But airing a candidate debate is not a right-wing thing. Since when (in the last 20 years at least) has anything right-wing allowed debates from both major sides in the American political spectrum? Making an attempt to be fair is a centrist or Left-wing thing. If anything, that would further prove my point.
I can’t debate this as I don’t watch any news channels, but are you able to counter what Media Bias Fact Check (which, as far as I have seen is extremely accurate and vets their information) states, or is this a case that people on the extreme sides of any political movement see anything even slightly closer to the centre as “the other side?”
You must know that a debate between a bunch of Republican candidates that didn’t include Trump was a pointless effort that only allowed Republican talking points to be aired unquestioned. There was absolutely no non right-wing reason to have that debate. None.
I would even argue that it wasn’t pointless. Trump is certainly the biggest candidate for the Right, but there are plenty of things that could get in his way at the moment.
And “hearing them out” is a way to show that you’re not just unfairly maligning them and keeping them down by keeping them out of media that you don’t want to see. It’s also helping to split the Right, which is INCREDIBLY valuable.
Just because you can’t think of a reason, doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
Was there a fact-checker at the last Democratic primaries? If not, then why would there be a double standard?
And I think you may be mistaken about what these debates exist to do. They aren’t there to “check facts” and make sure everyone only has correct opinions (which I would argue that even some on Democratic side do not have). They are there to show what the candidates believe, how they behave, and how they respond to pressure. They show how they act in front of a crowd, and how they respond later to missteps during the debates. In effect, they show a good public face for judging a politician.
The simple fact is that you aren’t going to have every fact going into, say, a negotiation with China - you have to think on your feet.
Primaries are where people vote for a candidate. There are no debates. And there have been no debates this election season with Democrats, so I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about.
And you’re also talking about the candidates at the CNN debate as if they had a chance against Trump. May I remind you that all but one has already dropped out and did so after a single primary?
I misused a term, my apologies (I’m Canadian and my terminology was a little off). I was using Democratic Primaries in place of whatever the Democrats have as a candidate debate session like this was for the Republicans. If you let me know what it’s called, I’ll correct my post!
Regardless of the name, did they have a fact checker there at that event?
Again, I don’t believe the candidates have a chance against Trump UNLESS he is rejected as a candidate by enough states or other lawsuits have results that prevent him from running. If those do occur, then it will have been useful because it’s not like the Republicans are just going to not field a candidate.
Also as I mentioned, if a candidate has a strong base that really believes in them, sometimes they won’t vote for the person that beat “their” candidate, thus splitting the vote. This is a good thing from the opposite side.
It’s also a good thing because they’re abiding by the Equal-Time Rule (essentially an updated version of the Fairness Doctrine).
Absolutely, which is why I’m asking for clarification. Keep in mind that like 90% of our TV, movie, and internet content is American, so it’s not like we’re clueless about the goings-on there, we just don’t have some of the finer points nailed down.
So assuming the Equal-Time rule doesn’t apply, splitting the vote still does. Also, as a show of political fairness it still counts, not to mention that you can’t properly fight what you don’t understand.
You didn’t answer my question if the Democratic equivalent had a fact-checker. I’d look myself, but I’m not sure what it’s called.
And before I forget, thanks for talking. It’s not often you can debate on any social media without the other person being rude and condescending. I appreciate it.
I moderate (and do most of the writing for) [email protected] if you’d ever like to stop by!
But airing a candidate debate is not a right-wing thing. Since when (in the last 20 years at least) has anything right-wing allowed debates from both major sides in the American political spectrum? Making an attempt to be fair is a centrist or Left-wing thing. If anything, that would further prove my point.
I can’t debate this as I don’t watch any news channels, but are you able to counter what Media Bias Fact Check (which, as far as I have seen is extremely accurate and vets their information) states, or is this a case that people on the extreme sides of any political movement see anything even slightly closer to the centre as “the other side?”
You must know that a debate between a bunch of Republican candidates that didn’t include Trump was a pointless effort that only allowed Republican talking points to be aired unquestioned. There was absolutely no non right-wing reason to have that debate. None.
I would even argue that it wasn’t pointless. Trump is certainly the biggest candidate for the Right, but there are plenty of things that could get in his way at the moment.
And “hearing them out” is a way to show that you’re not just unfairly maligning them and keeping them down by keeping them out of media that you don’t want to see. It’s also helping to split the Right, which is INCREDIBLY valuable.
Just because you can’t think of a reason, doesn’t mean there isn’t one.
How about “hearing them out” and then not pointing out all the lies they told?
Because that’s what happened.
Was there a fact-checker at the last Democratic primaries? If not, then why would there be a double standard?
And I think you may be mistaken about what these debates exist to do. They aren’t there to “check facts” and make sure everyone only has correct opinions (which I would argue that even some on Democratic side do not have). They are there to show what the candidates believe, how they behave, and how they respond to pressure. They show how they act in front of a crowd, and how they respond later to missteps during the debates. In effect, they show a good public face for judging a politician.
The simple fact is that you aren’t going to have every fact going into, say, a negotiation with China - you have to think on your feet.
Primaries are where people vote for a candidate. There are no debates. And there have been no debates this election season with Democrats, so I honestly have no idea what you’re talking about.
And you’re also talking about the candidates at the CNN debate as if they had a chance against Trump. May I remind you that all but one has already dropped out and did so after a single primary?
I misused a term, my apologies (I’m Canadian and my terminology was a little off). I was using Democratic Primaries in place of whatever the Democrats have as a candidate debate session like this was for the Republicans. If you let me know what it’s called, I’ll correct my post! Regardless of the name, did they have a fact checker there at that event?
Again, I don’t believe the candidates have a chance against Trump UNLESS he is rejected as a candidate by enough states or other lawsuits have results that prevent him from running. If those do occur, then it will have been useful because it’s not like the Republicans are just going to not field a candidate. Also as I mentioned, if a candidate has a strong base that really believes in them, sometimes they won’t vote for the person that beat “their” candidate, thus splitting the vote. This is a good thing from the opposite side.
It’s also a good thing because they’re abiding by the Equal-Time Rule (essentially an updated version of the Fairness Doctrine).
None of them have a chance because all but one of them dropped out and the one who didn’t drop out is a woman of color.
Also, the Equal-Time rule applies to broadcast stations. CNN is a cable station. The FCC has no jurisdiction over it.
Do you think maybe because you’re Canadian that you might not actually know how it works in the U.S.?
Absolutely, which is why I’m asking for clarification. Keep in mind that like 90% of our TV, movie, and internet content is American, so it’s not like we’re clueless about the goings-on there, we just don’t have some of the finer points nailed down.
So assuming the Equal-Time rule doesn’t apply, splitting the vote still does. Also, as a show of political fairness it still counts, not to mention that you can’t properly fight what you don’t understand.
You didn’t answer my question if the Democratic equivalent had a fact-checker. I’d look myself, but I’m not sure what it’s called.
And before I forget, thanks for talking. It’s not often you can debate on any social media without the other person being rude and condescending. I appreciate it.
I moderate (and do most of the writing for) [email protected] if you’d ever like to stop by!