RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Republicans threaten to skip general election debates

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 64739
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/14/22 11:09 am    ::: Republicans threaten to skip general election debates Reply Reply with quote

https://www.npr.org/2022/01/13/1072765939/republicans-threaten-to-no-longer-participate-in-traditional-general-election-de

Quote:
The Republican National Committee has informed the Commission on Presidential Debates, which has hosted presidential and vice presidential debates for general elections for over three decades, that it will change its rules to prohibit the party's nominees from participating in CPD debates.



_________________
If you can't feed your baby
Then don't have a baby
And don't think maybe
If you can't feed your baby
scullyfu



Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8614
Location: Niagara Falls


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/14/22 4:38 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

put an empty chair in their spot & proceed with the 'debate'; let the dem candidate have all the time. i'd be happy for the repuQ not to be there, wouldn't have to listen to their bs lies.



_________________
i'll always bleed Storm green.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 14523
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 01/14/22 11:03 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

scullyfu wrote:
put an empty chair in their spot & proceed with the 'debate'; let the dem candidate have all the time. i'd be happy for the repuQ not to be there, wouldn't have to listen to their bs lies.


I second that (e)motion. Cool

Or -- even better yet -- have the Republican candidate's stances on any particular topic played on a screen, for public viewing on stage. Then, the Dem gets to respond to that live, as long as they want. No butting-in or talking over one another. Laughing



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 7211



Back to top
PostPosted: 01/15/22 5:32 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
scullyfu wrote:
put an empty chair in their spot & proceed with the 'debate'; let the dem candidate have all the time. i'd be happy for the repuQ not to be there, wouldn't have to listen to their bs lies.


I second that (e)motion. Cool

Or -- even better yet -- have the Republican candidate's stances on any particular topic played on a screen, for public viewing on stage. Then, the Dem gets to respond to that live, as long as they want. No butting-in or talking over one another. Laughing


I like this, but you know that Fox will then do something similar with the republican candidate. They will give them a similar forum and audience.

I guess I'm wondering how this will look to the undecideds - cause that's who these debates will target. Can they find a way to keep reminding them that the republicans are the ones that PROHIBITED their candidate from appearing without looking petty?

I also wonder how many people make up their minds based on the debates? Are the debates more for the diehards who already know who they are going to vote for or do people really use them to decide? I guess I'm thinking of myself here and I don't know that they could ever sway me much. There is so much effort and practice put forth by the teams on debate prep and they always find a way to NOT answer the question that they are given, that they seem pretty useless anymore.



_________________
"Our democracy is designed to speak truth to power." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

"If this guy can be Senator, you can do anything." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 64739
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/14/22 3:29 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/rnc-votes-withdraw-commission-presidential-debates-rcna24443

Quote:
The Republican National Committee on Thursday announced it unanimously voted to require GOP presidential candidates to abstain from presidential debates sanctioned by the Commission on Presidential Debates, which has overseen the process for decades.



_________________
If you can't feed your baby
Then don't have a baby
And don't think maybe
If you can't feed your baby
Hawkeye



Joined: 10 Aug 2010
Posts: 688
Location: Houston, TX


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/14/22 4:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Replace the Republican with the highest polling 3rd party candidate and have at it.


GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 7375
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/16/22 4:35 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

A lot of selective quoting and understanding going on, as usual.

The RNC is not against participating in presidential debates. That would be foolhardy. The RNC is simply reacting to what it perceives to be substantial evidence of unfairness and bias in the debates that have been sanctioned by one particular organization, the CPD. That is not foolhardy. Any other organization or media platform can organize, propose or hold debates, which the RNC presumably will consider.

Moreover, no Republican candidate is bound by votes of the RNC as to whether he or she will participate in CPD debates, if there are any.

From the same selectively quoted sources:

Quote:
"Debates are an important part of the democratic process, and the RNC is committed to free and fair debates," RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a statement. "The Commission on Presidential Debates is biased and has refused to enact simple and commonsense reforms to help ensure fair debates including hosting debates before voting begins and selecting moderators who have never worked for candidates on the debate stage."

She added that the RNC will "find newer, better debate platforms" for Republican candidates to make their cases.


Quote:
Ultimately, decisions about debate participation are up to the party's nominees and not the party itself.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 64739
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/16/22 4:59 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I agree the GOP has legitimate grievances and the commission has failed to address them



_________________
If you can't feed your baby
Then don't have a baby
And don't think maybe
If you can't feed your baby
Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 7211



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/17/22 4:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
A lot of selective quoting and understanding going on, as usual.

The RNC is not against participating in presidential debates. That would be foolhardy. The RNC is simply reacting to what it perceives to be substantial evidence of unfairness and bias in the debates that have been sanctioned by one particular organization, the CPD. That is not foolhardy. Any other organization or media platform can organize, propose or hold debates, which the RNC presumably will consider.


Oh, like Trump stalking HRC on stage?? And Trump never shutting up and letting Biden finish? Or Trump, on the occasion or two that the wind bag needed to refill, interrupting Biden? Or Trump claiming that everything was "fake news?"

Like that was fair! Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes



_________________
"Our democracy is designed to speak truth to power." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

"If this guy can be Senator, you can do anything." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 7375
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/17/22 6:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ex-Ref wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
A lot of selective quoting and understanding going on, as usual.

The RNC is not against participating in presidential debates. That would be foolhardy. The RNC is simply reacting to what it perceives to be substantial evidence of unfairness and bias in the debates that have been sanctioned by one particular organization, the CPD. That is not foolhardy. Any other organization or media platform can organize, propose or hold debates, which the RNC presumably will consider.


Oh, like Trump stalking HRC on stage?? And Trump never shutting up and letting Biden finish? Or Trump, on the occasion or two that the wind bag needed to refill, interrupting Biden? Or Trump claiming that everything was "fake news?"

Like that was fair! :roll: :roll:


You're completely missing the issue, Ex-Ref. The issue is not the behavior of the candidates on the debate stage; it's the behavior of the debate moderators, their backgrounds and their selections.

Go back before Trump. In 2012 we had moderator Candy Crowley constantly interrupting and arguing with Mitt Romney about what, in her opinion, Obama had said about the "terrorist" attack in Libya. It was unprecedented for a moderator to do that.

It got worse in 2016 with Fox's Meghan Kelly and ABC's Martha Raddatz even more aggressively trying to steer the debate with interruptions and their own speeches.

The interruptions and interventions continued in 2020 with Fox's Chris Wallace. Another Trump-Biden debate moderator, C-SPAN's Steve Scully, had worked as an assistant for Biden and Ted Kennedy and had in recent years retweeted the comment, "No, Not Trump, Not Ever."

That's the kind of perceived bias and unfairness the RNC is concerned about.

In my opinion, candidates should be able to say whatever they want during debates—answer the questions, don't answer the questions, go off on tangents, bloviate, BS, curse, lie, whatever. No one really cares what the always-canned answers are. Folks want to take the measure of the debaters'
personalities, personas, wit, intelligence, humor, decorum, likeability, etc. If a debater wants to act like an ass or a jerk or know-it-all bore, that's all valuable information for voters.

But moderators shouldn't have their thumbs on the scale or interject their own opinions, or even give the appearance thereof. Ideally, they should be completely neutral and invisible. Just like a ref.
Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 17094
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/17/22 7:00 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Well, then, that's not a bloody debate, now is it?



_________________
Tartamella delenda est.
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 14523
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/17/22 7:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Certainly, the rules and styles of any moderator need to be fair and unbiased.

To ME, the simplest control they ought to be allowed is to cut off a mic when a debater has exceeded their allotted time by, say, 30 seconds. THAT'S objectivity defined: X number of seconds, and yer done.

(Now....I'm curious about which Party might object to THAT?? ) Shocked



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 7211



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/17/22 8:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
Ex-Ref wrote:
GlennMacGrady wrote:
A lot of selective quoting and understanding going on, as usual.

The RNC is not against participating in presidential debates. That would be foolhardy. The RNC is simply reacting to what it perceives to be substantial evidence of unfairness and bias in the debates that have been sanctioned by one particular organization, the CPD. That is not foolhardy. Any other organization or media platform can organize, propose or hold debates, which the RNC presumably will consider.


Oh, like Trump stalking HRC on stage?? And Trump never shutting up and letting Biden finish? Or Trump, on the occasion or two that the wind bag needed to refill, interrupting Biden? Or Trump claiming that everything was "fake news?"

Like that was fair! Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes


You're completely missing the issue, Ex-Ref. The issue is not the behavior of the candidates on the debate stage; it's the behavior of the debate moderators, their backgrounds and their selections.

Go back before Trump. In 2012 we had moderator Candy Crowley constantly interrupting and arguing with Mitt Romney about what, in her opinion, Obama had said about the "terrorist" attack in Libya. It was unprecedented for a moderator to do that.

It got worse in 2016 with Fox's Meghan Kelly and ABC's Martha Raddatz even more aggressively trying to steer the debate with interruptions and their own speeches.

The interruptions and interventions continued in 2020 with Fox's Chris Wallace. Another Trump-Biden debate moderator, C-SPAN's Steve Scully, had worked as an assistant for Biden and Ted Kennedy and had in recent years retweeted the comment, "No, Not Trump, Not Ever."

That's the kind of perceived bias and unfairness the RNC is concerned about.

In my opinion, candidates should be able to say whatever they want during debates—answer the questions, don't answer the questions, go off on tangents, bloviate, BS, curse, lie, whatever. No one really cares what the always-canned answers are. Folks want to take the measure of the debaters'
personalities, personas, wit, intelligence, humor, decorum, likeability, etc. If a debater wants to act like an ass or a jerk or know-it-all bore, that's all valuable information for voters.

But moderators shouldn't have their thumbs on the scale or interject their own opinions, or even give the appearance thereof. Ideally, they should be completely neutral and invisible. Just like a ref.


Oh, so the point isn't about unfairness during the debate, it's only about unfairness toward them, so they're going to take their candidate and go home? Got it.



_________________
"Our democracy is designed to speak truth to power." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

"If this guy can be Senator, you can do anything." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Ex-Ref



Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 7211



Back to top
PostPosted: 04/17/22 8:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
Certainly, the rules and styles of any moderator need to be fair and unbiased.

To ME, the simplest control they ought to be allowed is to cut off a mic when a debater has exceeded their allotted time by, say, 30 seconds. THAT'S objectivity defined: X number of seconds, and yer done.

(Now....I'm curious about which Party might object to THAT?? ) Shocked


I'm not sure that would work for some candidates. They would continue talking and injecting comments and distracting, not only the other candidate(s), but the people watching. I'm thinking that they need to put them in a 10' x 10' soundproof plexiglass-type box. Then, when they continue to ramble, but can't be heard, they will look goofy. And who wants a goofy president?



_________________
"Our democracy is designed to speak truth to power." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

"If this guy can be Senator, you can do anything." — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 14523
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/17/22 8:24 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Ex-Ref wrote:
Then, when they continue to ramble, but can't be heard, they will look goofy. And who wants a goofy president?


Apparently, about 70 million people did. Razz Laughing



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
GlennMacGrady



Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 7375
Location: Heisenberg


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/18/22 8:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Queenie wrote:
Well, then, that's not a bloody debate, now is it?


No it isn't, but:

1. It's just my personal view, which no one in charge of debates will adopt.

2. I don't consider any of these pieces of stage theater to be informative "debates", much less memorable, and I've seen just about all of them since the first between Kennedy and Nixon. Given 90, 60 or 30 seconds, no one can intelligently debate important policy topics such as nuclear proliferation, inflation, immigration, climate change, energy policy, or what to do in Ukraine. All we ever get is mainly practiced talking points.

No moderator is ever going to get blowhard politicians to stick to time limits, especially ultra-blowhards such as Clinton, Obama and Trump. (McGovern, Mondale, Dole and WBush were relatively laconic.)

I'd rather just give them 30 minutes to discuss a topic and let them do whatever they want with no other time limits or moderator interference. Like a civilized conversation. Or an uncivilized one.
pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 64739
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/18/22 9:01 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

GlennMacGrady wrote:
I don't consider any of these pieces of stage theater to be informative "debates", much less memorable, and I've seen just about all of them since the first between Kennedy and Nixon. Given 90, 60 or 30 seconds, no one can intelligently debate important policy topics such as nuclear proliferation, inflation, immigration, climate change, energy policy, or what to do in Ukraine. All we ever get is mainly practiced talking points.


Most voters don't know enough about any of those subjects to be able to tell which candidate's policies are better. Heck, most candidates don't know enough about more than one or two of them to be able to speak about them with any depth.

The presidency is a management position. What we need to know is their governing philosophy, management style, and ability to identify and hire the right people to work under them. Specific policies are mostly beside the point.



_________________
If you can't feed your baby
Then don't have a baby
And don't think maybe
If you can't feed your baby
Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 14523
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/18/22 9:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

pilight wrote:
The presidency is a management position. What we need to know is their governing philosophy, management style, and ability to identify and hire the right people to work under them. Specific policies are mostly beside the point.

Quite true, imo. Especially the delegation by hire/appointment part, which includes the ability TO MAINTAIN A FUNCTIONAL, PRODUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THOSE EXPERTS. [See: NOT Trump]

I have long viewed the Big Debates as a way to discern an important quality in leadership: How to think on your feet! Most polished politicians are trained in that, but many also reveal their substandard thinking skills by A: avoiding a direct, revealing response to a direct question and B: re-directing focus to a negative aspect of their opponent. [See: Palin] All might be acceptable techniques, but a REAL leader can articulate their ideas and rationales from a genuine knowledge base, and an informed observer can pick up on that quality quickly.



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16044
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/22 9:44 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

You know what? Never mind. It's not worth it.


StevenHW



Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 10847
Location: Sacramento, California


Back to top
PostPosted: 04/19/22 3:58 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

scullyfu wrote:
Put an empty chair in their spot & proceed with the 'debate'; let the dem candidate have all the time. i'd be happy for the repuQ not to be there, wouldn't have to listen to their bs lies.


Just like Clint Eastwood having a "debate" with an invisible Obama during the 2012 GOP Convention? Razz




_________________
"The more I see of the moneyed classes, the more I understand the guillotine." -- George Bernard Shaw
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » Area 51 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin