RNC Withdraws From Commission on Presidential Debates

[tehdang]

You...you do know what thread you're posting in, right? Did you read the OP? I don't think you read the OP. A single party is making a push for exactly that. How did you miss that? Please post constructively.

You are once again mistaking criticism leveled at a commission, with some fictional person that believes elderly GOP voters should come together to draft the new rules for debate. If you find that person, great, I'll leave him or her to square the two things.

[Breccia]

You are once again mistaking--

Nope, your comments on the first page were quite clear indeed. The problem is that you refused to also point out the same about the RNC, who made the demands, and hid instead behind "all lives matter, very fine people on both sides".

[tehdang]

Nope--

You, a Democrat, are defending an old and decrepit organization by saying GOP voters are old. I'm saying you're going to have to identify criticism of a commission as not enforcing a new commission composed of older, Republican voters.

I have to state this explicitly, because you're not getting it. The Democrats would also have to sign onto any new format or else their candidate wouldn't show up to the debate. I think you're being purposefully obtuse in pursuit of wanting to call me a hypocrit. I'm happy to respond to other questioners that can distinguish between criticism of the commission, and hypothetical proposals of a new commission, organization, or czar that would replace it. I'm happy to resume if you stop being so obtuse about understanding the basics.

[uuuhname]

pretty god damn hilarious to see all this hand wringing and fake concern over moderation when that has at no point ever deterred the fat spay tanned turd from running his mouth nonstop from start to finish.

[Edge-]

I'm happy to resume if you stop being so obtuse about understanding the basics.

Let's nail down the role of moderators in a debate first, shall we? Baby steps, like understanding how debates work and that it's not intended to be an unchecked shouting match between candidates.

[tehdang]

No, your framing of this continues to be an outright lie. Nobody is forced to vote before the first debates. Literally ever voter can wait until the first debate, or all debates, are complete before casting their vote.

This. Is. A. Lie.

Stop lying.

I won't bother with the rest until we can at least get to the core of this brazen, blatant dishonesty from your part.

I think any first debate should precede the opening of voting, to give prospective voters that want to get it done early the benefit of seeing the two(+) candidates head to head. In the case that they choose not to watch it anyways, and are too convinced to change it regardless, then no harm done. Literally, no harm done. They had a choice to watch and chose not to. I am very sorry that you disagree, but disagreement should not be confused with lying. Whether blatant dishonesty, as you would have it, or intellectual cowardice, as I'd say on you, it's fine to let it end.

[Breccia]

You, a Democrat, are defending an old and decrepit organization by saying GOP voters are old.

Well first of all, I'm not defending the system. You posted something hypocritical, and I went after that. I have said the debates should continue, even if only one side turns up, but that's mostly with regard to the RNC realizing it can't win a fair fight and either changing the rules so they win -- which you're defending -- or quitting and going home.

Also I never once mentioned GOP voters age. I asked you about McConnell, Trump, and Pence. Four times. You never answered, by the way.

And don't think this change to attacking me will make your previous posts on the topic magically disappear. By the posts you've made, you are either defending the RNC's hypocrisy by having people too old to run for office in their lead roles while demanding changes be made; or, you're being a hypocrite yourself by saying you can be too old to host a debate but still young enough to hold the office that debate's for. Neither are good answers, but you personally have ruled out all other options.

You can't turn this table on me. You put out a circular table. Turning it won't matter.

[Edge-]

I think any first debate should precede the opening of voting, to give prospective voters that want to get it done early the benefit of seeing the two(+) candidates head to head.

Wanting debates to be earlier is a fine position to take. But you've repeatedly and disingenuously implied that people are somehow "forced" to vote before the first debate, which is patently false.

I am very sorry that you disagree

Stop lying. I don't disagree on this point and I've said so earlier. I disagree on your dishonest framing of the point, because it continues to be an obvious and pernicious lie.

[Endus]

It sounds like you missed the part where I said the commission should be scrapped and replaced (the members of which are too old and detached from the modern debate, and explaining their bad choices on rules, venues, moderators, formats, topics, etc)

You really haven't made any arguments regarding any of those factors, other than nonsense ideas like "moderators should just be present and not enforce standard debate rules protecting basic honesty and ethical conduct by participants". Which aren't arguments, they're attempts to corrupt the debate proceedings.

and politicians should be term limited to stop these careers of 36 years in the Senate and the ridiculous spectacle of ancient senators trying to quiz Facebook, Google, and Twitter CEOs and failing to understand rudimentary aspects of each platform. You've heard two of my proposals for two problems, but you are very stuck demanding both to have the same solution. This is a very pathetic way to level the charge of hypocrisy.

Is the issue age? Or technical illiteracy and ignorance? Because the latter isn't a factor of age. And you're gonna have to defend the likes of Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor Greene, who are both stupid and ignorant, but you're giving them a pass on that because they're younger.

[Breccia]

"protecting basic honesty"

It's going to be very difficult to "protect basic honesty" when you're fighting against fact checking.

[Endus]

I think any first debate should precede the opening of voting, to give prospective voters that want to get it done early the benefit of seeing the two(+) candidates head to head.

This is irrelevant, and a distraction. Any voters voting before the first debates are, by virtue of their choice to vote at that time, not interested in the debates (which aren't really great ways to understand a candidate's policy platform in the first place) or their outcomes. You don't have a valid criticism, here, because you're predicating this entirely on obviously false premises.

In the case that they choose not to watch it anyways, and are too convinced to change it regardless, then no harm done. Literally, no harm done. They had a choice to watch and chose not to.

See, the problem with this argument is that you dishonestly presume the only source of information about the candidates is the debates.

Plenty of people can come to fully-informed decisions by actually engaging in a couple hours or so of actual research, rather than mindlessly waiting for a prime-time distillation marred by a lot of useless shouting to just casually wander into their TV feed.

I am very sorry that you disagree, but disagreement should not be confused with lying. Whether blatant dishonesty, as you would have it, or intellectual cowardice, as I'd say on you, it's fine to let it end.

Nobody's accusing you of lying because they disagree with you. They're accusing you of lying because you are lying.

This isn't a matter of difference of opinion. You're pushing false statements and arguments predicated upon the same. That's lying.

[Fugus]

Saw a youtube video about this earlier, the guy gave a good suggestion on how they should react. If the Republicans want to take their balls and go home, let them.

The Democrats should keep the debates going and instead just invite the Libertarians to them instead. If they are on the fence with the Democrat, they will likely go that way. If they were a fan of the Republican policies in general, they will likely go to the libertarians which will be votes that aren't going to the republicans since we don't have ranked choice voting.

This could be a clear win on the Democrats if they actually just do their jobs this time. He described it something along the lines of this could be a win for the Democrats if they can just stop themselves from giving the Republicans first aid for once.

[Edge-]

Saw a youtube video about this earlier, the guy gave a good suggestion on how they should react. If the Republicans want to take their balls and go home, let them.

The Democrats should keep the debates going and instead just invite the Libertarians to them instead. If they are on the fence with the Democrat, they will likely go that way. If they were a fan of the Republican policies in general, they will likely go to the libertarians which will be votes that aren't going to the republicans since we don't have ranked choice voting.

This could be a clear win on the Democrats if they actually just do their jobs this time. He described it something along the lines of this could be a win for the Democrats if they can just stop themselves from giving the Republicans first aid for once.

I mean, it's a simple fix if Republicans don't show up: Just make every "debate" a town hall format with a mixture of audience and moderator questions. The Democratic nominee just gets multiple events to themselves while Republicans can try to organize their own events. And leave an empty chair for the Republican nominee at every town hall as a reminder that Republicans were invited to this, they just chose to take their toys and go home.

[Fugus]

I mean, it's a simple fix if Republicans don't show up: Just make every "debate" a town hall format with a mixture of audience and moderator questions. The Democratic nominee just gets multiple events to themselves while Republicans can try to organize their own events. And leave an empty chair for the Republican nominee at every town hall as a reminder that Republicans were invited to this, they just chose to take their toys and go home.

The issue with that is they get more boring to the average person and even less people will watch it because its less a "Sporting Event" and more a lecture so the overall turnout is lower and there really isn't an alternative.

But having the Democrats actually up there debating the issues with a Libertarian on the other hand, that actually makes it more about the back and forth again and unlike the Republicans, the Libertarian actually have policies still. Sure they are screwed up policies that ignore reality but they are still policies that resonate well with the fantasies of the Republican voters.

So, the Democrats get their time and to talk about their policies while the Libertarian's get to do the same and will potentially pull Republican voters to them at the ballot box and since we don't have ranked choice, that leads to less people blindly voting the R.

[Edge-]

The issue with that is they get more boring to the average person and even less people will watch it because its less a "Sporting Event" and more a lecture so the overall turnout is lower and there really isn't an alternative.

Then they don't have to watch. The debates aren't intended to be entertaining, they're intended to be informative. If folks want to watch it as a sporting event, I don't give a shit if they lose interest because they won't get a sporting event.

But having the Democrats actually up there debating the issues with a Libertarian on the other hand, that actually makes it more about the back and forth again and unlike the Republicans, the Libertarian actually have policies still. Sure they are screwed up policies that ignore reality but they are still policies that resonate well with the fantasies of the Republican voters.

So, the Democrats get their time and to talk about their policies while the Libertarian's get to do the same and will potentially pull Republican voters to them at the ballot box and since we don't have ranked choice, that leads to less people blindly voting the R.

This is too transparently partisan. If they did something like this they'd need to bring more 3rd party candidates on, and then we're getting into the weeds with determining threshholds for entry and questions on how much this actually serves the public interest to get some libertarian up there talking about how drivers licenses are a massive government overreach and how we need to eliminate all regulations because companies are better if they self regulate.

[Glorious Leader]

So, the Democrats get their time and to talk about their policies while the Libertarian's get to do the same and will potentially pull Republican voters to them at the ballot box and since we don't have ranked choice, that leads to less people blindly voting the R.

This sort of internecene bullshit doesn't actually happen to be honest. Trump could fuck Rand Paul's wife and they'd still back him. Or any one who becomes THE candidate.

[Fugus]

@Edge-

We know the overall purpose of the debates aren't to entertain, but that aspect can and does get more people to view it. And unfortunately those people who prefer the sporting events votes count just as much as mine or yours. So getting them to watch and not just change the channel is a good thing if the candidates are actually being honest. There is a reason why among the highest viewed debates for us was Trump's and Reagan's.

As far as being transparently partisan, you mean like refusing to go on debates at all because of fact checking? Quite literally, you can bring up how the Republicans backed out because of fact checkers and say that the choices at that point was to either turn it into a town hall or get one another candidate who was running to debate against and actually allow the public and the fact checkers to see.

As far as the public interest, it has policies put forward on the public stage and we already have a major party who would back many of their proposals, they just abdicated their roll in the debate.
@Glorious Leader

For the vast majority, you are correct, Trump could rape their own kids and just claim it was a lie and they would act like they were shocked or didn't know whom to believe. But for a portion of their voters, they could shift to the other party if it keeps telling them what they want to hear.

Would be funny if they did it and it worked spectacularly only to see the GOP pivot into ranked choice voting hoping to keep the poaching down.

[xChurch]

Ironic how this thread became a perfect example of why the RNC bailing on debates is probably a net gain. 5 pages in and nothing of major substance has been said due to bad faith right-wing arguments. Though the best has to be that apparently age matters for running debates but not for running for office, now that was good for a laugh.

[Endus]

Ironic how this thread became a perfect example of why the RNC bailing on debates is probably a net gain. 5 pages in and nothing of major substance has been said due to bad faith right-wing arguments. Though the best has to be that apparently age matters for running debates but not for running for office, now that was good for a laugh.

To be fair, the general trend goes as such;

"The status quo is unfair and unethical to Republicans and their platform!"
"Really? What specific issues do you feel are unfair?"
"The rules! They're all written to work against Republican policies, ideals, and platform points!"
"What specific policies, ideals, or platform issues?"
"I can't say, or the rules on hate speech and trolling will get me banned!"
"Well, doesn't that just say everything."

At some point, they get asked to be very specific about direct, rather than using shady generics, and they always run away at that point, because they know if they expose that they think the rules are "unfair" to white supremacist, fascist sadism for sadism's sake, nobody else will find that a convincing argument. That's why they won't get specific, and hope that everyone else's (not just "the left's") sense of fair play and equity can be abused to give their objectively monstrous and evil views a safe harbour, so that they can "properly" victimize innocents.

[postman1782]

Ironic how this thread became a perfect example of why the RNC bailing on debates is probably a net gain. 5 pages in and nothing of major substance has been said due to bad faith right-wing arguments. Though the best has to be that apparently age matters for running debates but not for running for office, now that was good for a laugh.

No, it isn't a net gain. It just shows how much of a fucking pussy they really are. They are going to be asked 1 question right away at all debates. Did Biden win the election, if they lie and say Trump won, they lose independents. If they tell the truth and say Trump lost, they lose their base.

Either way, they prove everyone right on how big of fucking snowflakes they are and how they deserve to be fucking ridiculed.