• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP apparently doesn't care to debate anymore (1 Viewer)

Damn. I just came here to say this, but PoweRob moves fast, like the ninjas of old.
 
Because they control media narratives so much they no they don't need it.

Considering the moderation of late, they are making a good decision.

I mean, seriously...did you watch Trump having to debate BOTH his opponents...Biden and Wallace?
 
Given the horrendous performance of "moderators" during the last few debates, I'm not surprised.

The one that let Trump run amok or the one that didn't?
 
Good they were one sided shit shows anyway where the truth was optional
 
Considering the moderation of late, they are making a good decision.

I mean, seriously...did you watch Trump having to debate BOTH his opponents...Biden and Wallace?
Did you see Trump completely incapable of following the rules he agreed to?

Wallace was just trying to stick to the format and rules that both sides agreed to.
 
This is about democracy versus autocracy and sane conservatives deplore autocracy as much as sane liberals do, because democracy is about the marketplace of ideas and good ideas almost sell themselves to both groups and to the middle.
Autocrats don't give a damn about a marketplace of ideas because they decided a long time ago that it's either their way or blood in the streets and fire in the sky.
Authoritarianism can raise its ugly head in the form of leftist or extreme right, only this time around it's not state communism, it's state and oligarch funded fascism, but at the core, it's autocracy any way you slice it. And that spells the end of democracy.
 
Because they control media narratives so much they no they don't need it.

I seen that. I do agree, it is all about control. I remember when the league of Woman’s voters held the debates. Neither party had control, the league did. But the league messed up by allowing Ross Perot into the debates, so the major parties agreed on the so called, Bipartisan debate committee and took them away from the League. Since then it has become commission on presidential debates.

What I have found out concerning the debates is that most of those who tune into them have their minds made up already. It’s republicans and democrats tuning in to root for their candidate. As a swing voter, one who doesn’t belong nor affiliates with either major party, I don’t have a horse in the race to root on. I don’t bother to watch them.

I’d suggest giving the debates back to the League of Woman’s voters who originated the whole thing. Then if one or the other candidate doesn’t show up, let the one who does debate the Libertarian and the Green Party candidates. Give them use of the free airtime. I believe any candidate that is on enough state ballots to reach 270 electoral votes should be included in the debates. It also wouldn’t bother me if they never had another one.
 
"yadda, yadda, Trump". You guys just can't give up, can you? :rolleyes:

Your conservative brother is who mentioned Trump first in this thread. Maybe you should take it up with him? Seems the Big Lie Believer of Trump is also the one posting LIES.
 
Did you see Trump completely incapable of following the rules he agreed to?

Wallace was just trying to stick to the format and rules that both sides agreed to.
Nonsense.

It got to the point where Wallace was arguing policy points with Trump...and Biden did what he does best: Just stand there.


Prior to the first presidential debate, moderator Chris Wallace said his goal was to be “invisible” – but at many points it seemed the Fox News host was arguing with Donald Trump more than Joe Biden.

Tuesday night’s chaotic head-to-head in Ohio – aptly described as a “s**tshow” by one host – at points more or less descended into a three-way shouting match between the men.
“First of all, I guess I’m debating you, not him – that’s OK, I’m not surprised,” the President snarkily said to Wallace during one exchange early on about Obamacare, after the host repeatedly interrupted his answer.
 
The "debates" are simply twitter slogans back and forth with a lot of embarrassing moments. They are run by two parties who have a lock on what the public is allowed to hear. They are manufactured.

I would like to see long form interviews with candidates. Interviewers would need to be chosen carefully, obviously.

Anything is better than what there is now.
 
I seen that. I do agree, it is all about control. I remember when the league of Woman’s voters held the debates. Neither party had control, the league did. But the league messed up by allowing Ross Perot into the debates, so the major parties agreed on the so called, Bipartisan debate committee and took them away from the League. Since then it has become commission on presidential debates.

What I have found out concerning the debates is that most of those who tune into them have their minds made up already. It’s republicans and democrats tuning in to root for their candidate. As a swing voter, one who doesn’t belong nor affiliates with either major party, I don’t have a horse in the race to root on. I don’t bother to watch them.

I’d suggest giving the debates back to the League of Woman’s voters who originated the whole thing. Then if one or the other candidate doesn’t show up, let the one who does debate the Libertarian and the Green Party candidates. Give them use of the free airtime. I believe any candidate that is on enough state ballots to reach 270 electoral votes should be included in the debates. It also wouldn’t bother me if they never had another one.
How's about the League insist that they be included regardless. Its time that neither the RNC nor the DNC have authority to decide which ideas America gets access to, and who is 'relevant' and who is not.
 
Nonsense.

It got to the point where Wallace was arguing policy points with Trump...and Biden did what he does best: Just stand there.

Prior to the first presidential debate, moderator Chris Wallace said his goal was to be “invisible” – but at many points it seemed the Fox News host was arguing with Donald Trump more than Joe Biden.​
Tuesday night’s chaotic head-to-head in Ohio – aptly described as a “s**tshow” by one host – at points more or less descended into a three-way shouting match between the men.​
“First of all, I guess I’m debating you, not him – that’s OK, I’m not surprised,” the President snarkily said to Wallace during one exchange early on about Obamacare, after the host repeatedly interrupted his answer.​
Wallace was doing what got him off Fox news. His ratings were tanking and he was showing his lopsided favoritism of liberals. Kurtz is doing the same thing but he's limiting his favoritism of the left view by doing "yeah buts" after the conservatives make a statement. Reminds me of Alan Colmes
 
Considering the moderation of late, they are making a good decision.

I mean, seriously...did you watch Trump having to debate BOTH his opponents...Biden and Wallace?
We watched Trump make an ass of himself, as usual. And then we saw you come here and defend Trump and make him the victim. As usual.
 
How's about the League insist that they be included regardless. Its time that neither the RNC nor the DNC have authority to decide which ideas America gets access to, and who is 'relevant' and who is not.
I totally agree
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom