There needs to be a federal law forcing candidates running for public office to debate (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Bolo

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 13, 2020
    Messages
    110
    Reaction score
    129
    Age
    43
    Location
    Metairie
    Offline
    Any candidate running for Public office should be forced to attend several mandated debates. I didn't like when Trump decided to skip out recently on the fox debate. Jeff Landry refusing to face his opponents face to face in the state governor's race and Biden not wanting to debate RFK is unacceptable. If you run for public office, there needs to be federal laws on the books that force ALL candidates at the local, state, federal level to debate and face their opponents. The voters are the biggest losers when candidates refuse to show up to debates, it looks cowardly on the candidate. I don't care if its a little rinky dink primary, I want to see candidates under pressure and have to defend either policies they implemented(incumbent) or ideas on how to move progress forward.


    How does one not laugh at Jeff Landry commercials. "He's tough on crime and tough!" Yet too cowardly to face his opponents in a debate.
     
    Hard disagree. Debating ability has almost nothing to do with governing effectively.

    RFK, Jr. doesn‘t deserve a debate, and Vivek bought his way on that stage by bribing individual donors to meet the threshold. Whereupon he impressed GOP voters because he can BS with the best of them. He doesn’t belong anywhere near a position of public trust however. And neither does RFK Jr.

    Debating, as is currently done, rewards BS artists. Not necessarily serious candidates who have thoughtful complex answers to complex issues. I could easily do without debates altogether.

    JMO.
     
    Hard disagree. Debating ability has almost nothing to do with governing effectively.

    RFK, Jr. doesn‘t deserve a debate, and Vivek bought his way on that stage by bribing individual donors to meet the threshold. Whereupon he impressed GOP voters because he can BS with the best of them. He doesn’t belong anywhere near a position of public trust however. And neither does RFK Jr.

    Debating, as is currently done, rewards BS artists. Not necessarily serious candidates who have thoughtful complex answers to complex issues. I could easily do without debates altogether.

    JMO.
    Absolutely hard disagree with everything you just said. Jeff Landry should face questions from his opponents in a public forum on all the failed and ridiculous lawsuits he was engaging in. RFK jr. Runs circles around Biden in a debate even if he's not the best dem candidate to challenge him. Trump should have to openly defend himself against all the allegations live in a public forum vs opponents and be able to attack them on their ideas as well.

    You can modernize the debate forums via streaming over the internet and cutting out the old boomer, out of touch legacy media while having a format long enough to get a clear understanding where candidates stand on issues. Candidates facing tough questions is more healthy for the process than allowing supposed "Front runners" to skimp out on them.
     
    RFK jr. Runs circles around Biden in a debate even if he's not the best dem candidate to challenge him.
    This sentence shows I am correct in my thinking. In what universe should RFK, Jr be considered to “run circles” around Biden? Only in a format that isn’t designed to get us the candidate that is best for this country. RFK, Jr isn’t qualified to be dog catcher in any town in America. He would be a total disaster for this country. He is as bad as Trump.

    And any discussion that is long format and has fact checking and requires them to come up with cogent policy solutions to complex problems isn’t our current debate format, which is what I thought we were talking about. Which is why I said “debating - as is currently done”.

    I have no problem with long format interviews and having candidates answer tough questions. They do not need to stand on a stage and give a dog-and-pony show for a studio audience. It’s politics as game show, and lends nothing to the actual serious issues at hand.

    We have trivialized politics in this country. We are becoming a non-serious people, and it’s dangerous. The fact that we have so many unserious people in politics is a horrible situation. RFK, Jr., Trump, Vivek are just going to get us into further trouble. Horrible candidates - all of them. We don’t need to see any more of them. They cannot seriously defend their positions without lying. Why promote more lying?
     
    What you are describing is effectively turning the Presidency into a game show.

    Why not go all of the way and give out roses at an elimination ceremony. after people vote live on their phones for who they think won the debate.

    It's work not entertainment. It isn't supposed to be exciting.

    They are applying for the most consequential job in the world and getting off zingers on a stage shows about zero when it comes to their leadership style and vision.

    The national debates serve a purpose. But not very much of one other than tradition.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom