Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Honestly, it doesn't matter at this point. The debates are only useful for sound bites and headlines.
The other Republicans have no actual shot at winning; 82% still want Trump and don't care about the Hitler larping or whether he's a convicted criminal, a rapist, a fraudster, etc. He's their guy, the monster they always wanted who will exact vengeance upon their always-nebulous "enemy" for a litany of misdirected and mostly-fictitious transgressions.
Even if people watched the debate, Trump will just ramble on incoherently as Haley tries in vain to get out talking points and the whole thing will be absolute nonsensical babble.
And his cult will cheer.
Back when there were four TV channels debates made sense. It allowed candidates to respond in real time to each other, and to address the American people directly.
But thanks to social media they can respond to each other in real time right now, or let everyone know they're chillin' in Cedar Rapids without needing to appear on prime time.
tl;dr - Unless the League of Women Voters is running the debate I honestly don't care about them.
I think you underestimate some of those things. People know about the stuff you listed and they still want him.
Keep in mind I'm not saying this to be pro Democrat or Biden.
What I've learned in school growing up in NH is that everything I was taught about the world being a secure good place was a lie. From what I've seen, a lot of people stay naive to reality. I went my own way and have seen a ton of fucked up shit in my life. Meanwhile there's people just taking the narrow life path acting as if evil isn't just as equal in amount to the good in life. A lot of the adult I knew as a kid... Aren't the image that they portrayed. A lot of people just fake their social life. It's really surreal and bizarre here.
If you see reality for what it is... Life sucks. I wish I could have just been one of those average narrow-pathed people.
Not trying to say that in an offensive way or to one up you or whatever...
I think you underestimate some of those things. People know about the stuff you listed and they still want him.
But...that's what they said
I could have been drunk. 🤏
I guess these twerking cretins don't realize that Trump already considers them as his enemies because they 'stood against him'. And that they will be some of the first facing his proverbial firing squad.
The other Republicans have no actual shot at winning
I mean, it’s not zero, Trump could have a heart attack or something tomorrow and it wouldn’t surprise me that much.
Same goes for Biden, too, not sure VP Harris would make a compelling canidate. Maybe I’m wrong.
Having VP Harris safely in the shadows like Mr Cheney was hasn't been good for her exposure and for building cred. But they needed to do that to appease the racist rednecks ... who weren't going to vote for her anyway.
Very well said.
Who will they nominate if the Supreme Court decides he's ineligible to run?
They won't. The SC has no obligation to rule fairly or impartially, or ethically.
unfortunately trump wins either this selection or the next guaranteed. he packed the SUPREME court he can appeal ANY ruling to that court.
Also the Democrats will run Hillary or Kamala so they can loose in 2028 for financials
I bet it would be Nikki Haley. Vivek is annoying and not a Christian, and Ron is really weird and only liked in Florida.
And despite being just as unhinged and authoritarian as her comrades, she has some appeal among the moderates.
Didn't Vivek drop out and endorse Trump?
Did he? I know Chris did, but I hadn't heard about that!
I would bet that Trump refuses to debate when he gets the nomination. Hey, no one seems to care.
His people don't want a debate, they want a rally, something to entertain their vanishingly small minds. The rest of us just want him to shut the fuck up and go away.
He Can have a rally anytime he wants one.
Tell Trump that Biden will be at the debate whether he decides to appear or not. And that Biden will get a free public town hall / softball interview if Trump isn’t there. And then follow through with it if he doesn’t appear.
Trump will just schedule a counter-town hall on Fox News. He 100% won't meet anyone on stage between now and November.
He literally did that in 2020, and what the other responder said, happened. He scheduled his own town hall on another network, and Biden spoke for an hour at the agreed upon debate.
So... exactly like 2020.
Kinda starting to show that it's not about policy and all about cult of personality
We all know this
Well, Trump did say that he's "eager" to debate Biden in 2024. But, remembering back to the debate(s) with Biden in the previous campaign, it was absolutely useless and I had to turn it off. Trump would not stop shouting over Biden and everyone else.
NH is extremely pro Trump unless you're rich. Its really weird here. People are very defensive, even if you're not pro Democrat. Also people think all gay people here prance around acting like girls. It's really strange here. It's kind of addicting trying to figure why people think like that. There's a whole movement to get people to move here to create sovereignty.
I honestly think the civil war already started here.
NH went for Biden by 52.71% to Trump's 45.36%. And while the governor is a Republican, all representatives and senators are Democrats. So I'm not sure you're right here.
I'm not really sure what theyre talking about tbh. I've lived here my whole life -- my entire family is conservative catholic -- and I still know plenty of poor and rich democrats. It's different in the more rural areas though -- they tend to run red. Southern NH probably helps outweigh the red rural areas.
I was about to contradict you but I realized I kinda agree with what you're saying -- although calling my friends up there "rich" is a bit of a stretch. They are not exactly wealthy but they make good salaries doing interesting work with companies based in Boston or remote. Hell, I'm buying land either there or Maine. Got a Starlink and everything.
It's a very purple state. I travel there often from a red state and it's very different. The trump supporters just tend to be way louder than most, he does after all seem to capture the most unhinged people in society.
Debates require you to enter in good faith as if your perspective can be changed.
If you can't commit to changing your mind you can't debate.
Perhaps sway the audience, but I've never seen a debate where the participants ever changed their mind. Debates are about showcasing ideas and then seeing if those ideas stand up to the critiques of your opponent.
Honestly, if a participant ever changed their mind during a debate, I'd think they were a poor representative of that idea. By the time you're on stage at a formal debate you should have already thoroughly considered your opinion from every angle.
I'm arguing that the principal of debate requires that you have a mind that can be changed. I'm not actually suggesting that one does, necessarily, change their mind over the course of a debate. However, it can be incredibly convincing to show a shift in thinking (taking the audience with you) where you do cede some caveats, but use them to further your argument and make it more convincing.
I listen to intelligence squared, and I wish that debates were formally moderated and scored.
I'm arguing that the principal of debate requires that you have a mind that can be changed.
Having an open mind that can be changed if provided with sufficient evidence is fantastic, something we should all strive for.
That being said, I don't think it is necessarily needed for a debate. If you're in a formally structured debate I would hope that you have fully considered all aspects, the pros and the cons. During the debate they should be making their points and critiquing the opposing viewpoint. Changing their mind would, in my opinion, be a disservice to the audience.
They’re not, though. The opponents are scripted, using tested talking points, and are tightly rehearsed in what to say in response to which questions. If caught flat footed, they simply repeat an established talking point, and the time limits on the debate as well as the agreed upon format prevents any followup from the hosts.
Debates are purely about charisma. They’re about projecting an air of knowledge and authority, whether or not you actually possess such knowledge. That’s why Trump does well - he simply lies with great conviction and excessive language. People who actually try to argue with him intellectually will lose, because he’s not doing that. He imitates Dwight Schrute imitating Mussolini.
If you want to know where a candidate stands, read the policy papers they post. Watch the one on one interviews but keep in mind they’re not confrontational - they’re designed to be a forum for the candidate to state their position, not to get them to explain or justify them.
I was speaking about debates more broadly, not just political debates but also scholarly debates. I don't think the participants changing their minds would be a virtue.
Nothing to gain, everything to lose...
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/new-hampshire/
Haley 40%
Trump 40%
DeSantis 4%
Ramaswamy 4%
Hutchinson 1%
With Ramaswamy out, that could change.
This country has never been a country that debates.
Kennedy famously trounced Nixon because he crushed him in the debate (mostly by looking better, but, also, he was Nixon and his ideas sucked)
Lincoln straight up master debatered his way to the White House after the Lincoln-Douglas debates made him famous.
The problem is not that America hasn't had a debate tradition. The problem is that the last forty years it's been neoliberals debating each other about how to suck less until now it's neoliberals vs fascists and they're, ya know, fascists.
There isn't a debate. They just lie and rage about their made up enemies.
Get me a Santos/ Vinnick debate and I’ll tune in. Otherwise, insert drake nah meme here
i feel the vinick speech on religion is particular relevant these days