194
Why do Republicans even bother with this whole farce?
(www.salon.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2023
194 points (96.2% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3121 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. 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.
- 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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Its both useful and pretty obvious to me. The primary function of these debates is to get a temperature check on 'what the party is all about', and through this lense, we can see that they haven't moved in from misogyny, racism, and neo/facsist ideologies. They have an accountability to their voters to do so, and engagement will drive turnout. It's in their benefit to show they have some kind of value to their voters.
Frankly, I'm annoyed we're not also having a farse of a primary and debate season for Biden. It's a chance to ask questions and be critical, and anyone who says it's not the time for that is antidemocratic. Debates are one of the very few times we can hold the parties at least some what accountable for the bile they soew forth, even if only in a comedically produced and frankly, offensive to the definition of the word debate, debate structure.
We already have so few entry points into democracy in the US. Writing off this one seems ludicrous.
Sitting Presidents are rarely challenged within the party.
They should be, they need to be held accountable for their first 4 years to check if they are worthy of another 4.
Why would dems give voters a reason to vote against Biden?
They need to earn their position, if they haven't spent the prior 4 years earning it they shouldn't be reelected.
You didn't answer my question.
That is the answer, why should they expect to keep the job if they haven't earned it
Biden not being challenged in the primary is the Democratic Party saying “you’ve earned it”.
They are not allowing any challengers to keep his accountable.
I don't think you understand how this works
OP's not asking about what the incumbent expects. Why would the party itself give voters reasons to vote against their incumbent?
Because thats how democracy is supposed to work. Candidates need to earn everyone's vote every time theres an election. The purpose of an election is to give the population a chance to approve their reelection, it also holds them accountable. To just assume they are entitled to the full 8 years with no question or accountability is authoritarian.
That's what the general election is for.
I hate how when someone gets elected for their first term, the first thing out of everyone’s mouth is: re-election. Bitch, how about you bust your ass for 4 years and everyone will be begging you to stay. Instead its, get elected, work on re-election campaign, build a library. It would be amazing to see my country finally live up to this whole American dream BS that’s been shoved down my throat since birth, yet the only people actually getting richer were already rich to begin with. We talk about $100k salaries like they’re gold yet Elon, Bezos and Bill Gates wipe their asses with larger bills than that. We need a government for the people of the people. Not a bunch of 1%ers mooching off us Poors and writing policies to their benefit distancing themselves and their families from further from the people they claim to represent
That’s what the general is for.
No it's not, if they wont allow anyone to primary them then it's assumed there is no other choice
It’s a “the system is broken but we have to play with the rules” thing. We can protest/protest/canvas for new voting rules to get third parties more chance to be in congress, but I can’t see the presidency ever changing in a regular setting.
They designed a system that's broken for us, works perfectly for them and demand we participate in it
Actually the Republicans would love for you not to participate in it.
Then democrats better start earning votes instead of demanding them. "We are not them' isnt good enough.
In a democracy the citizens aren’t customers that need to be courted (though they often behave that way, to their own detriment). Rather, the citizens are participants. Sometimes, maybe usually, the whole process isn’t fun and enjoyable. Sometimes elections are like root canals: undesirable, but the alternative is a lot more pain and problems down the road.
That's obviously not the point.
True, but the Biden administration is definitely using the debate to put forward their own talking points ("watch it jack, we're bringing roe back," a new plan to cap student loan debt, new climate investments) so it's not like we're getting no taste of what the administration's priorities will be in the next 4 years
Good, and they should be. I'd like to see some Democratic with the candidates who obviously won't be getting the nod, simply because its an opportunity to hold people accountable. How about the failure by the Biden administration on student loans? How about we have some debate questions about the supreme court and how its basically been captured by the conservative movement, and apparently, open to bribery? We have so few opportunities to actually engage in politics. We can't give up the debates simply because of decorum or that the contenders won't win. Its literally the only time we ever get the chance to drive the party in the direction of the will of the people.
What is Biden supposed to do about the Supreme Court except nominate new justices? The problem is that you need Congress to do something.
Lets here what he proposes as a solution. Its his answer to have not mine, and as President, he sure as fucking shit better have a plan, or he's not qualified for the job. The argument here is in support of debates. Without debates, we don't get answers to these kinds of questions.
I sure as shit want to know what Biden's plan is to deal with a congress that wont play ball. He needs to have one.
It isn't his job, unless you make the Supreme Court a Presidential appointment alone and that they can fire justices on their own whim.
The power to deal with a corrupt Supreme Court has been clearly vested in Congress, not the President.
It sure as fuck is the Presidents job to navigate the halls of power and deliver on things they campaign on.
To a point, but the President has not been given the power to be a dictator.
If the President's agenda doesn't get past Congress, what is the President supposed to do? Do you expect the President to start arresting members of Congress until the Presidents' bills get passed?
No one is asking them to be, but if you don't understand that the ability to get an agenda past Congress is there job, I don't know what to tell you. The job of a President isn't to accept defeat for their constituents, is to find a way through.
That isn't the President's job to wrangle Congress. Perception over time has made people think that, but the Presidency was never set to lead the legislative branch. If that were the case, the President would be more like a Prime Minister in other countries.