Trump 2024 — The second term

[jamil]

I stand corrected, though the larger point remains just as valid. Nixon v Kennedy was the first televised debate

I mean, it doesn't even matter that it was 1948. Clearly we've existed as a representative democratic republic way before 1948, without debates. I don't think the general public even knows what to do with a debate. Nixon lost because of 5 O'clock shadow for **** sake!

People put too much importance on debates if they equate that with being essential to a government of the people. I mean, we don't have that either really. Even that is a facade.

 

[jamil]

Debates are tenet of democracy. We need people to explain the vision in front of each other, not to retreat to their ideological corners and dump talking points on prepared questions. What DeSantis did with Newsom was great as well. I don’t think it is too much to ask.

If Biden and Trump didn’t debate, that would be a sad moment for the country.

I've already replied to this but I feel like I need to challenge the idea that debates are a tenet of democracy harder than I have. I mean, that just sounds like you heard some sound bite somewhere and just repeated it. Because scrutiny of that idea should cause you to question it. As others have pointed out, we've only had debates for about the past 75 years. How could we have had "democracy" prior to 1948?

Also, as I've pointed out, we really haven't had real debates. Kennedy was thought to have won that debate handily. Give the general public a chance to make judgements on debate performances and they'll care more about appearance. Demeanor. Confidence. Really everything other than candidates' position on issues and proposed policies.

Marketing prowess is more important in a political debate between candidates than anything. So then people are making decisions based on ********. **** that. Shitcan the debates.

 

[jamil]

And one of the early indicators of how television would pervert the world. Radio listeners thought Nixon won, TV viewers (in B&W even) thought Kennedy won.

Can't hear that 5 O'clock shadow on the radio. It's absurd to hold the belief that political debates between candidates is necessary for a self-ruled society.

 

[jamil]

So you are objecting to the poster that said, "debating is a tenant of democracy." because we don't have a democracy.

Well. We DO have a democracy, so...

 

[KG1]

Well. We DO have a democracy, so...

Not according to the poster that I was responding to.

 

[Ingomike]

Can't hear that 5 O'clock shadow on the radio. It's absurd to hold the belief that political debates between candidates is necessary for a self-ruled society.

Actually, for those who are not aware, Kennedy wore the TV makeup and took steps to stay cool under the lights, Nixon refused the makeup and just did not have an understanding of how hot the TV lights would be. It was even fake setups back then…

 

[KG1]

Can't hear that 5 O'clock shadow on the radio. It's absurd to hold the belief that political debates between candidates is necessary for a self-ruled society.

Debates are also a farce because rival sides declare that their side won the debates. There is no objectivity.

 

[foszoe]

I mean, it doesn't even matter that it was 1948. Clearly we've existed as a representative democratic republic way before 1948, without debates. I don't think the general public even knows what to do with a debate. Nixon lost because of 5 O'clock shadow for **** sake!

People put too much importance on debates if they equate that with being essential to a government of the people. I mean, we don't have that either really. Even that is a facade.

Its INGO if you are going to correct someone on the internet, be prepared to be corrected! And then be prepared to be told your correction really doesn't matter!

 

[foszoe]

And one of the early indicators of how television would pervert the world.

St Kosmas, 1779: “The time will come when the devil puts himself inside a box and starts shouting; and his horns will stick out from the roof-tiles.”

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Uhhh, the first presidential debate was Nixon v Kennedy in 1960

I think we've had a (representative) democracy for a bit longer than that - with no apparent ill effects from a lack of presidential debates

I've already replied to this but I feel like I need to challenge the idea that debates are a tenet of democracy harder than I have. I mean, that just sounds like you heard some sound bite somewhere and just repeated it. Because scrutiny of that idea should cause you to question it. As others have pointed out, we've only had debates for about the past 75 years. How could we have had "democracy" prior to 1948?

Also, as I've pointed out, we really haven't had real debates. Kennedy was thought to have won that debate handily. Give the general public a chance to make judgements on debate performances and they'll care more about appearance. Demeanor. Confidence. Really everything other than candidates' position on issues and proposed policies.

Marketing prowess is more important in a political debate between candidates than anything. So then people are making decisions based on ********. **** that. Shitcan the debates.

We vote for people who represent our vision, values, and priorities. It goes back to Lincoln-Douglas. Retreating to ideological corners and not addressing the people, especially in the digital age is insane to me. Voters deserve to see our options.

 

[INPatriot]

Put the Rush Limbaugh DVD's down. It's causing too many fake burrs up there. it’s not wrong to call it a representative democracy. China is a Republic too. I don’t know why conservatives jeep losing their **** over it. It’s almost like Rush Limbaugh declared in 1992 that conservatives should correct anyone who refers to the US as a democracy. And if he did, he’d be full of ****. The US is a Republic because it’s not a monarchy. It’s a representative democracy because we vote for our representatives, who make the laws. We’re just not a direct democracy. We should not infer every use of "democracy" implies "direct".

"Keep Christmas in your own way and let me keep it in mine."

 

[KG1]

We vote for people who represent our vision, values, and priorities. It goes back to Lincoln-Douglas. Retreating to ideological corners and not addressing the people, especially in the digital age is insane to me. Voters deserve to see our options.

Voters can't see their options unless they debate? C'mon man this is the digital age.

 

[BugI02]

While true, the overall point that I was making is there were presidential primary debates prior to 1960. and it was broadcast. So presidential debates weren't unheard of prior to 1960. I will stipulate to the point though that they really didn't become common place until after 1960.

The point was that, whether 1948 or 1960, by the time debates became a feature of presidential elections the United States constitutional republic had managed to survive at least 161 years - more than 2/3 of its current lifespan - one civil war and one Great Depression without them. They hardly seem essential to democracy

 

[HKFaninCarmel]

Voters can't see their options unless they debate? C'mon man this is the digital age.

You can not even say if you'll pack the courts or not and dodge a media challenge in the digital age.

 

[KG1]

The point was that, whether 1948 or 1960, by the time debates became a feature of presidential elections the United States constitutional republic had managed to survive at least 161 years - more than 2/3 of its current lifespan - one civil war and one Great Depression without them. They hardly seem essential to democracy

Make no mistake I never said that they were.

 

[Ingomike]

It goes back to Lincoln-Douglas.

Do you know those were for the Illinois legislature that chose senators to represent the state.

 

[jamil]

Debates are also a farce because rival sides declare that their side won the debates. There is no objectivity.

And then there’s the media who conducts the debates, and then tells everyone who won.

 

[jamil]

We vote for people who represent our vision, values, and priorities. It goes back to Lincoln-Douglas. Retreating to ideological corners and not addressing the people, especially in the digital age is insane to me. Voters deserve to see our options.

Voters see the marketing. And then they parrot the voices that tickle their ears most. Voters don’t get to see the real options. Hope and change? How many useful idiots fell for that? Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it? How many fell for that? Build back better? There’s some nonsense even more idiots fell for.

You want to know what candidates stand for? They’ll tell you. Do voters deserve to fall for their slogans? Actually. Yeah. Debates won’t change that.

 

[jamil]

Voters can't see their options unless they debate? C'mon man this is the digital age.

If he doesn’t have an idea about the candidates in the race by now, it may be NPR will need to tell him what everyone stands for.

 

[Magyars]