politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Honestly I'm fully in favor of this. Biden's gaffes are much more understandable when they happen in context, as opposed to clipped sound-bites or reported by your favorite source of bias.
He should get in front of the camera more, not less. And he should do his practice debates, not with a debate-coach, but with a talk show host. Like, Jimmy Kimmel, Bill Maher or John Oliver or someone.
Agree there, but hard disagree on him doing it on a debate stage with Trump. Maybe if presidential debates were held like real debates with an impartial moderator who had to be followed, but they aren't. They're a chance for politicians to talk or yell over each other. They're useless most of the time and especially useless when Trump is involved.
He did fine last time. I think Trump has deteriorated more than he has.
Did fine by what metric? Because it's really not about cognitive abilities to debate. I just don't see a good reason to do it. It sounds like both a waste of Biden's time and a chance to give Trump ammo by ignoring ever crazy thing he says but putting every gaffe Biden makes into a supercut he plays at every rally.
Doing it would mainly call Trump's bluffs, and help put to rest the "handlers are hiding him from the public" line of attack.
And did fine by my personal opinion. If my memory serves, he mainly played to the calm in the face of Trump's crazy, and it worked well. Particularly with moderates.
His bluffs are never-ending and he can put that to rest by simply not hiding from the public. Just get out there and talk. He doesn't need to stand on a stage while Trump yells over him.
I disagree, I think showing the contrast directly is necessary in the face of modern media bubbling. Trump yelling over him does not hurt him.
Who doesn't already know the contrast?
Unfortunately, a fair number of people, most likely. People can have short memories with politics, and the presidential debates tend to draw a wide audience. On top of that, some people are simply new to the political world in the past 4 years, finally reaching voting age and such.
He's a veteran politician, spent decades in the Senate. There's probably few people on the planet that can handle yelling as smoothly as he can. He'll benefit from facing it down. People want strength and resilience in a president.
Did Hillary benefit from it?
No, but she had to battle sexism and subconscious biases. He's in a different situation.
Hilary probably should've gone for the nuts. It's not fair, but neither is politics.
How about debates that are actually debates, moderated by an independent and not partisan entertainers? I'm no fan of Trump but those are all strongly Democrat supporters. If you're trying to sway independent votes, biased moderation sours the desired audience.
Maher is pretty centrist, actually. Dude is straight up anti-mask, for instance. He has quite a few conservative positions, he'd prob be a repub if they weren't batshit insane these days.
And, reread my comment, since I haven't even mentioned anyone moderating. That one came out of your brain, not my comment.
Yeah that's true about Bill Maher. My mistake was actually vision related though. I can barely read on my phone screen. I'm usually on a large monitor with everything oversized. But I can't always have access to it. Practicing with talk show hosts is an interesting idea.
I still stand by my take on biased moderators though. If I watch a hostile interview on Fox I root for the person they're against. If I watch a hostile interview on MSNBC I root for the person they're against. They're all shit but in very different ways, mostly. They're all sold out to the ultrarich so they have that in common.
He never said they should moderate the debate.