EPT2020 Presidential Debate - Page 34
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4456 Posts
| ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
On October 08 2020 13:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Why is it so hard to get an answer as to whether democrats will pack the Supreme Court? Yes or no will be fine. Why wont Pence answer question x,y or z? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 08 2020 13:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Why is it so hard to get an answer as to whether democrats will pack the Supreme Court? Yes or no will be fine. Honestly, it feels like gloating. They don't have to answer, because they don't need to in order to win. True from a perspective of who-wins-or-loses-the-debates-doesn't-matter. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2836 Posts
On October 08 2020 13:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Why is it so hard to get an answer as to whether democrats will pack the Supreme Court? Yes or no will be fine. Wow, it's almost like it's politics or something and you avoid committing to a position when it is disadvantageous to do so. Like it's the reason Pence asked the question in the first place, or something. The better question is why are you echoing one of Pence's talking points instead of having any actual self-generated criticism of the American political system. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
On October 08 2020 16:03 Fleetfeet wrote: Wow, it's almost like it's politics or something and you avoid committing to a position when it is disadvantageous to do so. Like it's the reason Pence asked the question in the first place, or something. The better question is why are you echoing one of Pence's talking points instead of having any actual self-generated criticism of the American political system. I hate that politics has to be about waffling between positions without ever revealing your intentions though. I'm so tired of disingenuous politicians that appear to have no beliefs, it's just so... I mean, don't we, as citizens deserve better? Don't we DESERVE TO KNOW what our politicians plan to do? I don't think we should justify these sorts of games in politics at all, when asked a question there should be an answer, even if its, "thats a tough question, I'm not sure, I'll get back to you on that in the future after I've looked into it." | ||
|
Simberto
Germany12026 Posts
In an interview, after dodging a question, they should just immediately get asked the same question, until they answer. And in a debate like this one, if they are not talking about the question after 10 seconds, the moderator should cut them off and mute their mike, remind them of the question, then give them another 5 seconds to get on topic, and then just cut of the remainder of their talking time if they don't start answering. Then, for their next question, instead of a new question they get the same one again, with the same treatment, until they answer it or the debate is over. These are the people who should represent the voters. How are the voters supposed to make a good, informed decision if their representatives refuse to say what they represent? | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2836 Posts
On October 08 2020 16:57 Simberto wrote: Absolutely. Dodging a question should not be acceptable. Your journalists have become far too accepting of not getting an answer to the question they asked, and are letting your politicians get away with not answering far too easy. In an interview, after dodging a question, they should just immediately get asked the same question, until they answer. And in a debate like this one, if they are not talking about the question after 10 seconds, the moderator should cut them off and mute their mike, remind them of the question, then give them another 5 seconds to get on topic, and then just cut of the remainder of their talking time if they don't start answering. Then, for their next question, instead of a new question they get the same one again, with the same treatment, until they answer it or the debate is over. These are the people who should represent the voters. How are the voters supposed to make a good, informed decision if their representatives refuse to say what they represent? Because it isn't that simple, I think. Take the thing in question - Pence asked whether or not Harris and Biden intend to pack the court, and Harris' response was, effectively, a coy "I don't know... are -you-?" I agree with the overall premise that US politics has a fuckload more room for honesty, the problem is the first party to do that disadvantages themselves severely, as (arguably) voters -aren't- making good informed decisions on who to vote for in the first place. You'd end up with an honest "Yeah, we want to ban fracking, and here's why" versus "Banning fracking will cost ELEVEN BILLION american jobs! If you elect us instead, we'll NEVER ban fracking and also give poor americans 1,000 dollars for every frack we do!" with no accountability for the dishonesty, so no real disadvantage for doing so. I mean look at the format for these debates - you have two minutes to go over your talking points, and 30 seconds to rebut it. All we end up getting is "No, that's a lie" as a response from either side - there's no actual hashing out of ideas or real debate of policy going on, just trying to sell your party and your ticket. I honestly think this is why Pence's answer to the final question was so refreshing - it actually felt like he was answering the 8th grader's question in an honest way, and not trying to earn her parents' vote or talk up Trump or anything. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27463 Posts
On October 08 2020 17:37 Fleetfeet wrote: Because it isn't that simple, I think. Take the thing in question - Pence asked whether or not Harris and Biden intend to pack the court, and Harris' response was, effectively, a coy "I don't know... are -you-?" I agree with the overall premise that US politics has a fuckload more room for honesty, the problem is the first party to do that disadvantages themselves severely, as (arguably) voters -aren't- making good informed decisions on who to vote for in the first place. You'd end up with an honest "Yeah, we want to ban fracking, and here's why" versus "Banning fracking will cost ELEVEN BILLION american jobs! If you elect us instead, we'll NEVER ban fracking and also give poor americans 1,000 dollars for every frack we do!" with no accountability for the dishonesty, so no real disadvantage for doing so. I mean look at the format for these debates - you have two minutes to go over your talking points, and 30 seconds to rebut it. All we end up getting is "No, that's a lie" as a response from either side - there's no actual hashing out of ideas or real debate of policy going on, just trying to sell your party and your ticket. I honestly think this is why Pence's answer to the final question was so refreshing - it actually felt like he was answering the 8th grader's question in an honest way, and not trying to earn her parents' vote or talk up Trump or anything. It works on specifics and really makes politicians look slimy and disingenuous, should be done more Exhibit A On the other hand I agree that it’s borderline impossible to discuss complex, multi-layered issues and policy or rebut in a minute, or half a minute or whatever. The media format and our ever-decreasing attention spans in consuming it even between the televisual age and the social media age in terms of condensing things into sound bites make things even worse. I don’t think it’s a particularly new quirk of human psychology that many people gravitate to those who promise simple solutions for complex issues over the person saying ‘well it’s a complicated issue’, but the actual format of these debates and how they’re packaged and consumed certainly exacerbates the problem . | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22661 Posts
On October 08 2020 11:14 StasisField wrote: Because most voters don't care about actual policy. They have shown this time and time and time and time again.Yup, but then no one would watch. The Townhalls all of the candidates do are very informative and answer way more policy questions than these debates ever will yet we don't focus on them. They want spectacle, they want to be lied to and told all their dreams will come true. They don't want to be bored with what the candidate actually wants to do. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24385 Posts
On October 08 2020 16:57 Simberto wrote: Absolutely. Dodging a question should not be acceptable. Your journalists have become far too accepting of not getting an answer to the question they asked, and are letting your politicians get away with not answering far too easy. In an interview, after dodging a question, they should just immediately get asked the same question, until they answer. And in a debate like this one, if they are not talking about the question after 10 seconds, the moderator should cut them off and mute their mike, remind them of the question, then give them another 5 seconds to get on topic, and then just cut of the remainder of their talking time if they don't start answering. Then, for their next question, instead of a new question they get the same one again, with the same treatment, until they answer it or the debate is over. These are the people who should represent the voters. How are the voters supposed to make a good, informed decision if their representatives refuse to say what they represent? I don't think they are. This is part of why Trump won. If you intentionally strip a populace of any critical thinking they are much easier to manipulate. You just run the risk of someone like Trump coming along and out manipulating you because he's not bound by making sure the system doesn't collapse upon discovery of its absurdity. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
She also missed key opportunity to massively dunk on Trump/Pence when she did not even mention Trump's walkout on the stimulus talks. What a terrible waste. Vice versa, I know who would have run with it 24/7 until you eventually believed him if he just promised to stop talking about it. Alas, historically VP debates are low key and most voters are decided anyway. So I dunno, mixed bag for me. Pence seemed like he ran a decent administration when you listened to him, too bad it must have been a different one than the one he is in now. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8201 Posts
I might be naive and Americans have proven time and time again that they could have an abysmally stupid take on what's going on in their country, but I don't see a way out for Trump. Biden is a slippery target and Trump has virtually nothing going on for him, neither politically nor personally. He can't even sell his "roll of the dice" crap anymore because this time he has exposed how shit he is at virtually everything. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
On October 08 2020 13:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Why is it so hard to get an answer as to whether democrats will pack the Supreme Court? Yes or no will be fine. Because they don't know yet what the republicans are going to do? Manage to confirm before the election, during lame duck, not at all... So they just don't have to answer since for now there is not 9 justices. Depending on the way the confirmation goes, or not, then they will decide what to do... | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Nouar
France3270 Posts
Be happy with *our* rule, we don't care if the majority thinks otherwise. Nice views. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22661 Posts
On October 08 2020 22:05 JimmiC wrote: Is he going to be in a position to have a debate in a week if he is still ill?Next debate has been moved to be virtual because of Trump and his Covid. And of course Trump says he won't participate. LOL the hubris and lack of awareness is well. I'm sure his base won't care. But all the independents who are mad about him not taking responsibility for... well anything, I'm sure this is going to be another drop in the polls. Biden should show up and just spend the hour talking with saying how nice it is to not be interrupted. https://www.npr.org/2020/10/08/921538492/second-presidential-debate-to-be-virtual-commission-says What is worse for him, dodging the debate with a bad excuse or stand infront of the camera's for all the country to see while struggling to breath and wheezing? | ||
| ||
