RNC Withdraws From Commission on Presidential Debates

[Edge-]

Amazingly, the commission was bad

Literally only according to Republicans. Almost like it wasn't working in their own favor so they took their toys and went home like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.

Again, the hallmark of a functional political party that's totally not turning into a cult of personality with an overt authoritarian bend with things like book bans and literal book burning.

And blue states run by Democrats also have similar restrictions on mail-in early voting. It would depend on which Republicans you ask. You'll find it difficult to track if you're trying to apply a wide brush to every Republican around, since there's tens of millions of registered Republicans in the country.

Nobody is forced to vote early, and they can wait until after debates begin or until election day if they want. This is a bad-faith argument that you're carrying water for. And that the argument is bad faith, and that you're carrying water for it, are not surprising.

having your debates run by septuagenarians, is not

Reminder that the head of the Republican party is a septuagenarian who literally doesn't even know how to use a computer.

Not sure how you're standing on those amputated legs, because you don't have a leg to stand on here.

- - - Updated - - -

Leave fact checks, or opinion journalism, to publications after the fact.

Of course you would rather Republicans be allowed to brazenly lie, unchecked, in a national debate. Liars who lie together, stay together. Or something. I don't know how that phrase goes, I'm bad at "folksy sayings". Like they say, fool me once shame on me. Fool me twice...well...heh, you won't full me a second time.

[D Luniz]

Literally only according to Republicans. Almost like it wasn't working in their own favor so they took their toys and went home like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.

Again, the hallmark of a functional political party that's totally not turning into a cult of personality with an overt authoritarian bend with things like book bans and literal book burning.



Nobody is forced to vote early, and they can wait until after debates begin or until election day if they want. This is a bad-faith argument that you're carrying water for. And that the argument is bad faith, and that you're carrying water for it, are not surprising.



Reminder that the head of the Republican party is a septuagenarian who literally doesn't even know how to use a computer.

Not sure how you're standing on those amputated legs, because you don't have a leg to stand on here.

- - - Updated - - -



Of course you would rather Republicans be allowed to brazenly lie, unchecked, in a national debate. Liars who lie together, stay together. Or something. I don't know how that phrase goes, I'm bad at "folksy sayings". Like they say, fool me once shame on me. Fool me twice...well...heh, you won't full me a second time.

"Fool me once shame on me. Fool me twice...well...heh, we wont get fooled again" -G.W. Bush, stealing from The Who

[uuuhname]

"please, stop treating the party that has constantly backed racist polices and politicians like the wonton racists they are. you can't keep track of all those opinions! polls don't exist! POLLS AREN'T REAL! THEY CAN'T HURT YOU!"

go ahead and apply this to pretty much every political topic under the sun.

ignore our stated opinions and actions in favor of playing my game where we pretend I'm not the exact same ghoulish voter 99.9999~% of republicans are.

[Breccia]

Leave fact checks, or opinion journalism, to publications after the fact.

That sounds like someone who wants to continue to see Trump objectively continue lying during the debates. By the way, how old is he, again?

EDIT: Whoops sorry, missed this part.

I won't waste the time or the space on concerns that I don't expect to be shared by any others.

That sounds like someone who can't defend their position. By the way, how old is Trump again?

[akris15]

Want to know why the RNC voted to leave?

Y'all can go 10+ pages with bad faith actors but here is the simple reason:

The First debate not hosted by Fox News will ask this question first

Did Joe Biden win the 2020 election?

The second the nominee says "no" the election is over. The nominee has to say "no" because that is what they programmed Republicans to believe. With that answer you give the Democrats a messaging boost and the second Democrats control the message of "how can you elect someone who doesn't believe in elections" Republicans lose the suburbs and can't win the presidency.

[Breccia]

The second the nominee says "no" the election is over.

Indeed, while the alt right, conspiracy theorists, Trump's cultists and according to his own post @TehDawg don't want objective lies rebutted by the debate staff, I think that should be a big one. If, say, DeSantis refuses to answer, he should be asked again. If he says anything other than "yes" the moderator should say "well thanks for stopping by, the rest of the questions will be for Biden for two uninterrupted hours".

[D Luniz]

Werent all the lies being rebutted during the debates things Trump had claimed long before, so it wasn't "fact checks, or opinion journalism, to publications after the fact." it was them pointing out what been fact checked before.

[Edge-]

Werent all the lies being rebutted during the debates things Trump had claimed long before, so it wasn't "fact checks, or opinion journalism, to publications after the fact." it was them pointing out what been fact checked before.

Remember that time Trump talked about how big his dick was during the Republican debates?



But yes, most of the lies were repeatedly checked prior to the debates.

Not that it matters, Republicans seem to have a phobia/hatred of fact-checkers because they keep pointing out Republican lies and that makes Republicans big mad.

[Breccia]

Remember that time Trump talked about how big his dick was during the Republican debates?

Wow. Worst. Thumbnail. EVER.

[Breccia]

You said it’s sucked for ages and the only reason given is you think it’s run entirely by old people.

Indeed, and we've yet to hear back how old Trump, Pence, or McConnell is. Because, if people are too old to run a debate, then surely people are too old to run for office.

[Endus]

Moderators are there for keeping time and asking relevant questions on important issues to voters. Leave fact checks, or opinion journalism, to publications after the fact.

Absolutely fucking not.

If a candidate is lying on stage, to the public and the moderators, they deserve to have their microphones cut and to be censured by said moderators, immediately, in the moment. Debates are not ground to push baseless and willfully dishonest propaganda, and if your representatives can't participate honestly, they deserve to be condemned by any fair and just moderator, and failing to do so is an abrogation of a debate moderator's duties.

Sure is telling that your issue with debates centers around being upset that there might be pushback against willful disinformation by debate staff, rather than the debates being an open platform to spew whatever lies you want, uncontested and with minimal limits.

[tehdang]

Literally only according to Republicans. Almost like it wasn't working in their own favor so they took their toys and went home like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum.

Again, the hallmark of a functional political party that's totally not turning into a cult of personality with an overt authoritarian bend with things like book bans and literal book burning.

It sounds like we just won't agree on this point. I say the commission is old, decrepit, and needs to be replaced. You say Republicans are the only ones calling them out, therefore we can safely ignore them. This reductive logic is pretty telling.

Nobody is forced to vote early, and they can wait until after debates begin or until election day if they want. This is a bad-faith argument that you're carrying water for. And that the argument is bad faith, and that you're carrying water for it, are not surprising.

Calling an obvious point "bad-faith" is very on-brand for you. I say the first presidential debates should occur before the first presidential votes. At least let these voters have a chance to listen to the candidates in their own words prior to voting. Apparently, seeking such results is bad-faith.

Reminder that the head of the Republican party is a septuagenarian who literally doesn't even know how to use a computer.

Not sure how you're standing on those amputated legs, because you don't have a leg to stand on here.

The second time you dodge the point. "Hey, maybe you're against septuagenarians running presidential debates, but I think ... well ... I don't have an opinion! But, your party is composed of septuagenarians. Ha! Burn!"

Of course you would rather Republicans be allowed to brazenly lie, unchecked, in a national debate. Liars who lie together, stay together. Or something. I don't know how that phrase goes, I'm bad at "folksy sayings". Like they say, fool me once shame on me. Fool me twice...well...heh, you won't full me a second time.

Debates occur between participants. If the opponent debaters suck ass at calling out falsehoods, then nominate better. It seems you fundamentally disagree with debates in general.

- - - Updated - - -

You said it’s sucked for ages and the only reason given is you think it’s run entirely by old people. If you had another reason you didn’t identify it.

You quoted the post where I gave a second reason. Frankly, ignoring it is a reminder enough to not waste time providing more.

That sounds like someone who wants to continue to see Trump objectively continue lying during the debates. By the way, how old is he, again?

EDIT: Whoops sorry, missed this part.

Weird that debates should be between participants in the debate. If you think debates between candidates aren't enough, argue that, don't try to make debates++(TM).

That sounds like someone who can't defend their position. By the way, how old is Trump again?

Quote and respond to the rest of my post, if you want to take apart anything else I said. Ignore it, and I say you're just selectively ignoring by choice.

[Breccia]

You quoted the post where--

You seem to have left out the part where I asked you how old McConnell, Pence, and Trump were. Two or three times each. One more time, how old are they?

Because I think your failure to answer negates the only point you had (too old).

EDIT: Also, your point of "the debate should be between the participants" is noted, but it falls on skeptical ears. It sounds like someone complaining about a referee enforcing the rules. Maybe if your chosen candidates didn't lie so often, this wouldn't be a problem for you. And actually, it still shouldn't be.

[Endus]

Calling an obvious point "bad-faith" is very on-brand for you. I say the first presidential debates should occur before the first presidential votes. At least let these voters have a chance to listen to the candidates in their own words prior to voting. Apparently, seeking such results is bad-faith.

It's bad faith because voters have had months to listen to candidates and make their decisions. What you're pushing here is, fundamentally, a lie.

Debates occur between participants. If the opponent debaters suck ass at calling out falsehoods, then nominate better. It seems you fundamentally disagree with debates in general.

That's not how debates work.

Lying is a breach of ethical standards, and that puts it in the moderators' wheelhouse. Letting a lie stand and requiring it to be disproven by the opponent is not acceptable or ethical behaviour for a debate moderator. It's permissive to dishonest tactics, which is exactly what moderators exist to prevent.

Weird that debates should be between participants in the debate.

Nobody's arguing otherwise, making this a weird-ass straw man.

Moderators shutting down disinformation and falsehoods is not participation in the debate. Because said falsehoods and disinformation are not permitted in proper debates. There's nothing to debate, there; what was said is a lie, and stating that it was a lie is the entire process of defeating it in said debate. The whole summation of the "counterpoint" is just "that's a lie." Period, full stop, point entirely defeated. It's so obvious a step that moderators are typically the ones who step in, because lying demonstrates such a breach of ethics and demonstration of a lack of basic respect for the process and platform.

To compare to a soccer match, where the referees are moderators; imagine one player just hauls off and punches another player in the face, and proceeds to kick them repeatedly, causing serious injury. Your argument is that "the game should be between players in the game" and that the refs should just stand by and allow this to happen. That it's the victimized player's responsibility to fight back.

And that's obviously horse shit.

You sure are bending over backwards trying to argue that debates should be propaganda outlets where you get to spread disinformation without limit.

[D Luniz]

Debates occur between participants. If the opponent debaters suck ass at calling out falsehoods, then nominate better. It seems you fundamentally disagree with debates in general.

see how many pages in these threads get made cause of pushing back on BS liars?
and you want to force that into a debate where one person just tries to burn the other's time by making them choose between refuting said bullshit, or letting it stand (and then having those "alternative facts" rule the news cycle afterwards), or still lose time they would have originally used to explaine their own policies

[tehdang]

@tehdang you do realize that the GOP is the party that relies on old people right? I get it's the only thing you find fault with when it comes to the debates, but c'mon. Do you have any criticism not based on age AND based in reality.

Frankly, the response is to claim that age doesn't matter to debates in the modern era. I'm happy to stand with anyone that thinks any replacement or reform would have to try hard to be worse than what preceded it. Trolls that "haha but Republican demographics favor old people" are whataboutisming pretty darn hard.

- - - Updated - - -

You seem to have left out the part where I asked you how old McConnell, Pence, and Trump were. Two or three times each. One more time, how old are they?

Because I think your failure to answer negates the only point you had (too old).

EDIT: Also, your point of "the debate should be between the participants" is noted, but it falls on skeptical ears. It sounds like someone complaining about a referee enforcing the rules. Maybe if your chosen candidates didn't lie so often, this wouldn't be a problem for you. And actually, it still shouldn't be.

Breccia: If you had another reason ... [quotes from a post that gives other reasons, but doesn't quote that part]
You'll get back to me on that one. It's fair play if you have further demands to acknowledge and respond to previous posts.

- - - Updated - - -

see how many pages in these threads get made cause of pushing back on BS liars?
and you want to force that into a debate where one person just tries to burn the other's time by making them choose between refuting said bullshit, or letting it stand (and then having those "alternative facts" rule the news cycle afterwards), or still lose time they would have originally used to explaine their own policies

The interesting part here being, who gets to determine what's bullshit and burning up other people's time? I get very few people in this very forum actually allowing me the sincerity of my political beliefs, why I hold them, and why I think they're best for the country in the long term. I want these political theorists to be furthest from the power to handicap debates for their own misguided views, because they can't even engage honest debaters in an internet forum, much less improve debate rules by ... making them less like debates.

(And an awful lot of this reduces to claiming the American people are too dumb to evaluate the BS, see through the lies, and need a crutch to help them appreciate the debate. I heartily disagree with that claim)

[Breccia]

Breccia: If you had--

That doesn't look like McConnell's, Pence's, and/or Trump's ages at all. Like, there's not even a wrong answer in there.

So I will take your refusal to answer as admission of hypocrisy. You said the Commission was too old to run debates, it was pointed out all your candidates were just as old, you choked and tried to make it about me. It isn't. It's about you not having a point.

And don't bring up "fair play". Hypocrites don't get to say "fair play". Hypocrites get their hypocrisy pointed out.

Oh, and everyone else handed the rest for me -- the part where you suggested that your lying, too-old-to-run candidates were all mad bro about their lies being called out, and therefore the debates weren't fair? Yeah, you don't have a point, because that one was a complete non-starter.

[Edge-]

It sounds like we just won't agree on this point. I say the commission is old, decrepit, and needs to be replaced. You say Republicans are the only ones calling them out, therefore we can safely ignore them. This reductive logic is pretty telling.

So far your only problem with it is that they're "old", which isn't an actual problem. You don't highlight specific problems, nor how putting younger people in those positions would magically fix the problems.

Calling an obvious point "bad-faith" is very on-brand for you.

No, it's bad faith. Just like this comment.

I say the first presidential debates should occur before the first presidential votes. At least let these voters have a chance to listen to the candidates in their own words prior to voting. Apparently, seeking such results is bad-faith.

They literally can. Nobody is forced to vote before listening to the first debate.

Should the debates be earlier? Sure, that's a discussion to be had. But this is rank dishonesty from you. Like, straight up a lie.

The second time you dodge the point. "Hey, maybe you're against septuagenarians running presidential debates, but I think ... well ... I don't have an opinion! But, your party is composed of septuagenarians. Ha! Burn!"

No, it's just highlighting your own inconsistency.

Debates occur between participants.

Oh, there aren't moderators? I thought there were debate moderators in play here. You know, neutral parties there to ask the questions, guide the debate flow in allowing for multiple exchanges, enforce the rules that both parties agreed to in the debate to ensure fairness, and if they so choose to disallow blatant lies to be told on the debate stage without being checked that's 100% up to them.

If one political party has a problem with this - and only one political party does have a problem with this - that say more about that political parties relationship with the truth, and their reliance on its absence.

If the opponent debaters suck ass at calling out falsehoods, then nominate better.

Oh, because literally debates devolving into candidates accusing the other of lying, with nobody from the "other" side believing the opposing candidate and instead believing "their guy" would be productive?

You do realize how inherently hilariously pointless your proposal would make debates.

Moderators perform that role because they're a neutral party in the debate. The participants aren't neutral.

It seems you fundamentally disagree with debates in general.

It honestly seems like you don't understand the concept of a debate.

[Breccia]

Frankly, the response is to claim that age doesn't matter to debates in the modern era.

*ahem*

Why keep a bunch of septuagenarians and octogenarians running the debates?

You don't get to make that response.

Claiming someone is too old to host the debates, but not to old to run for the office that debate is about, is hypocrisy. Or, just lying.

[Endus]

The interesting part here being, who gets to determine what's bullshit and burning up other people's time?

Outside of the Republican disinfo bubble, the capacity to tell truth from lie is really not the arcane and subjective process you'd like to pretend it is.

Objective reality exists, much to your dismay.

I get very few people in this very forum actually allowing me the sincerity of my political beliefs, why I hold them, and why I think they're best for the country in the long term.

Largely because you engage in cagey whataboutism without ever really clearly stating your beliefs in such a way that they can be discussed.

Also; sincerity means jack squat. Nobody cares how "sincere" a Klan member (to pick an example) believes in their bigotry. It doesn't mean their political views aren't completely irrational, harmful, cruelty-based horseshit.

I want these political theorists to be furthest from the power to handicap debates for their own misguided views, because they can't even engage honest debaters in an internet forum, much less improve debate rules by ... making them less like debates.

Again, you're literally arguing that moderators shouldn't be able to exclude disinformation and falsehoods.

You are not making an argument regarding honest debate. Other than your own personal hostility to the concept.

(And an awful lot of this reduces to claiming the American people are too dumb to evaluate the BS, see through the lies, and need a crutch to help them appreciate the debate. I heartily disagree with that claim)

Attacking straw men you built for yourself might feel like an argument, but it isn't one.

It isn't about whether the audience is stupid. It has to do with the lack of basic respect and ethics by certain participants in the debate, who are abusing the platform. You keep trying to deflect to completely different arguments, because you know you can't make your case on the actual facts.