RNC unanimously votes to withdraw from Commission on Presidential Debates

[Puigb]

Not according to the debate transcript presented in the linked article. Obama initially spouted the Ben Rhodes manufactured lie that the Benghazi attack was a spontaneous reaction to a video. Obama lied when Romney confronted him in the debate. Worse, the so-called impartial moderator in an obviously prearranged sequence supported Obama's deception.

the link you posted doesn't support your false narrative...but hey whatever keeps your victim mentality going as an excuse because your political party has nothing to debate, and thus using any excuse to avoid it.

 

[Puigb]

^ These posts are examples of right-wing victimhood. Righties want all their extreme ideas and rhetoric to go unchallenged, and they throw childish temper tantrums when they are faced with the slightest bit of accountability.

The GOP also realizes they have pretty much zero actual policy to run on...so what's the point of debates highlighting this reality? Better off catering to the white grievance crowd, and calling everyone else "biased" as an excuse to avoid debates.

 

[MrNiceGuy]

Not taking sides based on my own possible biased opinions, but may there be a reason for which presidential debates are moderated by more Democratic folks than Republican folks because of their collective intelligence and demeaner that contributes to a fairer handling of heated discussions at these debates? Myself, I'd like to see more Independent moderators handle these live debates.

The very idea that Democrats are smarter than Republicans is laughable, and part of the bias that Democrats allow themselves to believe is objectivity. I wouldn't suggest Republicans are smarter than Democrats, but neither is the reverse true. Most of both parties are around 100 IQ. Democrats have just as much of a population of idiots with poor "demeanor" as Republicans.

Democrats are "fairer" than Republicans, too, you say? LOL. I'd say my point is made. LOL

 

[AZRWinger]

I'm not looking to improving the debates. They are just rehashed sound bytes. 1/2 the time the candidate doesn't answer the question, but veers off topic completely. I just want someone who is neutral.



None of the questions were related to Hunter Biden, so its a moot point. Hunter isn't running for office.
The economy was a key point in the debates.
Race bating, like "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by?"



None of that happened.

I agree you aren't looking to improve the debates. You are like Biden blurting out "prostitute" in his anti 2A rant.

None of the hyper biased moderator questions were about Hunter's work fot the Biden crime family that's the problem. Worse the moderator cut off Trump's questions about it because she wanted to discuss Democrat race baiting talking points.

Let's see some quotes from the debates with links where they talked in depth about the economy.

Biden lied with impunity when he claimed Trump didn’t condemn white supremacists. He then insisted the Proud Boys a drinking club with a politics problem, led by an Afro-Cuban are white supremacists. Joe Brain Damage at his finest.

 

[NuffSaid]

I agree you aren't looking to improve the debates. You are like Biden blurting out "prostitute" in his anti 2A rant.

None of the hyper biased moderator questions were about Hunter's work fot the Biden crime family that's the problem. Worse the moderator cut off Trump's questions about it because she wanted to discuss Democrat race baiting talking points.

What crime? You blurt out these unfounded BS.
That's why debates are chaotic, because any time someone starts introducing unfounded bullshit, there's no coming back.

Let's see some quotes from the debates with links where they talked in depth about the economy.

First 2020 Presidential Debate: Question on the Economy | C-SPAN Classroom

www.c-span.org

Biden lied with impunity when he claimed Trump didn’t condemn white supremacists. He then insisted the Proud Boys a drinking club with a politics problem, led by an Afro-Cuban are white supremacists. Joe Brain Damage at his finest.

No he didn't.

Sorry your hero wanted a group that ultimately invaded the US Capitol to "stand by and stand back".

 

[Top Cat]

****ing ******s the lot.

 

[noonereal]

lol. I don't watch Fox, thanks! Took those points from a NBC news article.

I realize these are both talking points, without any basis. Just throwing poop out there.

Anything to say about the topic of this thread? What's so unreasonable about what the RNC is asking for?

Your post shows no awareness of events in this regard. None at all.

 

[dcsports]

Your post shows no awareness of events in this regard. None at all.

lol. I'll take that as a 'no'.

 

[noonereal]

lol. I'll take that as a 'no'.

Take it as a tip that edification on the subject is in order.

 

[dcsports]

Take it as a tip that edification on the subject is in order.

No doubt. I would highly encourage you to read up on the subject so we can have a real discussion. I'm not interested in the flinging of poo. Take care.

 

[ouch]

The very idea that Democrats are smarter than Republicans is laughable, and part of the bias that Democrats allow themselves to believe is objectivity. I wouldn't suggest Republicans are smarter than Democrats, but neither is the reverse true. Most of both parties are around 100 IQ.

IMO, it has always appeared in this century that Democrats are able to handle candidates in debates better than Republicans can. I also still side more with Democrats being smarter than Republicans or Independents. That doesn't mean that all Republicans or Independents are less smart. Each have their fair share of intelligent people. Demeanor plays an important role with how to conduct debates when dealing with asshole egos known as most politicians.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Not taking sides based on my own possible biased opinions, but may there be a reason for which presidential debates are moderated by more Democratic folks than Republican folks because of their collective intelligence and demeaner that contributes to a fairer handling of heated discussions at these debates? Myself, I'd like to see more Independent moderators handle these live debates.

Oh come ON now!

Surely the Republicans can find 10 or 20 intelligent, rational, educated, informed, articulate, and ethical people amongst the ranks of the supporters of the Republican Party AND those who are supporters of neither of the two parties that they would trust to moderate the "debates" in a fair and impartial manner.

My suggestion to the Republican Party is that they publish a list (including fairly complete biographies and character assessments done by contemporaries) of 20 people all of whom they agree would moderate the "debates" in a fair and impartial manner and then tell the PDC that they will participate in the debates provided that a majority of the moderators for each debate came from that list.

If the Republican Party did come up with such a list then the people on the list would be vetted by the Democratic Party and either

(a) found unsuitable (with reasons published)​

​

or​

​

(b) found suitable.​

As long as there were enough people left on the list to supply three moderators for each debate, then the Democrats would look like fools if they refused to participate.

Of course, that would make the Republican Party look pretty foolish if it, then, refused to participate - so don't count on the Republican Party coming up with any public list of potential moderators.

 

[jpevans]

Its about time. They have been meaningless for decades. Mostly liberal 'moderators' asking loaded gotcha questions about superficial issues and then two party only partisans giving their scripted short answers, and lets cram in as many very complex issues into 30 seconds.

Then again, I dont watch the debates.

What a critic.

 

[jpevans]

Why do they need an organization? Just have the candidates get together and figure it out or dont. Do we even need formal debates? Its all debated in the public square in the news, social media, forums, etc.

Yeah, you been paying attention. Just let the R & D candidates reach a compromise. You're right.

 

[jpevans]

Maddow was a moderator of the last presidential debates. That was absurd.
View attachment 67386208

Do you recall a Biased question from Ms. Maddow, or was it just her being there that got your panties in a bunch? Did she ask Drumpf what newpapers he read?

 

[jpevans]

Seems to me the DNC and the RNC can negotiate and come up with an acceptable format.

Perhaps the DNC can choose the moderators for one, the RNC for the next and maybe come to an agreement on a third debate.

It appears to me that the R's just don't want to answer Questions that might expose what their plans for the country are exposed. They have already started the Rigged Debate Whinefest. Expect Outraged R's stomping offstage in a huff,maybe some Kavanagh/Rittenhouse histaria & the ever popular speaking over the D.

 

[jpevans]

Right, they shouldnt be the media at all. Hire a professional moderator who asks agreed upon questions. This is a debate, not an interview.

What if Drumpf or Drumpf Lite doesn't agree to the questions? What you're suggesting sounds more like dualling rallys. Maybe Michael Buffer could be MC.

 

[jonny5]

What if Drumpf or Drumpf Lite doesn't agree to the questions? What you're suggesting sounds more like dualling rallys. Maybe Michael Buffer could be MC.

2020 TDS called. It wants you move on.

 

[jpevans]

Truth and facts skew left.


Oh, politics is the ultimate ‘insider club.’

Trump and his new money has been trying to buy his way in since the 1970s.

Translate new money= Daddies money.

 

[dcsports]

Oh come ON now!

Surely the Republicans can find 10 or 20 intelligent, rational, educated, informed, articulate, and ethical people amongst the ranks of the supporters of the Republican Party AND those who are supporters of neither of the two parties that they would trust to moderate the "debates" in a fair and impartial manner.

My suggestion to the Republican Party is that they publish a list (including fairly complete biographies and character assessments done by contemporaries) of 20 people all of whom they agree would moderate the "debates" in a fair and impartial manner and then tell the PDC that they will participate in the debates provided that a majority of the moderators for each debate came from that list.

If the Republican Party did come up with such a list then the people on the list would be vetted by the Democratic Party and either

(a) found unsuitable (with reasons published)​

​

or​

​

(b) found suitable.​

As long as there were enough people left on the list to supply three moderators for each debate, then the Democrats would look like fools if they refused to participate.

Of course, that would make the Republican Party look pretty foolish if it, then, refused to participate - so don't count on the Republican Party coming up with any public list of potential moderators.

Keep in mind that what the RNC actually asked for was "transparent criteria for selecting debate moderators that would disqualify individuals from consideration who have apparent conflicts of interest due to personal, professional, or partisan factors." The chief concern being that they want to exclude people who have worked for either candidate. (Steve Sculley, selected as the moderator for the second debate in 2020, had previously worked for Biden.) To me, this doesn't sound unreasonable.

They also wanted all of the debates be be scheduled before voting starts. Some states had started mail in balloting before scheduled debates in 2020. Again, I'm struggling to understand why the commission wouldn't just agree to this.

 

[jpevans]

Those kind of statements are false - and really reflective. It's also becoming a trend by those out on the left end of the spectrum to accuse others of doing what they do.

The 'left' has moved dramatically left. Many of those who were representative of the Democrat Party 30+ years ago would no longer be welcome today.

This is a great example. The 'demands' of the RNC are really NOT extreme. They are things that used to be assumed. And this isn't a surprise either - they've pushed for some basic reforms to the process for at least two cycles. Accusations... for this topic... that they are being extreme or unwilling to compromise aren't representative of reality.

The left has moved all the way left to FDR after Bill Clinton's taking it to the center (which translates to right). This Cowboy nation is still refusing to provide healthcare to All it's citizens. The last holdout among so called 1st world, countries.

 

[dcsports]

The left has moved all the way left to FDR after Bill Clinton's taking it to the center (which translates to right). This Cowboy nation is still refusing to provide healthcare to All it's citizens. The last holdout among so called 1st world, countries.

Clinton was left of center, but definitely more moderate. Big thing was that he was willing to work with the right when he had to. The left has shifted way left now. FDR, JFK, LBJ, MLK even Carter, wouldn't be welcome with today's progressives.

 

[jpevans]

Honestly, it's difficult to take anyone seriously who starts throwing out Nazi imagery of a political opponent, much less a US political party. Good luck, and take care.

It's difficult not to, when the former guy demanded loyalty from his subjects. & threw those who refused under the bus. The elected R's still fear the wrath of Drumpf, even as a twice impeached Loser.

 

[dcsports]

It's difficult not to, when the former guy demanded loyalty from his subjects. & threw those who refused under the bus. The elected R's still fear the wrath of Drumpf, even as a twice impeached Loser.

Yes, it's pretty ridiculous.

And that description pretty well matches what democrats do, period.

 

[jpevans]

Oh come ON now!

Surely the Republicans can find 10 or 20 intelligent, rational, educated, informed, articulate, and ethical people amongst the ranks of the supporters of the Republican Party AND those who are supporters of neither of the two parties that they would trust to moderate the "debates" in a fair and impartial manner.

My suggestion to the Republican Party is that they publish a list (including fairly complete biographies and character assessments done by contemporaries) of 20 people all of whom they agree would moderate the "debates" in a fair and impartial manner and then tell the PDC that they will participate in the debates provided that a majority of the moderators for each debate came from that list.

If the Republican Party did come up with such a list then the people on the list would be vetted by the Democratic Party and either

(a) found unsuitable (with reasons published)​

​

or​

​

(b) found suitable.​

As long as there were enough people left on the list to supply three moderators for each debate, then the Democrats would look like fools if they refused to participate.

Of course, that would make the Republican Party look pretty foolish if it, then, refused to participate - so don't count on the Republican Party coming up with any public list of potential moderators.

This is all a pile of crap, just let both sides deal with the got ya questions with their absolute honestest answer they can muster. Life ain't always fair. It's not like both sides always answer the actual question. The R's are gonna cry Rigged no matter what, so just prepare as best as you can & stop the effen whine, already.