If you hosted a debate, which candidates would you invite?

Author: Imabench ,

Posts

Total: 100
Imabench
Imabench's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 933
3
4
9
Imabench's avatar
Imabench
3
4
9
I didnt even watch the last Dem debate on CNN because rather then split the debate up between two nights to sort of balance things out, the host opted to cram TWELVE candidates all onto one stage and try to speed through all the questions. I didnt even have to watch to know ti would be a forgettable clusterfuck, and at this point Im tempted to not watch another debate until the field has been whittled down to 6 or so candidates. 

That being said, if you could invite AT MOST 6 candidates to a Dem debate, which ones would you invite?

For me it would be the following candidates:

- Biden, Warren, and Sanders (Naturally they are the frontrunners who can get at least 5% support in most states, a rare feat in the race at the moment)

- Buttigieg (Bit of a rival towards Biden in terms of being a moderate, also is in the top 3 in polling in the first primary of Iowa which is a big accomplishment. Also doing superb in fundraising, and took the rare step of hosting a Town Hall session on Fox News and performing pretty well at it while other Dem candidates would dismiss the invitation on face because of Fox News's more notorious TV personalities)

- Klobuchar (MN Senator who is doing unacceptably poorly in the race despite being an impressive speaker, extensive and recent experience in politics, a respectable platform, and only one of the two candidates that I have been impressed by (the other being Tulsi Gabbard))

- Yang (Political Outsider who has greater knowledge of healthcare and business from a citizen side compared to politicians, has arguably the most unique signature policy position with UBI, and polling half decent compared to other lower tier candidates)

Beto, Booker, and Gabbard I'm not impressed enough to really value any of their input in debates due to their low polling numbers and lack of experience (Failed Senator, Freshman Senator, House Representative in that order). Castro's campaign may not even survive another week although he has done the most homework of any candidate on immigration issues by far. Bob Steyer is a billionaire who is trying to buy his way into the conversation and doing so poorly. Harris's moment came and went following the first debate and she is still sliding back into obscurity after failing to impress anyone. Everyone else I cant even remember their names and are irrelevant. 

Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,597
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @Imabench
I don't care about who was invited. I would like to see a debate where if you mentioned the word "Trump" once, you get a warning and every time after, you get your speaking time reduced by 1 minute for every violation.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
I mostly agree with that list and the points you had for everyone. I would include Tulsi. She has some opinions that separate her from others so I see some value in her presence. I don't really like her as a candidate but at least she adds something to the conversation. She also crushed Kamela in the 1st debate. 

I don't think Klobuchar should be there. She basically is just a centrist candidate the same as Biden, Butigeg etc. Her only difference I have seen is that she makes REALLY cringey jokes that someone else clearly wrote for her and that she seriously thinks that the Republicans will compromise and work with her, which is just obviously not going to happen. I don't see how she adds anything positive to the debate. 
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,455
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
--> @Imabench
Bernie, Warren, Tom Stier and Biden.
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 7,580
3
5
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
5
10
Hillary Clinton should be on that list 
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 3,221
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
--> @Greyparrot
I don't care about who was invited. I would like to see a debate where if you mentioned the word "Trump" once, you get a warning and every time after, you get your speaking time reduced by 1 minute for every violation.
But then all of them would burn up all of their time in the opening statements. Don't you understand the importance of 2-3 solid hours of grandstanding and sweet nothings without a single second of actual substance?!


RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 343
Posts: 10,450
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
Warren. Only. I would give her the floor and sit in awe.

That is not sarcasm, she's genuinely the best thing in American politics I've seen in a long time.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @RationalMadman
Warren. Only. I would give her the floor and sit in awe.
That's not a debate. That is a speech. She already gives lots of those. 


HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @coal
Bernie, Warren, Tom Stier and Biden.
I'm curious why Tom Stier. He is a billionaire that bought his way onto the stage. I haven't seen him show any kind of platform to differentiate himself other than "look at me, I'm rich!". 

What about Tom Stier makes you want to see him in a debate?


TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @Greyparrot
it's not who would you invite but rather what questions would you ask, fail to answer directly gives increasing levels of electric shock.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
it's not who would you invite but rather what questions would you ask, fail to answer directly gives increasing levels of electric shock.
To be fair, the hosts of the debates are pretty biased and they ask lots of stupid questions, or phrase them in stupid ways. For example when they apologized to Biden while they asked him about he and his son's corruption. Or when they wasted like 10 or 20 minutes on "tell us about a surprising friendship"

If you only directly engage with the question they give, then the moderators can control what kinds of answers you are allowed to give. And the moderators seem to favor certain candidates. 

That being said, when the questions actually make sense, it would be nice if they wouldn't go off on stupid tangents about radios and sending social workers into peoples' homes. 
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @HistoryBuff
I don't respect the double talk, vagueness and what I consider dishonesty in the way they address (I won't use the word answer here) the questions.  IMO Bernie is the most transparent of them all which I do respect even though I don't care for him and dislike most of his ideas/policies.  But if you are open and honest there can be some kind of trust vs the shadiness we are accustomed to.  For all the great many faults Trump has, this is one thing he does better than the rest, he lays it on the line, doesn't sugar coat or pander like the rest.  That is to say he seems to do it the least amount.

Everytime I hear a politician use the word integrity (or similar) I throw up in my mouth a little.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
For all the great many faults Trump has, this is one thing he does better than the rest, he lays it on the line, doesn't sugar coat or pander like the rest.  That is to say he seems to do it the least amount.
Strongly disagree. Trump says entirely contradictory things pretty much constantly. He uses such vague, and in many cases nonsensical, language that people literally don't know what he means and then his supporters just assume he means whatever they want him to mean. Most politicians use double speak and talk around an issue. Unfortunately it is a very successful strategy. Trump just straight out lies constantly, often in ways where it is obvious he is lying. But since most people either don't listen to or don't believe the fact checkers that easily prove he is lying, most people just choose to believe his lies. 

I'd prefer someone who will talk around an issue to someone who will just straight out lie to your face, then insult you when you point out he is lying. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,597
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Okay..every answer to a yes or no question without a yes or no somewhere in the rambling response gives increasing shock levels.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,597
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @HistoryBuff
 fact checkers that easily prove he is lying, 

Most fact-checkers are actually opinion checkers.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
Most fact-checkers are actually opinion checkers.
No one is completely unbiased. Fact checkers are no different. Sometimes they judge things to be false based on that bias. I saw them rule something sanders had said about medical bankruptcies to be false, when the paper the fact checker worked for had reported the stats a few months earlier. 

But trump lies multiple times per day and if you asked some of his supporters they would tell you he never lies. How someone can be that disconnected from reality is hard for me to understand. 


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,597
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @HistoryBuff
Lying means an intent to deceive, which would mean repeating the same thing over and over multiple times to show malicious intent, such as saying you can keep your healthcare 100 times.


Or saying 100 times you have evidence Trump colluded with Russia.

Trump hasn't done anything like that.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @Greyparrot
correct, then at some point they would be given x number of minutes to explain their answer but can not talk about any other candidate/person, period.  Then a free for all period where they can rant about anything/anyone they wish.  by then most people will know what they wanted to know and it won't matter all that much.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
Lying means an intent to deceive, which would mean repeating the same thing over and over multiple times to show malicious intent
That is not what lying means. You can say something not true once, and it is still a lie. Just because Trump changes what he is lying about 90 times a day doesn't mean he isn't a liar. It just means he is a MASSIVE liar that can't keep his lies straight. 

, such as saying you can keep your healthcare 100 times.
Medicare for all would just change your insurance provider. It would have no change on what doctor you go to. In fact it would remove restrictions on what doctors you can see giving you more choice. So in what way is saying that a lie?

Or saying 100 times you have evidence Trump colluded with Russia.
There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that rump colluded with russia. For example the hundreds of contacts he and his staff had with russians that they claimed repeatedly never happened and only acknowledged once it was proven that they happened. Or the fact that multiple members of his campaign met with russians for the express intent of getting dirt on a political opponent. I believe the quote was "If it's what you say, I love it". Or the fact that his campaign manager gave their polling data to the russians. Why would the russians want polling data if they had no intent to try to affect the election? Or the fact that he said in a speech that he wanted the russians to get hilary's emails, and days later russian hackers started attempting to hack the DNC. There is a great deal of evidence, but unfortunately none that is the smoking gun that could tie trump directly to the russians. So saying that this evidence exists is in no way a lie.

Trump hasn't done anything like that.
There is evidence he did. unfortunately we are not able to say conclusively whether he is guilty. 
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,597
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
That is not what lying means. You can say something not true once, and it is still a lie. 

You can also say something not true once, and just be plain wrong. As in your Bernie example.

Assigning malice to everything with zero context is exactly what is wrong with the crazy left today.

Do you realize what an idiot I would look like if EVERY TIME I asked one of my students a question claimed they were lying if they got the answer wrong?
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,597
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
So saying that this evidence exists is in no way a lie.

Correct, this would be an opinion. 

Claiming that you actually have possession of the evidence is a lie when you then say you did not have the evidence later. By Schiff's own admission he said something knowingly untrue with the intent to deceive the public. In that specific case, we can clearly label that as a lie ONLY BECAUSE OF THE CONTEXT.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
Assigning malice to everything with zero context is exactly what is wrong with the crazy left today.
Assigning malice to 1 or 2 odd things they forgot to mention would probably be wrong. Assigning malice to dozens of contacts with russians when they claimed there were none at all, including meetings set up to get info from them and meetings set up to give them polling data, that isn't forgetfulness. That is lying. 

Do you realize what an idiot I would look like if I asked one of my students a question then said they were lying if they got the answer wrong?
If you ask your student if they snuck out of class to go to the bathroom and they say no, they might not be lying. If they say "what, no. i don't go to the bathroom. I have never, in my life been to the bathroom. Anyone who says I have been to the bathroom is liar." You can be pretty sure they are lying to you. Saying you have had no contacts with russians when you have had dozens of them, is some pretty obvious lying.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,597
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @HistoryBuff
Give me some examples where Trump was just wrong and not lying.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @Greyparrot
got my popcorn, this should be good.
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,272
3
3
2
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
2
--> @Greyparrot
Give me some examples where Trump was just wrong and not lying.
When such a high percentage of things that come out of his mouth are untrue, how can you tell? I mean he said he was a building a wall in Colorado. I assume that was him being wrong. Unless he wanted people to think he was walling off New Mexico. 

He may have initially thought he had a bigger crowd at his inauguration than Obama. I'm sure it looked like a big crowd to him. But there were lots of photos proving that wasn't true. If he honestly thought that at 1st, it became a lie later when he saw the photos on the news. 

He still thinks the central park 5 are guilty. I'm not sure he is lying about that, but he is very wrong. 

He probably honestly thinks that his call with Ukraine was perfect and that hosting the G7 at his property was a great idea. But mostly because he doesn't know what the constitution says. I mean he called a clause of the constitution "phony". That is probably a combination of Trump's ignorance and his staff being too cowardly to tell him it is illegal.