• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        They should be, they need to be held accountable for their first 4 years to check if they are worthy of another 4.

          • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            They need to earn their position, if they haven’t spent the prior 4 years earning it they shouldn’t be reelected.

                • knotthatone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  OP’s not asking about what the incumbent expects. Why would the party itself give voters reasons to vote against their incumbent?

                  • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

        • ME5SENGER_24@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

            • hansl@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

        • HWK_290@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          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

          • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              What is Biden supposed to do about the Supreme Court except nominate new justices? The problem is that you need Congress to do something.

              • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Lets here what he proposes as a solution. Its his answer to have not mine

                  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.

                  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    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.

                    It sure as fuck is the Presidents job to navigate the halls of power and deliver on things they campaign on.