this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
715 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3848 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

"Well, if I were him I’d want to debate me too. He’s got nothing else to do.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CosmicCleric@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Why not?

Because we Citizens need ways to evaluate the people who are running for office to decide which one you want to give her a vote to.

Name one presidential election cycle where no debates were done in modern times.

Morally it’s a bad move.

It would be immoral for someone running for office to not put themselves up for evaluation via debates. No one is owed blind loyalty.

[–] PizzaMane@lemm.ee -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Because we Citizens need ways to evaluate the people who are running for office to decide which one you want to give her a vote to.

You've had plenty of time to do so for both candidates, as both have recently held office.

Name one presidential election cycle where no debates were done in modern times.

This is moving the goal posts, and a bad way to evaluate the necessity of a given debate.

It would be immoral for someone running for office to not put themselves up for evaluation via debates. No one is owed blind loyalty.

I'm not suggesting blind loyalty. It just seems odd that you're trying to say the public won't have a chance to evaluate the options when that clearly isn't the case. Trump held office from 2016 to 2020, Biden from 2020 to 2024.

If anybody doesn't already know what these guys are about, then a debate won't solve that, as they already pay too little attention.

And besides that, the immorality of platforming insurectionists far outweighs whatever immorality could arrive in the form your suggesting.