The RNC has announced that it is pulling out of the presidential debates.
RIP Presidential Debates: 1960 -- 2020:
A friend sent this email to me in response to the news:
Most Republicans also fear the light of truth that anything approximating an intellectually responsible debate might expose. Why? Because they must advance their own political-economic interests and those of their mega-donors, all the while retaining the loyalty of their readily manipulated populist base.
They employ emotive, mendacious and distractive modes of manipulation to attain their actual policy objectives—objectives many of which are so unpopular that they dare not state them publicly. The Rick Scott plan—raise-taxes-on-the-poor, eliminate Social Security, etc.—is replete with wildly unpopular proposals.
Republican candidates benefit from the loyalty of many base voters who are incapable of recognizing gross oversimplification, cherry-picking and whataboutism for the fallacies that they are.
GOP pols are “conservatives” who do not conserve. If they had their druthers, they would destroy, rather than improve, virtually every program and policy that benefits the general public or which curbs the power of their mega-donors."
What do you think?
13 comments:
What do you think?
I think the above statement is true. Because it is. Unfortunately.
The result is the country suffers and will continue to suffer greatly because of it.
Ms. Shaw,
How can you blame the GOP for wanting some say about debates, which are a joke for both sides but defiantly controlled by the left leaning MSM. Look at little george or big candy to see the biased approach. These have not turned to debates but here is what I want to focus on. The last debate was a joke because the idiot on stage had a childish meltdown and the other one was lost.
If you go back to the JFK/Nixon debates which were good because both candidates expressed views with little input from the moderator. Fast forward to Romney/Obama where the moderator was very much part of the debate correcting Romney, incorrectly, that something he said was not true when it was.
I don't know how to make a debate fair for all but they certainly are not under the current system. Maybe have a non-personality who is also non-biased, if that person exists. Maybe someone like you or Dube who see both sides of a situation.
The side who loses at debates always ALWAYS cries about it being 'unfair.' Truth is, the debates are a marvel of fairness and if the participants would merely answer the questions and stop trying to tap dance around whatever they're trying not to say, there would be no issue. Most moderators let them get away with it, too. It's the good ones who hold the candidates feet to the fire until they give an actual reply that the losing side always whines about, as you can see clearly from little Skidmark and his magic bag of whines, complaints and whataboutisms. Same meal three times a day. yuck.
You mean people believe the Republicans when they claim Biden is nuts?
It seems the Trump fever has broken. He will probably be a player in 2024, but he will not get near 70 million votes and lose again. Yes, we will have to hear him scream about a rigged election, but few will listen to Chicken Little.
tRump couldn't win a debate with a 9th grader even if he had the questions a week beforehand. It may be fair to say there may only be a small handful of republicans who could win a debate. Thus the whining party's position on debates.
The GOP's motto should be... Keep the populace uninformed and heavily subjected to propaganda that is heavily saturated with a focus on everything that is in the best interests of the very wealth and corporations.
Of course the truth about the GOP is something that obviously makes absolutely no difference to the dunderheads who idolize tRump and a pro authoritarian party. They're just not smart enough to recognize a con when one is present and operative. And within the GOP that is ALL the time.
skud's cup pf tea.
Maybe a no stalking rule would help restore some civility to debates? There's no "both sides" about that.
As I recall one of the two presidential debates in 2020 was moderated by FOX(R)'s Chris Wallace.
Working the refs is SOP on the Right. They attack journalism and journalists as a matter of ideology, inventing "alternative facts" to dupe the public.
There is no question they are enemies of democracy, and are working to eliminate fair elections and fair representation for democratic voters.
Want to know the real reason Republican cowards are fleeing from debates?
They don't want to answer questions like, "Who won the 2020 presidential election?"
The don't want to be reminded of their 1/6 coup, or face questions about their support for overturning the election, or defending their other Big Lie, that it was "legitimate political discourse".
These traitorous lying fascists must be defeated, or the American experiment as a constitutional democratic republic is dead.
Who said biden is nuts, incompetent yes but not nuts. I agree if trump runs in 2024 I doubt he will get the nomination which means he will run as an independent just to screw the GOP. That is the only way the democrats stand a chance of winning. The dems are smart enough to get rid of joey now they just have to pick another candidate. Based on the 2016 and 2020 selection they didn't make rational choices but neither did the GOP.
Dave asked... "Want to know the real reason Republican cowards are fleeing from debates?
They don't want to answer questions like, "Who won the 2020 presidential election?"
The don't want to be reminded of their 1/6 coup, or face questions about their support for overturning the election, or defending their other Big Lie, that it was "legitimate political discourse".
And those are the questions every single debate moderator across the land should ask every person running for partisan office... Because America has a right to know which candidates lie with no proof, believe violence is a legitimate way to exercise free speech, believe it is okay to assault police officers, think threatening members of Congress is a tourist visit and which ones believe over 60 judges, and 50 secs of states are in on the "deep state" plot.
tRump screwing the GOP by running as an independent, thus undoubtedly denying the republiscum party the presidency, would be a VERY GOOD THING skud!
Sadly, echoing again Dave Dubya"s point, I wish he wan't right.
I wish we could have a debate where real questions evoked real answers. Skud mentioned the Nixon/Kennedy debates. Real stuff was discussed then, but it only mattered if you listened to the radio. Ppl who watched it on television heard something different, deciding the winner essentially on who "looked" more presidential, rather than policy.
In regards to policy, when was the last time anything of substance came out of these debates?
Even if moderators ask pointed questions, the answers they get are canned, mostly cribbed from speeches and zinger writers. Add in stalking, package size references, candidates turning off hearing aids and what do we have?
Tightly managed performances and answers to negotiated questions in formats that campaign managers demand so their candidate has the best chance of looking good. On television.
So maybe it is time to reform them.
Let's put the two or three candidates together in a room with a moderator or two and no audiences. For a series of sit down down policy discussions. Ask the tough questions...
1. What is your plan, and the plan of your party to bring down the deficit? Or do deficits matter? What specific programs should be cut, or eliminated? Should the government pass and approve unfunded mandates, leaving the states to find the money?
2. How do you view America's role in the world as it regards defending democracy?
3. Are there unenumerated rights that flow from the Constitution, but are not specifically listed? If yes, can you give some examples? If no, are the Griswold, Loving, Roe and Obergefell decisions unconstitional?
4. What do you think government in the US can do to end gun violence and mass shootings in our country? If yes, how will you make that happen?
5. Would you and your administration push Congress and your parties for a return to "regular order" as a way to break the log jam of intransigence on Capitol Hill? If not, what solutions will you propose to push Congress to better work together?
6. Are there some policies and ideas from the other party that you could support?
7. What should American do, specifically, about the over 10 million undocumented immigrants here in the US? And... what can we do to make sure future generations of Americans are not dealing with this same issue year after year? What compromises are you willing to make to the other party to get a bipartisan deal, that is good for America, passed in Congress.
Questions like that. No gotchas, no raise your hand, just questions. Asking for specific answers, not canned boiler plate stuff. You get the idea.
While I admit I live in fantasy land, I can dream can't I?
Dave All good questions.
First thing I'd do to reform the debates: No live audience.
Have the two "debaters" sit a a desk and answer the questions, giving them a limited number of minutes to answer each question, and have the mic shut off if the candidate ignores the limit.
No interruptions by either candidate when the questions put to them are being answered. Shut off the mic if a candidate persists in interrupting the speaker whose turn it is to answer.
It's obvious that previous candidates don't know how to behave (Trump in particular was egregious in the first debate against Biden, and that behavior should never ever be tolerated again!).
I believe the debates are essential in trying to see what the candidates stand for and how they would deal with the pressing problems confronting the nation.
I agree, Shaw, NO LIVE AUDIENCE! This is not a popularity contest. We all know someone who thrives on applause and giving "zingers" to the other person. I'll go one step further than you for when a candidate is answering questions. Automatically shut off the mic of the non answering candidate until it is their turn to speak.
To further expand what Dave Miller stated about "Congress and your parties for a return to "regular order", I'd specifically ask their opinion on the time honored tradition of compromise. That is the ONLY way things can get passed and for ALL Republicans and some Democrats, compromise has become a dirty word.
Ignorance and greed gets in the way of good ole common sense. Folks are just too invested in what they think they know to take the time and expend the energy to learn what they actually don't know.
Post a Comment