ABC News cancels New Hampshire Republican primary debate
abcnews.go.com
After Donald Trump dominated the Iowa caucuses, Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley said Tuesday that she will debate only Trump or President Joe Biden.
  • Telorand@reddthat.com
    1451·
    9 months ago

    Honestly, it doesn’t matter at this point. The debates are only useful for sound bites and headlines.

    The other Republicans have no actual shot at winning; 82% still want Trump and don’t care about the Hitler larping or whether he’s a convicted criminal, a rapist, a fraudster, etc. He’s their guy, the monster they always wanted who will exact vengeance upon their always-nebulous “enemy” for a litany of misdirected and mostly-fictitious transgressions.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      62·
      9 months ago

      Even if people watched the debate, Trump will just ramble on incoherently as Haley tries in vain to get out talking points and the whole thing will be absolute nonsensical babble.

    • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
      252·
      9 months ago

      Back when there were four TV channels debates made sense. It allowed candidates to respond in real time to each other, and to address the American people directly.

      But thanks to social media they can respond to each other in real time right now, or let everyone know they’re chillin’ in Cedar Rapids without needing to appear on prime time.

      tl;dr - Unless the League of Women Voters is running the debate I honestly don’t care about them.

    • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.worldEnglish
      10·
      8 months ago

      I guess these twerking cretins don’t realize that Trump already considers them as his enemies because they ‘stood against him’. And that they will be some of the first facing his proverbial firing squad.

    • urist@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      91·
      9 months ago

      The other Republicans have no actual shot at winning

      I mean, it’s not zero, Trump could have a heart attack or something tomorrow and it wouldn’t surprise me that much.

      Same goes for Biden, too, not sure VP Harris would make a compelling canidate. Maybe I’m wrong.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        3·
        9 months ago

        Having VP Harris safely in the shadows like Mr Cheney was hasn’t been good for her exposure and for building cred. But they needed to do that to appease the racist rednecks … who weren’t going to vote for her anyway.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    522·
    9 months ago

    I would bet that Trump refuses to debate when he gets the nomination. Hey, no one seems to care.

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    182·
    9 months ago

    Debates require you to enter in good faith as if your perspective can be changed.

    If you can’t commit to changing your mind you can’t debate.

    • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
      12·
      9 months ago

      Perhaps sway the audience, but I’ve never seen a debate where the participants ever changed their mind. Debates are about showcasing ideas and then seeing if those ideas stand up to the critiques of your opponent.

      Honestly, if a participant ever changed their mind during a debate, I’d think they were a poor representative of that idea. By the time you’re on stage at a formal debate you should have already thoroughly considered your opinion from every angle.

      • PrinceWith999Enemies@lemmy.world
        2·
        9 months ago

        They’re not, though. The opponents are scripted, using tested talking points, and are tightly rehearsed in what to say in response to which questions. If caught flat footed, they simply repeat an established talking point, and the time limits on the debate as well as the agreed upon format prevents any followup from the hosts.

        Debates are purely about charisma. They’re about projecting an air of knowledge and authority, whether or not you actually possess such knowledge. That’s why Trump does well - he simply lies with great conviction and excessive language. People who actually try to argue with him intellectually will lose, because he’s not doing that. He imitates Dwight Schrute imitating Mussolini.

        If you want to know where a candidate stands, read the policy papers they post. Watch the one on one interviews but keep in mind they’re not confrontational - they’re designed to be a forum for the candidate to state their position, not to get them to explain or justify them.

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          2·
          9 months ago

          I was speaking about debates more broadly, not just political debates but also scholarly debates. I don’t think the participants changing their minds would be a virtue.

      • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
        31·
        9 months ago

        I’m arguing that the principal of debate requires that you have a mind that can be changed. I’m not actually suggesting that one does, necessarily, change their mind over the course of a debate. However, it can be incredibly convincing to show a shift in thinking (taking the audience with you) where you do cede some caveats, but use them to further your argument and make it more convincing.

        I listen to intelligence squared, and I wish that debates were formally moderated and scored.

        • bostonbananarama@lemmy.world
          2·
          9 months ago

          I’m arguing that the principal of debate requires that you have a mind that can be changed.

          Having an open mind that can be changed if provided with sufficient evidence is fantastic, something we should all strive for.

          That being said, I don’t think it is necessarily needed for a debate. If you’re in a formally structured debate I would hope that you have fully considered all aspects, the pros and the cons. During the debate they should be making their points and critiquing the opposing viewpoint. Changing their mind would, in my opinion, be a disservice to the audience.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      222·
      9 months ago

      Kennedy famously trounced Nixon because he crushed him in the debate (mostly by looking better, but, also, he was Nixon and his ideas sucked)

      Lincoln straight up master debatered his way to the White House after the Lincoln-Douglas debates made him famous.

      The problem is not that America hasn’t had a debate tradition. The problem is that the last forty years it’s been neoliberals debating each other about how to suck less until now it’s neoliberals vs fascists and they’re, ya know, fascists.

      There isn’t a debate. They just lie and rage about their made up enemies.

      • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
        12·
        8 months ago

        No offense, but if you’ve got to go back to Lincoln/Douglas for your most convincing argument for how the United States has a tradition of debate, I think you’ve lost the argument before you’ve finished your point.

        Nixon/Kennedy, while often represented as a style vs substance debate (it wasn’t, Kennedy largely one on both based on broader polling than is generally trotted out, but his good looks to a televised audience certainly helps) is still more than two DECADES before the timetable you’re trying to lay out here.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        8·
        9 months ago

        Canada is only ever a couple steps behind America. Our own right wing party took notes from 2016 US elections and are currently implementing them pretty successfully.

        Empty platform, just snarky mud slinging and vacuous pandering. And it’s working.

      • Fades@lemmy.world
        116·
        9 months ago

        Oh you mean the countries that can’t defend themselves? Woefully unprepared for large scale war?

        Also, you’re blind as fuck if you think Canada isn’t gong through it, same with Britain and others in the eu

        This rise of fascism isn’t localized just to the us

        • WaxedWookie@lemmy.world
          5·
          9 months ago

          The likes of Canada, Australia, and (to varying degrees) Europe are slowly trudging their way toward fascism, but the US is attempting a speedrun at the moment. That’s a far greater threat than large scale war.

          I don’t think it’s likely, but it’s a very real possibility that this will be the last meaningful election to be held in the US for the foreseeable future. The same can’t really be said for the others.