Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
will be other thing that we we should talk about is
why is this even controversial this is controversial because this document this
is a memorandum of understanding
which candy crowley is not a party to but involves
the for the election committee avik and the debate committee rather
and the two candidates there's this document is emo you'll memorandum of
understanding which which indicates a lot of the different rules and it's
fascinating because one of the things in the m_o_ u
is the following which very much limits
the moderators uh... abilities roles powers
in the town hall the davises in managing the cuban economy periods
the moderator will not rephrase the question her open a new topic
the moderator will not ask follow-up questions are comment on either the
question asked by the audience or the answer of the candidates during the
debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except
to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce time limits
that's essentially it and this is a document that both campaigns have agreed
to in the debate committee has agreed to so i said this document must have some
pretty fascinating stuff in it let's take a look
it's incredible some of the stuff in it the memorandum of understanding the
framework for the presidential debates
almost guarantees
nothing interesting will happen
in the presidential debates feliz
and unfortunately
i think that's probably what both campaigns one
i think you're probably right here's some of the interesting things in this
and are you one of the camera the ground rules
that both campaigns agreed to
the candidates cannot reference anyone in the audience
they can't represent individuals in the audience
that's the rule that the rule
campaigns have agreed to
what's the point of that rule
hard to say
not on what i think you know because i know you
yet right now i assume it's to prevent you know of bill clinton type of
connection
on the part of one of the candidates on this day
uh... yes uh... uh... joy in the audience yes and then like you ask a
follow-up question and you have like a personal connection to one of the people
in the auto i actually don't think that that's the case i think that what this
is specifically geared towards is to prevent
for example let's say there's someone in the audience that could be
uh... of the indicative of some kind of endorsement subs so brought obama can
say
uh... president bill clinton
who supports me and is in the audience
agrees with me on x_y_z_ i think it's more to prevent that type of thing
anything that will take a bit tension away from what do the candidates say
during the debate
the uh... and at the same time you could have multiple while
there could be multiple things trying to prevent the other one which is great
incredible as there's the rules according to the end are you
the candidates may not ask each other direct questions of the day
it's a debate
its and this is a debate the point is to debate
out of the you can ask that the other candidates
direct question asking questions part of this whole thing
no it's designed to be a script that is possible
and to make sure make it and admit that the extemporaneous debating
would be terrible this needs to be as controlled as possible
thick and it should not address each other question for the moderator answer
from the candidate rebuttal from the other other candidate to the moderator
only it's it's a ridiculous rule this makes it not be real debate
but let's just hope things don't go forty two point
the other thing that's in there
is that cameras this is in the rules cameras should be on the person's
speaking
not reaction shots
what's fascinating is c_n_n_ for example
during the vp debate
have side by side you could see reaction the entire time so my question is are
they breaking rules according to that understand that its new debate
commission as well as the two candidates that are party this isn't that unusual
the time
uh... i'm not sure what went on there it is some people i talk to some of the
uh... d_p_ today on youtube
said that they didn't see in the split screen well which to me would be uh...
you know much more palatable so i don't know exactly how wordpress like uh... c_
span i think had the split screen
uh... foxes in c_n_n_ did but i i don't know i can't seem to find the legitimate
on a split screen version
it's uh... i'm not looking at the very rules being broken lewis
uh... i think it's pretty ridiculous rules to help you would have reaction
shots have seen a ton doesn't like it but i do like it and instead it may have
heard joe biden that he was laughing no i think i heard obama
you figured obama more because all you condemn absolutely when he was every
little expression he had that make them look like he was you know as people say
receiving a lecture
uh... for broke the image when i start what
of the same debate on nine split screen all bomb a looked much better
well in any case i've idon't my senses i wanna see
what is
it says a lot to me about people's character to see what do they look like
when they're listening to criticism of their policies are of their positions or
when they're being fact checker criticized i had act and that's the
fitted for tw yahoo mean you want to be able to look into
not just that the policies of these people put their character
absolutely and the time you just don't think it adds anything to see the
reaction shots
uh... i'm not saying i'm just saying it definitely hurdle bomb in the first one
and romney didn't seem to have any trouble
coming a crime he did have a weird expression on his face but i don't think
he came off poorly like obama did