4, 2012 20:03:08 GMT 10
Lol, Keating would be lucky to keep his head above water in a debate, even Beazley was better than him. Howard smashed Keating in the 96 debates.
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 4, 2012 20:05:32 GMT 10
No-one ever smashed Keating, especially Howard. Howard got better as he became more confident.
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 4, 2012 20:07:35 GMT 10
Smash! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Oct 4, 2012 20:16:09 GMT 10
Oh, yes he did. ;D In the debate in 96, most of the commentators called it for Howard. Keating really sucked. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 4, 2012 20:21:38 GMT 10
Paul Keating demolishes the prevailing myth in the Australian consciousness that John Howard & Peter Costello were economic virtuosos.
Regrettably they were able to spin and get away with it due to a timid and impotent Labor party after Keating's departure.
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 4, 2012 20:24:47 GMT 10
But Salem would rather have this turkey:
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 4, 2012 20:28:06 GMT 10
Oh, yes he did. ;D In the debate in 96, most of the commentators called it for Howard. Keating really sucked. ;D Link please. John Howard and Paul Keating at the 1996 election debate Posted Mon Nov 26, 2007 3:53pm AEDT Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating (R) shakes hands with Opposition Leader John Howard (L) before they began a live debate on national television with mediator Ray Martin (C) in Sydney, February 25, 1996. A studio voted Keating the winner of the debate, the second of two held before Australia's federal election March 2. www.abc.net.au/news/2007-11-26/john-howard-and-paul-keating-at-the-1996-election/969574 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2012 13:45:17 GMT 10
The Americans should have a series of three debates: between the Presidential candidiates; between the Vice-Presidential candidates and between the First Lady candidates.
If we did the same, we could look forward to a debate between Margie Abbott and Tim Mathieson.
Margie probably has a few overdue library books on her slate. Where would we start with Tim?
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 10, 2012 22:18:39 GMT 10
Gee, like david, that salem just disappears after she's been thrashed.
She's just lucky that I didn't mention her hero's Howard's double digit inflation coupled with double digit unemployment.
Oh, what was that? Interest rates were at double digits as well?
Make that the worst treasurer in history, the only one with triple double. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 11, 2012 5:15:57 GMT 10
I was right.
|
|
