Podcast #128: We chat with Kent C Dodds about why he loves React and discuss what life was like in the dark days before Git. Listen now.
    Tweeted twitter.com/StackPolitics/status/1048498133683122176
2 phrasing
source | link

I have been following Dutch politics for a while now, and what makes debates interesting is interruptions; When somebody doesn't agree with what a speaker is saying they can step up to the microphone and challenge what is being said, or ask questions to the speaker.

I have also been following US politics lately, and was watching a senate debate (as I've done a few times before). It suddenly struck me that there is nobody interrupting the speaker to ask questions or challenge what they are saying.

It seems that similar interruptions are not allowed in the US senate? I tried to find out whether that is true, but since the term "interruptions" is quite broad I've not had any success with google (I might be using the wrong term).

That leads me to my questions; Is there an alternative mechanism in the US senate that allows members to respond to/challenge each other? If so, what is it? Or otherwise, is there a specific reason why not?


I have also read some other questions on this site, including:

WhichBut that seems to be about rules against personal attacks, not factual criticism.

I have been following Dutch politics for a while now, and what makes debates interesting is interruptions; When somebody doesn't agree with what a speaker is saying they can step up to the microphone and challenge what is being said, or ask questions to the speaker.

I have also been following US politics lately, and was watching a senate debate (as I've done a few times before). It suddenly struck me that there is nobody interrupting the speaker to ask questions or challenge what they are saying.

It seems that similar interruptions are not allowed in the US senate? I tried to find out whether that is true, but since the term "interruptions" is quite broad I've not had any success with google (I might be using the wrong term).

That leads me to my questions; Is there an alternative mechanism in the US senate that allows members to respond to/challenge each other? If so, what is it? Or otherwise, is there a specific reason why not?


I have also read some other questions on this site, including:

Which seems to be about rules against personal attacks, not factual criticism.

I have been following Dutch politics for a while now, and what makes debates interesting is interruptions; When somebody doesn't agree with what a speaker is saying they can step up to the microphone and challenge what is being said, or ask questions to the speaker.

I have also been following US politics lately, and was watching a senate debate (as I've done a few times before). It suddenly struck me that there is nobody interrupting the speaker to ask questions or challenge what they are saying.

It seems that similar interruptions are not allowed in the US senate? I tried to find out whether that is true, but since the term "interruptions" is quite broad I've not had any success with google (I might be using the wrong term).

That leads me to my questions; Is there an alternative mechanism in the US senate that allows members to respond to/challenge each other? If so, what is it? Or otherwise, is there a specific reason why not?


I have also read some other questions on this site, including:

But that seems to be about rules against personal attacks, not factual criticism.

1
source | link

What is the US senate mechanism for members to respond to/challenge each other during debate?

I have been following Dutch politics for a while now, and what makes debates interesting is interruptions; When somebody doesn't agree with what a speaker is saying they can step up to the microphone and challenge what is being said, or ask questions to the speaker.

I have also been following US politics lately, and was watching a senate debate (as I've done a few times before). It suddenly struck me that there is nobody interrupting the speaker to ask questions or challenge what they are saying.

It seems that similar interruptions are not allowed in the US senate? I tried to find out whether that is true, but since the term "interruptions" is quite broad I've not had any success with google (I might be using the wrong term).

That leads me to my questions; Is there an alternative mechanism in the US senate that allows members to respond to/challenge each other? If so, what is it? Or otherwise, is there a specific reason why not?


I have also read some other questions on this site, including:

Which seems to be about rules against personal attacks, not factual criticism.