this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
756 points (98.2% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3064 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 89 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

Ultimately, it's his call.

This is checks calendar 2024. Candidates don't need to debate, they all have to agree to it. If Trump doesn't want to debate, then it's not going to happen unless they basically give into his demands, because ignoring debates no longer looks bad (which is insane, but here we are).

[–] [email protected] 38 points 3 months ago

It still very much looks bad. You come across as spineless, especially if you’re not way ahead in the polls.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago

Oh it looks bad, just not to an insane 30% of Americans who avoid reality as much as they can

[–] [email protected] 46 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

It's not that he needs to do the debate, but he did the first because it fed his ego of being a strong man. So, him having to back out of the debate without having a scapegoat will eat at his ego of a strong man. So this word salad he spews setting the stage to duck the debate is as about rationalizing it to his ego far more than any real campaign reasoning. Trump does everything for Trump, and this whole campaign is largely about getting in the White House so he can stay out of the big house (prison).

Edit victim of autocorrect

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, seems likely that other republicans knew Biden's condition was worse than the campaign was letting on and Trump was banking on that for the debate (and election in general).

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Well listening to all the conspiracies coming from the Right prior to the debate they expected the Biden we saw at the State of the Union. And afterwards they accused him of being on performance enhancing drugs (because he could make whole logical sentences that Trump is struggling with these days).

Trump had a plan of just spewing a bunch of shit and calling Joe names, full stop. He got lucky that Joe made that easier for him, although he still made more sense than Trump. The Right has been running on the following since Trump announced:

  1. The immigrants that our economy depends on are out to replace white people/kill and rape white women/bring crime.

  2. Joe is old/sleepy (and sometimes responsible for things Trump did).

  3. Bury any mention of Project 2025 because nobody but elite Christofascists will benefit from it, and thus wildly unpopular even with the right.

  4. Keep Trump out of jail.

Edit ugh spell check

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I dunno, I remember that days before the debate, there was an article that was talk about how the republicans were painting themselves into a corner with all of their Biden has Dementia rhetoric because they were setting the bar so low that if "Biden finished the debate with a pulse, he would have won by their metrics". It's probably the old case of double talk, really. Biden was simultaneously both a roided out giga brain secret Stalin and a feeble confused old man prepared to die at literally any second.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Which is why this is all so exciting.

This is like her specialty.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is it?

I get that she was a prosecutor, but I'm simultaneously hearing people make this claim and at the same time say they haven't seen her debate much, or she was unremarkable.

Guess I just don't want to get my hopes too high. We really need someone quick-witted and who can bat the bullshit down.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I agree, it’s not like she can cross-examine Trump in a debate. She can say her piece during her allotted time (hopefully uninterrupted depending on the format), and Trump can ignore all of it, make up whatever he wants, and speak just as much as her, without any requirement to respond to anything she says.

So while her skills are certainly relevant, I don’t think the debate is necessarily the situation where I would say it’s her specialty. (Doesn’t mean she won’t do great, and I hope she does, but debating with Trump is definitely a “wrestling with a pig” kind of situation most of the time.)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

He would be giving her an entire hour of free prime time media.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

I think debates don't really matter anymore because what these people say and do is reported on constantly all day every day. That wasn't how it used to be.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Also the format of the debates is pretty terrible. Giving only 2 minutes to answer on complex social and geopolitical topics only lends itself to trying to make the best sound-bite. I would love to see them experiment with longer form responses (even if that means fewer questions each debate), as well as things like cutaways for adding context and fact-checking.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

I would like the debate moderators to be less cowardly and I would like the fact checking. There should be a buzzer when a candidate tells a blatant lie.

[–] [email protected] 60 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If debates didn't matter, Biden would still be the nominee.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Debates don't matter and that is a prime example. Trump gave no coherent answers while Biden was able to answer all but 2 questions. Yet the response was as if biden answered 0 questions and Trump intellectually ran circles around him.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

They do matter because a debate can show a lot more than just answers. For example, I think for a lot of folks, the lowest point was when they started arguing about fucking golf. It showed pretty much everyone that these guys are both just utterly divorced from the real problems facing Americans. Most everyone I know IRL was just disgusted with both candidates by that moment. That nobody cared Trump lied isn't a surprise. It'd be like being surprised that the sun rose in the east. It's what Trump does, he's a bullshit artist and everyone knows it, even the people who vote for him. That debate didn't really change anyone's evaluation of Trump. What was a surprise was Joe coming on the stage and just being an unintelligible mess. He did kind of get it together in the back half, but by then, the damage was done. That debate did change plenty of people's evaluation of Biden, myself included.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

the lowest point was when they started arguing about golf. It showed everyone that these guys are both utterly divorced from the real problems facing Americans.

You mean the short back and forth at the end of the 1 hour 30min debate where Joe Biden had clearly outlined the issues facing Americans, what he has already done and what he plans to solve them. Oh yeah a little back and forth of Joe insulting trump definitely invalidates his entire debate because it exposes that he is rich enough to play golf?? Did you just learn in that moment that Joe Biden was an elite class white boomer?

When I read stuff like this I wonder if you watched the debate or you only saw a clip with some republican opinion posted above it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

He's not running anymore. You no longer need to pretend he was a good candidate.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I watched the whole thing, facepalming the whole way through because it was the most disastrously bad debate performance I'd ever seen, and I've been watching since Kerry/Bush. Look you don't have to defend Joe's honor anymore, he already backed out. And yeah, it was basically like watching the candidates argue over who had a better sports car or greener lawn; it didn't invalidate anything as much as show just how disconnected both of them are from our concerns.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

He wasn't a charismatic superstar but I genuinely don't understand how you could watch the whole debate and think Biden looked worse or that both were equally bad. I believe you when you say you watched the entire debate. I just struggle to understand how any sentient person comes to that conclusion. Trump was making the most insanely obvious fake claims and rewriting history to fit whatever narrative he decided to ramble on. While Biden was responding to every question with thought out answers and relevant policy to address the issue.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

You know that the debate response had nothing to do with the debate topics or responses. Any other press conference that day would have likely had the same response. It wasn't what he was saying that was the problem.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Any other press conference that day would have likely had the same response.

He's done a decent number press conferences before and since that debate and has seemed perfectly capable during all of them, but the big difference is the debate is a 90 minute event in the evening when Sundowners hits hard, and most if not all of those press conferences have been around mid-day when he's reportedly most lucid. Anyone who's cared for or been around aging individuals with dementia can tell from the debate that he has dementia and its progressed pretty far

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's my point. The debate itself had nothing to do with the issue.

That just happened to be the event where it became more apparent to many people. It could have been any press conference or other speaking event instead.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

That IS the issue in American politics. As much as you believe people should be in tune with what is going on, politically speaking… they aren’t. Middle America gets sound bites and moves on. A lot of misinformation hits with them because they aren’t paying attention to how messed up politics actually is.

Things like presidential debates are worth tuning in to because it’s a single event (or 3) where you can get a condensed amount of information from the candidates. Most people don’t saturate their lives with politics. Things are changing because of social media, but that’s not necessarily for the better. Most people just want to live without the weight of the world on their shoulders all the time.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

True, but until then, the Biden campaign had done a pretty decent job of keeping a lid on his condition. The debate made it impossible to hide any longer. They just had to YOLO him out there and pray it wouldn't be a fucking disaster.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That's not necessarily represenative of how they act in person, spontaneously.

I go in assuming all social media is basically a lie.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Why are you getting your news from social media?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I don't lol.

I do read lemmy some now though, and a ton of sources for stuff are (unfortunately) on X

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You can absolutely be in the loop on important stuff without going to Twitter.

Stop supporting that shitstain and that Nazi haven by going there.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

I'm just saying a lot of real news has to cite Twitter as a source, because it is a source.

No one likes it.