The debate on TVP closed the cycle of debates of presidential candidates. usually she was the 1 who got the most attention, but this year, public tv has passed another media that showed that audience interest is besides a chance for fresh formats. The TVP so combined the format known – questions from journalists and liked – i.e. questions between candidates and candidates.
The TVP debate besides broadcast by another televisions introduced the rule that gadgets are not allowed. From the very beginning he broke it Krzysztof Stanowskiwhich, without consequences, placed a mass of different flags on the desktop. The counter-candidate even decided to take the Polish flag from Stanowski, but was firmly attached to the stand and before dealing with it, the camera focused on something else.
Rafał Trzaskowski came with a message by Karol Nawrocki about the flat of Mr Jerzy and showed them on the air, besides without consequences. No 1 has been expelled from the studio for gadgets, and the rule reminded by those who conduct useless regulation is simply a good shorthand of debate – rules, and everyone does and tells what they want.
Here I urge the conversation of Kuba Majmurka with Prof. Antoni Dudek about how the office of president is constructed in Poland:
Questions about Poland
At the start, any candidate and candidate could answer a question about the postulate they had in the program, which is not popular but needed. Mentzen said that the NFZ did not work, Hołownia – that it would never pardon any politician, Trzaskowski, that safety is important. I don't know which one's unpopular.
Adrian Zandberg mentioned how bad credit subsidies are – which is not the most popular thought mainly due to the fact that many people do not believe in a different chance at their own flat than taking credit. Magdalena Biejat besides talked about housing – she mentioned a decrease in margins for credit banks. Joanna Senyszyn proposed to reduce defence spending, convincing that there would be no war.
Stanowski criticised the appointment of Dorota Wysocka-Schnepf to conduct the debate. The writer cut off after many minutes, quoting the phrase about vomiting, and then bit Stanowski that he was moving the show on Kurski's TVP, although he did not know due to the fact that she did not watch. It was the only time the lead commented anything, the lead didn't comment. And they may have reacted respective times.
In the circular of questions about Poland there was a question about demographic catastrophe – and that was a question about the thesis. In Poland less children are born, and women – as we have heard in the question – declare that they are afraid to be born, since the anti-abortion law was tightened. Let's be honest, there are countries where access to abortion is much better than in Poland, and inactive fertility falls in them.
Holovnia recalled that he wanted a referendum on abortion and supported the Left's rescue bill. Zandberg – that he is behind the right to abortion until 12 weeks pregnant, as well as that people request housing and unchangeable work to decide for a child. Biejat besides immediately went to housing and nursery homes, ignoring the issue of abortion law. Senyszyn mentioned that the model of paternity in which a father does not support his parent in her upbringing does not aid us to choose to have children. And she added something that was missing from all the speeches – any just don't want to have children.
Marek Woch claimed we had a left-wing government, and Mentzen accused TVP that she should talk more about the beauty of motherhood. Braun and Jakubiak, of course, talked about “killing children.” The fact that we can hear about Dr Gizeli Mengele in the media brings us to earth and reminds us of the country we live in. possibly those were the moments erstwhile the leaders should react.
The question of childbirth was a question of thesis, due to the fact that it brought a discussion on abortion, and no 1 said that we were just surviving in specified a time that less children were born in society. Therefore, either we request to adapt to the model of a country where there will be more seniors, and in time there will be less people living, or we request to say that it will be migrants who will supplement the size of the country, which no 1 has mentioned.
In the presidential debate, it was mentioned that politicians – according to public opinion surveys – fewer people respect. It's interesting that it's decided to remind the candidates. They were going to tell you what they were going to do to change the incorrect opinion about politicians. This is fundamentally another open question for everyone to talk about something crucial and essential to them.
Braun decided to check everyone out and said that his “reliability” would change his head about politics. And he added that he was a supporter of the death penalty. Joanna Senyszyn did not neglect – she recalled that the politician is undervalued and the prof. high. She, the professor, doesn't gotta worry. Senishyn was completely amazed by her reflexes.
Questions about global policy
The further the TVP debate, the little energy, so erstwhile a circular of questions about the European Union started in almost an hr and a half, it was clear that any of the candidates were losing their enthusiasm to respond. Simon Hołownia did not fail, recalling that he knew the names of European politicians. Trzaskowski honestly admitted that it is crucial for European politicians to say what we tell them – it did not sound like the announcement of a partnership with allies. Historian Nawrocki recalled that Poland has been in Europe “for thousands of years” – yes, thousands – and little in the EU.
When asked about the duties announced and withdrawn by Donald Trump and what Europe could do about it, 1 could ask how this question falls within the competence of the president of Poland.
Listening to the candidates' answers, we could remember who is rooting for Trump and who is not, who came to the debate to laughter (Stanowski), and who is speaking about his program (Zandberg, Biejat) regardless of questions.
In a series of answers to the question of the war in Ukraine, Szymon Hołownia amazed by the memory that Poland must be the first in line to rebuild Ukraine, and Ukraine must us give defence knowledge – I do not know if the word “must” is in place. another candidates mentioned that Poland should be at the negotiating table and Mentzen – that Poland could not send troops to Ukraine, which he repeated in the debate many times.
The question was specifically "which is Poland's primary interest" in the context of talks about the end of the war in Ukraine. The answer "peace" was apparent to everyone, so there were no surprises in this round, and the boredom in the mediate of the debate was most likely all, but possibly Karol Nawrocki, who one more time mentioned his visit to the White House.
I watched the presidential debate at the Bookshop-Cafroom Dreamy. Following the questions of candidates and candidates, we played bingo. On the cards were the slogans for which we were waiting, specified as "green order", "regaining independence", or events, specified as "Nawrocki recalls that he met Trump", "Woch talks about self-government". We watched, listened to, and crossed out debate bingo.
The game was possible due to the fact that a large part of the speech and behaviour after respective akin skirmishes was easy to guess. Doesn't mean the debate wasn't necessary. She was. In this year's campaign, we have seen that specified debates are of large interest, and even if they are sometimes predictable as a whole, we always learn more about candidates and candidates.
Mutual Questions
In the first circular of common questions Hołownia began by asking Nawrocki about Mr. Jerzy's flat (this case came back respective times). Nawrocki referred to the video on his social media, where there is an up-to-date explanation of the case – and of course he did not explain anything. Not in this round, not in another round.
Maciej Maciak, who had already become known as Putin's supporter, asked Stanowski who came in a sweatshirt encouraging to support the treatment of a sick child, or was it not better to send children for inexpensive treatment to Russia alternatively of costly to the US. Stanowski scored with a simple and good answer, mocking Maciak's fantasy of Putin treating children. It's 1 of those speeches that has a chance to become a vortex.
Trzaskowski, asked by Mentzen about wellness care, told how he "built" the infirmary and "opened" the clinic, referring to his being president of Warsaw. As we can guess, Trzaskowski himself did not build this hospital.
“There is no fruit without a tree, there is no tree without roots,” said Jakubiak, asking Holownia a question, but he got so full of grass that it was hard to realize what he wanted to ask. Fortunately, the Hollow home said something. In the second circular of common questions, Jakubiak started off even longer, and did not even scope a scrap of questions to Joanna Senyszyn. Jakubiak proved in this debate that it was not only hard to answer questions but besides to ask them.
He pierced them all in the second circular of common questions about global policy. After asking us about Putin's treatment, it seemed that nothing would surprise us, and here Matiak, who himself was going to ask a question to 1 of the counter-candidates or counter-candidates, asked the leaders to remind them of the question. They reminded him that now he's asking the question.
It was very bad that Braun spoke about the “sodomite parade”, “eurocoholchosis”, “eurofederist” and the outrageous words of the candidate nobody responded. The debater, Piotr Witwicki, briefly, though inconceivably commented by Matiak commending Russia Today.
Joanna Senyszy asked Mentzen to denounce the concordat, since she is in favour of Poland's sovereignty. Mentzen stood by and said that this deal wasn't forcing us to do anything that Senyshyn reminded him it wasn't true. This was another confirmation that Joanna Senyszyn had kept her alert and well prepared questions for the counter-candidates.
Magdalena Biejat reminded Karol Nawrock of the words of president Lech Kaczyński that she was waiting for Ukraine in the European Union and NATO. She forced the PiS candidate to cut off the legacy of president Kaczyński. Let us remind that it was Biejat in 1 of the erstwhile debates that asked Nawrocki about the cadastral tax, and that was erstwhile he said he had 1 apartment, which started the candidate's crisis. Will Nawrocki regret answering Biejat's question this time?
In the second circular of common questions, Adrian Zandberg looked angry, and Rafał Trzaskowski looked tired or bored, especially erstwhile he asked Holownia a question to which he was most likely not curious at all, due to the fact that he knew her well. The question and the answer were like pinning coalition cooperation. A akin impression was given erstwhile Szymon Hołownia asked Magdalena Biejat if he would sign the bill on banning smartphones in schools. Biejat agreed, of course.
Zandberg asked the Holovnia about the Members' kilometres, which is what he would do as the talker of the Sejm – he did not even pretend that this was a question related to the presidential debate. Have I mentioned that the debate is an chance to talk about yourself and your programme, not necessarily about what the office of president is about?
The 3rd circular of common questions looked like the end of a long run. The fatigue of candidates and candidates – most likely besides any viewers and viewers – was considerable. And possibly this is an unplanned component of the debate that has shown who has the strength to endure a four-hour media appearance.
Magdalena Biejat was serious and engaged in asking circumstantial questions. Szymon Hołownia remained calm to the end – as he showed during all the debates. To the end, the form held Joanna Senyszyn, who in her unique kind asked amazing questions.
Finally, we saw a strong exchange between Biejat and Zandberg. “It’s time for me to do my best alternatively of sitting on a bench”, Biejat said. “Magda, what are you talking about?” Zandberg reposted. Similarly, the Holovnia asked Zandberg what he specifically did, accusing him of deserting his decision making.
The full ended with free statements by candidates and candidates. And surprising, free speech from leading. “We don’t know if this was the best debate, but surely the longest” was summed up by Piotr Witwicki. The 3rd leading member, Radomir Wit, yet mentioned that he had left public media in 2016 "after political pressures and after influencing the content that was on the air at the time" and advertised TVN24.
The last of a series of presidential debates showed us 3 crucial things. Firstly, although we do not know how we complain about the boring and dreary format of the debate, millions will see it anyway. The full board-to-board debate was surely viewed by less people than it would later see by a fragment, best of, clippings prepared by staffs or various media. Secondly, the debate was an chance to meet candidates and candidates – even if they repeated their main message, it was an chance to see what was most crucial for the debaters – housing, ending with the privileges of the Church or looking at Putin. Third, we have seen, in a human way, who has the strength and enthusiasm to keep the attention for 4 hours, not to show fatigue. Not much, but politics – if you truly want to do something crucial about it – is just very hard work.
Elections are next Sunday. I encourage you to vote. Among so many candidates and candidates, you will surely find the individual who represents your views.
