RNC Withdraws From Commission on Presidential Debates

[PC2]

Stack on stacks of bad takes here. Phew.

Like not even a modicum of understanding of the topic being discussed. So either ignorant or malicious and you guys know my vote.

Well just say why my points are wrong and then say why your point on an issue is the correct one. Otherwise there is nothing to debate or discuss.

[Breccia]

Those magical refs who are neutral third parties but also not third-party at all.

You'd think there'd be some kind of Commission for those.

[Endus]

Well just say why my points are wrong and then say why your point on an issue is the correct one. Otherwise there is nothing to debate or discuss.

I mean, you basically never respond to people who do exactly that. You just skip right past such posts and pretend they don't exist.

As an example, the post of mine a few above UnfilteredJW's, responding to the same post, and going into a lot of specific detail. You can't respond to that in any sensible manner, so you just . . . ignore it.

[TexasRules]

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.

Notice all the people talking about fact checkers and SCIENCE are promoting a party that WILL NOT define what a woman is, and also advocates for men competing against women in sports.....because, you know, science. In the supreme court thread they said Republicans were stupid for bringing this up and that it doesn't matter. Except in the near future the supreme court will decide whether a man can say he is a woman for purposes of competing against women in sports.

[Endus]

Notice all the people talking about fact checkers and SCIENCE are promoting a party that WILL NOT define what a woman is

Hey, look, transphobic bullshittery presented as if it's an argument.

You're just expressing outright bigotry. That's your whole point.

and also advocates for men competing against women in sports.....because, you know, science.

1> Plenty of non-gender-segregated sports leagues out there, buddy.
2> If you're talking about transgender women competing as women, then you're A> being openly bigoted and transphobic, and B> have no understanding of the relevant facts, and are just trying to hurt innocent people because you hate them without any basis for that cruelty.

In the supreme court thread they said Republicans were stupid for bringing this up and that it doesn't matter.

They weren't stupid. They were outspokenly bigoted.

Not quite the same thing. Bigotry isn't an intellectual failing. It's a moral failing.

Except in the near future the supreme court will decide whether a man can say he is a woman for purposes of competing against women in sports.

No, it will determine if it should punish some women for bigoted reasons that have no basis in anything but blind sadism and cruelty.

That's the sum total of the entire argument against trans women competing as women. Sadism and cruelty, in the goal of hurting people you think you should be allowed to hurt, for no reason that could ever be honestly described rationally in any way whatsoever. It's the same motive as a sociopathic kid stepping on an injured kitten because they want to see its head go squish. It's that level of blind sadism.

[Kaleredar]

Notice all the people talking about fact checkers and SCIENCE are promoting a party that WILL NOT define what a woman is, and also advocates for men competing against women in sports.....because, you know, science. In the supreme court thread they said Republicans were stupid for bringing this up and that it doesn't matter. Except in the near future the supreme court will decide whether a man can say he is a woman for purposes of competing against women in sports.

You know, in a world where Donald Trump cheers on a hostile foreign former superpower invading its neighbor, people are still beaten to death by police officers for the color of their skin, and income inequality is only increasing... Complaining that someone gets to play in a sport for funzies because you don't think they were born with the right type of genitals is really, really, really unimportant.

I would hope that any moderator would know such a question is so unbelievably moronic and pointless as pertains to a presidential candidate that they would know that it doesn't even remotely bear asking.

Also, you don't get to "cite" science here as being something that backs up the assertions of conservatives. Climate science. Evolution. Vaccine science. Environmental science. These are hard sciences backed by decades, and even centuries, of research that conservatives still actively crusade against. So don't you even pretend that science is "on your side." Anti-intellectual is synonymous with "conservative" for a reason.

[Breccia]

Notice all the people talking about fact checkers and SCIENCE are promoting a party that WILL NOT define what a woman is, and also advocates for men competing against women in sports

1) We've all seen the Republicans who, when asked the same question, bailed. So you're talking about your own party. Or, you skipped that part of the forums and posted anyhow, either way, that's bad-faith posting.
2) I love how the Party of Trump is putting all their chips on the "can't define woman" as if there aren't other problems. That Trump caused.
3) She got confirmed. Get over it.

[Masark]

3) She got confirmed. Get over it.

They won't. They'll start stochasticly going on about "second amendment solutions" until someone with more lead than neurons tries shit.

[Edge-]

Notice all the people talking about fact checkers and SCIENCE are promoting a party that WILL NOT define what a woman is

Flag on the play, completely irrelevant point brought up that has nothing to do with anything and seems to be because conservatives can't let go of the fact that Jackson is a SCOTUS Justice.

In the supreme court thread they said Republicans were stupid for bringing this up and that it doesn't matter.

They were right. It was a pointless "gotcha" question that had no validity or bearing on Jackson's role as a Justice. Had Blackburn been serious, she would have presented a legal case in which this was at issue for Jackson to weigh in on.

But that wasn't the point, and you know that too.

Except in the near future the supreme court will decide whether a man can say he is a woman for purposes of competing against women in sports.

Man, the naked transphobia of conservatives who largely have never met a trans person in their lifetimes is hilarious.

[beanman12345]

Notice all the people talking about fact checkers and SCIENCE are promoting a party that WILL NOT define what a woman is, and also advocates for men competing against women in sports.....because, you know, science. In the supreme court thread they said Republicans were stupid for bringing this up and that it doesn't matter. Except in the near future the supreme court will decide whether a man can say he is a woman for purposes of competing against women in sports.

Let's hear your definition of what a woman is. I'm guessing you won't respond and give one, appropriate you emulate your favorite guy Trump with debate, tuck tail and run after the display of bigotry.

edit - oh and speaking of science, I saw your guy's latest achievement in science. Tanning your testicles to fight off testosterone loss? Hey at least men will be men again after this breakthrough from your boy Tucker Carlson.

[postman1782]

In past decades the country wasn't so polarized and could have civil debates. That's not really the case right now. Eventually the country will get to a better place in regards to political debates and discussions, but it'll take a while.


Again there can still be presidential debates, it just won't have anything to do with the current commission.


Being radicalized and polarized actually slows down the process of political problem solving and causes entrenchment.


The Bible? It is nonsense but I'm not worried about theocracy. It seems like Republican presidents largely just use religion as a way to get some votes. We'll see whether the next Republican presidential candidate is more or less religious than George Bush and Donald Trump. Hopefully it's the same or less and not more.


Science can't determine policy and governance anyways. Most major disputes are actually about human values which is outside the domain of science.

The only reason the country is so polarized, is because of Trumplicans. Where they literally scream fake news, no matter how many fact checks they have, and then shit their pants as they run away.

And no, there will be no debates, it will just be a fucking empty debate stage besides the Democrats.

And Republicans have been using their big book of fairy tales to pass anti-abortion laws, anti-trans laws, and just about everything else.

And Science could have helped us get out of the pandemic sooner, but Trump made 25% of the country stupid, but now they are dying off because they still don't believe covid exists and that it is killing people.

So, yeah, you can stop with that bullshit argument.

- - - Updated - - -

Notice all the people talking about fact checkers and SCIENCE are promoting a party that WILL NOT define what a woman is, and also advocates for men competing against women in sports.....because, you know, science. In the supreme court thread they said Republicans were stupid for bringing this up and that it doesn't matter. Except in the near future the supreme court will decide whether a man can say he is a woman for purposes of competing against women in sports.

You do know, that all of the Republicans that were asked about what a woman is, couldn't define it either. Especially with the 20 fucking different definitions of a woman.

[Dontrike]

Notice all the people talking about fact checkers and SCIENCE are promoting a party that WILL NOT define what a woman is, and also advocates for men competing against women in sports.....because, you know, science. In the supreme court thread they said Republicans were stupid for bringing this up and that it doesn't matter. Except in the near future the supreme court will decide whether a man can say he is a woman for purposes of competing against women in sports.

From the same party that doesn't know what a child is or has sex with children, thinks drinking piss, bleach, and sheeple dewormer cures viruses, and that men are losing testosterone because of women and trans folk.

[unfilteredJW]

I mean, you basically never respond to people who do exactly that. You just skip right past such posts and pretend they don't exist.

As an example, the post of mine a few above UnfilteredJW's, responding to the same post, and going into a lot of specific detail. You can't respond to that in any sensible manner, so you just . . . ignore it.

From a recent interaction with PC2:

Oh I’m not interested in any form of discussion with you as it’s wasted effort. The proof of course being you responding to my post rather than all the other options you had.

That was for others reading your post.

@PC2 does this a lot.

[xChurch]

Notice all the people talking about fact checkers and SCIENCE are promoting a party that WILL NOT define what a woman is, and also advocates for men competing against women in sports.....because, you know, science. In the supreme court thread they said Republicans were stupid for bringing this up and that it doesn't matter. Except in the near future the supreme court will decide whether a man can say he is a woman for purposes of competing against women in sports.

Well...this really wasn't the kind of response I was expecting, especially since it seems to have nothing to do with my point. However, as I tend to agree with the people you're refering to, I'd say you're barking up the wrong tree. As for the substance of your comment, just refer to any of their responses for the jist of how I feel about what you've said. While I'm always happy to provide a soapbox, this really isn't the kind of thing I'm looking to invite.

[Breccia]

Well...this really wasn't the kind of response I was expecting

From TexasRules?

[Adam Jensen]

Better late than never, I suppose.

So . . . from the Lincoln/Douglas debates, to being too cowardly to debate.

Yeah, got it, that's the current trajectory of the Republican party. Pretty damn sad what they've become. From the party that freed the slaves to being a cult for Donald Trump.

[postman1782]

From the same party that doesn't know what a child is or has sex with children, thinks drinking piss, bleach, and sheeple dewormer cures viruses, and that men are losing testosterone because of women and trans folk.

Don't forget, their new conspiracy is that the covid virus came from water with snake venom in it, which the idea for that came from a movie. Yet they made a "documentary" about it.

[tehdang]

So . . . from the Lincoln/Douglas debates, to being too cowardly to debate.

Yeah, got it, that's the current trajectory of the Republican party. Pretty damn sad what they've become. From the party that freed the slaves to being a cult for Donald Trump.

Yes, we all remember how critical a commission was to organizing the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

You'd think this thing predated WW1 the way people talk about it.

[unfilteredJW]

Yes, we all remember how critical a commission was to organizing the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

You'd think this thing predated WW1 the way people talk about it.

Bigots wanting their shit views to be taken seriously sure is.

[Endus]

Yes, we all remember how critical a commission was to organizing the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

You'd think this thing predated WW1 the way people talk about it.

It's not about the Commission, per se. It's about how withdrawing from it demonstrates the Republicans' bad faith and intentional dishonesty towards the American people. Any replacement to the Commission that's fair and equitable to both sides would be categorically rejected by the Republicans for the exact same reasons they've withdrawn from the Commission itself; it's that fairness that they're rejecting, demanding special protections so their dishonesty doesn't get called out openly as a rules violation.