Will There Be a Presidential Debate?

[desecration]

Good luck with your expectations

I was glad that Trump did not come out for a nationwide abortion ban, which I think is both bad law and not consistent with common sense.

 

[ll74]

I was glad that Trump did not come out for a nationwide abortion ban, which I think is both bad law and not consistent with common sense.

This isn't a reply to me.

 

[jomar]

I’d watch that shit show. Get a little draftkings action.

 

[lovecraft68]

Yes

Yes to a debate, or yes to it being possible it could sway someone?

I'm in the camp of no on both. We know Trump will say weird shit, and Biden will deny inflation and an immigration issue, and both bases are so deeply entrenched and told if they even think about leaning the other way they're wrong and evil.

 

[lovecraft68]

Real question should be why are no indy candidates ever allowed in the debate?

That might be the one case where someone hears something that gets their attention because the media never gives indy's any airtime, so people know nothing about them, at least not in the last few elections.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Real question should be why are no indy candidates ever allowed in the debate?

That might be the one case where someone hears something that gets their attention because the media never gives indy's any airtime, so people know nothing about them, at least not in the last few elections.

Wasn't Ross Perot included in '92?


Shit, now I gotta Google.


e/t/a: Looks like the VP was, too.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ros...gIEEAAYA5gDAJIHBDkuMTWgB4LeAQ&sclient=gws-wiz

 

[lovecraft68]

Wasn't Ross Perot included in '92?


Shit, now I gotta Google.


e/t/a: Looks like the VP was, too.

https://www.google.com/search?q=ross+perot+1992+debate&sca_esv=53a1e55b74b11b62&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn0_WUFlUgSsRe9y-iZTCC2xGSjGhhA:1713042641282&source=hp&ei=0fQaZrLxDcPLp84P5q6QmAg&iflsig=ANes7DEAAAAAZhsC4UIY-nJ9dynAdaAytymMdb0cfmdA&oq=ross+perot+1992+debate&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz

I remember John Anderson running against Regan and Carter.

Perot was what I thought Trump could be initially, an outsider who would run the country more like a business and not beholden to either party.

I still think the concept of that could work, we just haven't seen the right person yet. Too bad Buffet just famously runs his mouth and never ran for president.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

I remember John Anderson running against Regan and Carter.

Perot was what I thought Trump could be initially, an outsider who would run the country more like a business and not beholden to either party.

I still think the concept of that could work, we just haven't seen the right person yet. Too bad Buffet just famously runs his mouth and never ran for president.

Honestly, I thought that Tr000mp was a Dem plant to throw the election.


I agree, that concept could work, but that's a big If. Those guys with big bucks seem to have outsized egos to match.

 

[ll74]

Yes to a debate, or yes to it being possible it could sway someone?

It's a simple question.

I'm in the camp of no on both. We know Trump will say weird shit, and Biden will deny inflation and an immigration issue, and both bases are so deeply entrenched and told if they even think about leaning the other way they're wrong and evil.

Awesome for you

 

[Lazaran]

You’re wrong about President Biden. He’s smart and capable. Donald Trump is a crook and a clown.

Pretty close ton"bothsidesism".

I was sure you were going to “Tap the sign”…

*disappointed frown*

 

[Veroe]

Should there even be one?

Is anyone going to change their mind now that the choice is between two known commodities?



(And before the usual morons begin their hate and ascription, accusing me of voting for Trump, I'll be voting Libertarian. No dog in the fight, just curiosity.)

There should always be at least one, but after the God awful debacles their debates were in 2020...I sure as hell hope not.

 

[lovecraft68]

Honestly, I thought that Tr000mp was a Dem plant to throw the election.


I agree, that concept could work, but that's a big If. Those guys with big bucks seem to have outsized egos to match.

That's the hypocrisy of the left. Trump was always Trump, and complete with shady business dealings and accusations of sexual misconduct. But when he was a dem and handing the Clintons and DNC money, oh, funny how none of that mattered, he changes parties and NOW he's this and that.

 

[lovecraft68]

There should always be at least one, but after the God awful debacles their debates were in 2020...I sure as hell hope not.

Maybe we could bring the fly back from the VP debate. Bug was more interesting than the two twits on the stage.

 

[Wat_Tyler]

That's the hypocrisy of the left. Trump was always Trump, and complete with shady business dealings and accusations of sexual misconduct. But when he was a dem and handing the Clintons and DNC money, oh, funny how none of that mattered, he changes parties and NOW he's this and that.

Every four years, fewer choices.


I'm still wondering where the 60 year olds are who might want the job. Maybe they're too busy skimming to take the pay cut.

 

[ll74]

Every four years, fewer choices.


I'm still wondering where the 60 year olds are who might want the job. Maybe they're too busy skimming to take the pay cut.

Fewer? How many choices did we have in 1980?

Two.

 

[lovecraft68]

Fewer? How many choices did we have in 1980?

Two.

Three Anderson ran as an indy.

But we had fewer this year in the case of there were no one running against Biden in his party because they have no one anyone would vote for other than him, and only Haley had the stones to not bow down to Trump and lasted for a few primaries.

That's where the people were given no choice. Both parties have known this rematch was coming for four years, just like in 2016 when Clinton was handed the nomination because it was promised to her back when she lost to Obama in 08.

Third straight election we're given horrible choices and told we better vote for "our side."

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Three Anderson ran as an indy.

But we had fewer this year in the case of there were no one running against Biden in his party because they have no one anyone would vote for other than him, and only Haley had the stones to not bow down to Trump and lasted for a few primaries.

That's where the people were given no choice. Both parties have known this rematch was coming for four years, just like in 2016 when Clinton was handed the nomination because it was promised to her back when she lost to Obama in 08.

Third straight election we're given horrible choices and told we better vote for "our side."

Exactly. It's about choices, not the number of bodies.


And it may be more like every election since the '80s

 

[ll74]

Three Anderson ran as an indy.

We currently have five. Stein, Williamson, West, Trump, rfkjr.

But we had fewer this year in the case of there were no one running against Biden in his party because they have no one anyone would vote for other than him, and only Haley had the stones to not bow down to Trump and lasted for a few primaries.

We did not.

That's where the people were given no choice. Both parties have known this rematch was coming for four years, just like in 2016 when Clinton was handed the nomination because it was promised to her back when she lost to Obama in 08.

Third straight election we're given horrible choices and told we better vote for "our side."

Yes, you don't like the choices.

Got it.

 

[ll74]

Exactly. It's about choices, not the number of bodies.


And it may be more like every election since the '80s

We haven't had fewer choices.

 

[rgraham666]

I doubt the Biden campaign wants to give Trump any screen time.

The Trump campaign does not want to give Trump any screen time outside the echo chamber. So that's another no.

Trump will not attend a debate unless Biden is tied to a chair and gagged. Trump only likes fights he knows he can win.

so, will there be a debate? No.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I see no need for a debate. The choice is pretty clear here:
President Joe Biden stands for Democracy: Truth, Justice and the American Way.
Candidate Donald Trump stands for Fascism, and seeks political revenge on people he feels have "wronged" him.

 

[desecration]

President Joe Biden stands for Democracy: Truth, Justice and the American Way.

Don't blame me, I voted for Sheila Jackson Lee!

 

[YDB95]

Correct BOTH sides should have their ability to speak, and be heard, and judged for who is the best of the worst to lead the country.

You're still missing my point, which you are actually agreeing with here. Let me spell it out as clearly as I can, though I still don't really expect you to get it: In the last election, Trump repeatedly interrupted Biden in flagrant violation of the rules that had been agreed to by both parties (and no, Biden did not respond in kind). There is a theory that this was an intentional strategy to try to trigger Biden's stutter; whether that's true or not, what's indisputable is that it was extremely rude and disrespectful, and contradictory to the intentions of an organized debate. I'm simply calling for a measure to make sure he can't do that again, since we know beyond a reasonable doubt that (as in nearly every other aspect of his life) he can't be trusted to follow the rules without being forced to. Trump would be able to speak when it's his turn, and not when it isn't. What's wrong with that?

The fact that these two clowns are the best there seems to be, is the bigger problem.

The fact that you think they are even remotely comparable is, perhaps, the biggest problem of all.

 

[Chobham]

No.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You're still missing my point, which you are actually agreeing with here. Let me spell it out as clearly as I can, though I still don't really expect you to get it: In the last election, Trump repeatedly interrupted Biden in flagrant violation of the rules that had been agreed to by both parties (and no, Biden did not respond in kind). There is a theory that this was an intentional strategy to try to trigger Biden's stutter; whether that's true or not, what's indisputable is that it was extremely rude and disrespectful, and contradictory to the intentions of an organized debate. I'm simply calling for a measure to make sure he can't do that again, since we know beyond a reasonable doubt that (as in nearly every other aspect of his life) he can't be trusted to follow the rules without being forced to. Trump would be able to speak when it's his turn, and not when it isn't. What's wrong with that?

The fact that you think they are even remotely comparable is, perhaps, the biggest problem of all.

Might get huge ratings if Trump agrees to wear a shock collar that the moderators could trigger when (not IF) he interrupts.