RNC Withdraws From Commission on Presidential Debates

[Very Tired]

If actual facts are held to scrutiny in person for once one live TV by a moderator, it's no wonder why the Republicans think that the debates are unfairly biased against them. They know their talking points don't actually fare well against anyone who knows the slightest thing about them.

What's even funnier is Joe Biden will be the next person they will have to debate, and for all of their talk about his supposed "declining mental state", they are running away from him with their tails between their legs.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Politics would be a lot simpler if politicians actually answered yes or no questions with a yes or no answer. They would have likely prepared a canned response for that question long in advance that would be designed to appease both sides while never actually showing what the person really personally believes.

[PC2]

No worries, if there needs to be a debate in the future then both sides can just agree to the same terms and agree on a neutral intermediary.

[Glorious Leader]

No worries, if there needs to be a debate in the future then both sides can just agree to the same terms and agree on a neutral intermediary.

I would hope that the democrats never to agree to avoiding all fact checking as a term.

[Endus]

No worries, if there needs to be a debate in the future then both sides can just agree to the same terms and agree on a neutral intermediary.

The Republicans are literally refusing exactly that, so congratulations on not having read the article the thread's about.

[PC2]

The Republicans are literally refusing exactly that, so congratulations on not having read the article the thread's about.

No I said both sides can agree on a neutral intermediary. The RNC doesn't agree that the prior system is or was neutral and unbiased. But this won't be the case forever because eventually both sides can find an intermediary and debating policy that both sides can consent to.

[Edge-]

No I said both sides can agree on a neutral intermediary. The RNC doen't agree that the prior system is or was neutral and unbiased. But this won't be the case forever because eventually both sides can find an intermediary and debating policy that both sides can consent to.

In which people like you still pretend that the Republican party is a functional political party operating in good faith.

[Endus]

No I said both sides can agree on a neutral intermediary. The RNC doesn't agree that the prior system is or was neutral and unbiased. But this won't be the case forever because eventually both sides can find an intermediary and debating policy that both sides can consent to.

The RNC is refusing to do this.

Again, literally in the article at the start of the thread.

And before you push more willful disinfo; refusing to accept a neutral intermediary because of bullshit lies about partisan bias is a refusal of a neutral intermediary. Lying about it isn't a counterpoint. And the Republicans are lying about it.

[Raeph]

Given that presidential debates hold zero value, I can't be too upset here. There were broken by 2000. When Karl Rove figured out the konami-code for the DC press.

Last debate I watched, even in part, was the second, town-hall style, Romney/Obama debate in the 2012 election. The part that made me shut it off was the scene when Obama and Romney were circling each other in the pit and they were arguing about who had the largest pension. Both were smiling like they were having the time of their lives and that they were enjoying the verbal sparing as if it were a game.

During that time I was working the last few months of a job that I had been notified that I was being severed from after working there for 8 years by that time. The company was moving operations to another state and myself and 80 some employee's were losing our jobs.

Presidential debates are theater used by the political class and media to show everyone how fun politics are, so that candidates can get campaign donations and media can sell ads, while everyone else is worried about their next paycheck, keeping their housing situation stable or putting food on their table.

Its good that RNC left the CPD. It would have been good if the DNC had left. It would have been good if the organization had been disbanded years ago.

Right now I think it would be best if each campaign did anything from a Facebook live video or a Reddit AMA to explain their positions without interruption and then let the public review how useless the candidates policy positions are.

[Fugus]

No worries, if there needs to be a debate in the future then both sides can just agree to the same terms and agree on a neutral intermediary.

You mistake neutral for unbiased.

We don't need a neutral moderator, we need one that won't let their political bias interfere.

The LAST thing we need is a neutral moderator who sits there and knowingly lets one of the people lie though their teeth only to have them not push back against the blatant lies but to actually give it the same credibility as an answer that is honest and doesn't ignore reality.

Candidate A says that we need to fix these issues which is caused by items/events A,B,C and D or they will get worse while Candidate B says that the issues are caused because we let gays in the military and you touch yourself at night and that offends god's will only to have the moderator pretend both those views have equal weight. We don't need neutral for neutrals sake, we need a moderator that doesn't let their political bias interfere with their professionalism but will push back on either politician if they are caught lying.

[Breccia]

both sides can just agree to the same terms and agree on a neutral intermediary.

This thread is about how, no, they can't. The RNC has that right now, and are refusing it.

[Very Tired]

No I said both sides can agree on a neutral intermediary. The RNC doesn't agree that the prior system is or was neutral and unbiased. But this won't be the case forever because eventually both sides can find an intermediary and debating policy that both sides can consent to.

If you haven't noticed yet, even if it present, a truly unbiased person or source will still always be seen as as "left-leaning" from Republicans.

[postman1782]

No worries, if there needs to be a debate in the future then both sides can just agree to the same terms and agree on a neutral intermediary.

So, like it is now, that Republicans don't want to participate in?

[PC2]

So, like it is now, that Republicans don't want to participate in?

If the Democrats/Republicans want to debate it can be arranged without the need for a third-party authority.

Honestly I think a presidential debate would not even really be healthy until people calm down and become less politically radical and less polarized.

[postman1782]

If the Democrats/Republicans want to debate it can be arranged without the need for a third-party authority.

Honestly I think a presidential debate would not even really be healthy until people calm down and become less politically radical and less polarized.

Nope, we have had this for decades. If Republicans want to be pussies and run away. Let them.

And people will be radicalized and polarized, until we get rid of these fucking Republicans that want to govern using a book that has no fucking reason being there, while completely ignoring fucking science.

[beanman12345]

If the Democrats/Republicans want to debate it can be arranged without the need for a third-party authority.

Honestly I think a presidential debate would not even really be healthy until people calm down and become less politically radical and less polarized.

Unlike Peacemaker, I think quasi fascist libertarians being capable of change by looking inward and seeing just how fucked up their belief structure is, how dog shit it is, and having personal growth by striving to be less radical is something that only happens in fiction, and thus republicans will always be too chicken shit to face reality that comes with a presidential debate. Maybe the guy after Trump will have some balls to get fact checked when they spout things that ain't in reality. But it looks like it'll be DeSantis, so doubtful.

[Breccia]

If the Democrats/Republicans want to debate it can be arranged without the need for a third-party authority.

I don't think you really mean this. Simply put, it's possible for the Denver Broncos to play against the LA Rams without refs, but the second one team calls a foul the other team disagrees and then what?

No seriously. Look back at the last few debates, then imagine them with no rules and no enforcement other than "one side leaves".

You can't possibly have thought this through.

[Endus]

No I said both sides can agree on a neutral intermediary.

If the Democrats/Republicans want to debate it can be arranged without the need for a third-party authority.

Hey, look, direct and explicit contradiction.

You can't possibly have a neutral intermediary who's not a "third party". By definition, anyone from the major political parties would not be "neutral". And anyone outside those parties is "third-party". You've set a literally impossible standard, and I do not for one second believe you're unaware of its impossibility. Being deliberately impossible and blaming others for failing to meet that standard is just standard bad-faith bullshit out of you.

Honestly I think a presidential debate would not even really be healthy until people calm down and become less politically radical and less polarized.

You say "people", but it's 100% exclusively an issue for Republicans. They're the only ones pushing and encouraging extremism. They and their ideological views are the problem, period. Underscored. Italicized. In bold font.

You're right that it's pointless to engage in a "debate" with an opponent so immoral, unethical, sadistic, and cruel that they will do nothing but push for harming innocents and disrespecting both the process and their opponents without any ounce of merit to that abuse. But you're trying to present this as if it's a problem that's shared, and that is, flatly, a lie.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think you really mean this. Simply put, it's possible for the Denver Broncos to play against the LA Rams without refs, but the second one team calls a foul the other team disagrees and then what?

No seriously. Look back at the last few debates, then imagine them with no rules and no enforcement other than "one side leaves".

You can't possibly have thought this through.

No no, you see, he wants referees, just magical referees that aren't players or staff for either the Broncos or the Rams, but also not anyone not working for those two teams. Those magical refs who are neutral third parties but also not third-party at all.

And if he's seriously arguing that there shouldn't be any referees, then clearly bringing guns and shooting the enemy players is totally reasonable; they can't stop you from scoring if they're all dead, after all. And we've decided the rules don't matter and there shouldn't be any third-party enforcement! Not even by police!

[PC2]

Nope, we have had this for decades.

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.

If Republicans want to be pussies and run away. Let them.

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

And people will be radicalized and polarized,

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

until we get rid of these fucking Republicans that want to govern using a book that has no fucking reason being there,

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.

while completely ignoring fucking science.

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

[unfilteredJW]

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.

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.

[Edge-]

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.

Gee, ever wonder what the cause of that is? Could it be...you know, Republicans who keep lying and keep talking about the "end of America"?

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

Republicans seem to not be interested in neutral third parties in general, especially if they do pesky things like enforce rules both sides agreed to or call out blatant, repeat, obvious lies.

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

Then why aren't you yelling at Republicans?

The Bible? It is nonsense but I'm not worried about theocracy.

Then you're not paying attention to the continued rise in Christian nationalism, which isn't surprising.

We'll see whether the next Republican presidential candidate is more or less religious than George Bush and Donald Trump.

Not sure why you put these two in the same sentence given that Bush is fairly devout and Trump...well...very much isn't, by his own admission.

Science can't determine policy and governance anyways.

Blatant falsehood. Science is the backbone of many policies, as science informs policy decisions. This is a massive failure of imagination, and actually just a failure in thinking.

Most major disputes are actually about human values which is outside the domain of science.

*gestures at GOP panic and attacks on trans athletes*

You really wanna go with this fantasy take on reality?

It's incredible how you always manage to find almost every single way to be wrong in your posts.