Andrew Yang says microphone was 'not on' at times during Democratic debate

Maybe this is a bit of a taboo opinion for HN, but that was not a debate. That was an unprofessional side-show. Think about it, we spend multiple days with someone in front of congress if we don't like what they did, but we throw all the potential future leaders on a stage with no controlled moderation for one hour.

The AM radio shows I listen to handle this every day using technology. They do it live every day. If someone gets out of control, they get muted or kicked.

That format made it very difficult for me to respect any of those people. I felt like I was watching adult toddlers. The only way I get to see what any of those people are actually like is if I watch their interviews with Joe Rogan.

One of Yang's top policies is Media Fragmentation. Last night's debate was held on MSNBC, NBC, and Telemundo. All three are owned in full by Comcast Corporation. Maybe Comcast interpreted "Media fragmentation" to mean it would have to divvy up its assets if he got elected? I fear that CNN and MSNBC are going to have too much power by favoring their democratic candidate of choice for us as they have done (at least once) in the past. The even bigger fear is that none of this even matters because another country managed to hack a small percentage of the voting machines in the 3144 counties.

How are these debates conducted in other western democracies? Because the whole evening was chaos. And while Yang is justifiably upset about being singled out, I wish the network had been more liberal with the mute button. As it was, the many interruptions from Gillibrand, Swalwell, and Williamson were painfully awkward.

Was the problem that too many candidates were on the stage? Was it the format? I'm not sure who deserves criticism: the network or the candidates themselves?

Too many candidates on stage. Each of those candidates is prepped to only drop soundbites... best soundbite of the night wins the "debate".