I agree that Biden did not do well, especially when we compare the 2020 debates.

I understand Mark’s remarks on debates, but I disagree. Debates are a great way for the working class to learn about subjects they might not learn about anywhere else, and we are also giving them the chance to listen to conflicting opinions on the topic at hand.

Good or bad, the working class is given the chance to learn what the establishment is thinking, even if we do not support the duopoly.

Policy is not talked about too much when it comes to politicians from the duopoly; you would need to check the candidate platform and other sources like political history and voting record.

I don’t agree with Mark when it comes to his doomer talking points. I would say we are already really close to a fascist dictatorship with the duopoly, and Trump and Biden have both had the chance to be president, which is not too much of a surprise when they are reelected.

I am much more hopeful of the working class; being involved and helping your local community may help you change your views, but being empathic to people you do not agree with or think like is also much more helpful.

Going back to the debates: A point I would have made would be why no third parties were allowed in the debate stage. With the US being a “democratic” country and all, the duopoly does really well in hindering any contender when it comes to talking about them or allowing them in local, state, or national elections.

Debates between politicians are one thing, but it is important to continue to learn what the status quo is about so as to help us understand what they will continue to do.

Summary 1:

1. Mark, the speaker, gives a reaction to a recent debate, noting that Biden appeared old and did not perform well, while Trump had more energy but also did poorly.
2. Mark reflects on the nature of debates, emphasizing that they are more about performance than substance.
3. He shares a personal story about a debate he attended in his 20s, where the better performer was perceived as the winner despite lacking factual basis.
4. Mark criticizes the American voting system, claiming that people vote based on emotions rather than policy.
5. He expresses concern about the future of the United States, suggesting that the country may disintegrate within the next few decades, especially if Donald Trump is re-elected.
6. The speaker expresses concern that the US could devolve into a fascist dictatorship within 10 years due to an uninformed electorate voting based on feelings rather than facts.
7. They believe that live debates are not a valuable tool for discourse and that written debates are more effective.
8. The speaker is biased against Donald Trump and expresses a desire for Joe Biden to win in order to protect the country.
9. They end by stating that everything sucks and everyone is insane.

Summary 2:

1. The emphasis on performance in debates highlights the superficial aspects of electoral decision-making. This prioritization of style over substance can lead to misleading conclusions and impact the democratic process.
2. The tendency of American voters to base decisions on emotions rather than facts underscores the challenges of promoting informed civic engagement. This phenomenon can result in decisions that are not necessarily aligned with policy considerations.
3. The speaker’s apprehension about the potential consequences of a Trump victory reflects broader concerns about the direction of the country under different leadership. This fear illustrates the deep-seated anxieties surrounding political outcomes and their implications for the nation.
4. The skepticism towards the effectiveness of live debates as a tool for meaningful discourse raises questions about the utility of such formats in shaping public opinion. This critique highlights the limitations of performance-based exchanges in fostering substantive dialogue.
5. The acknowledgment of bias against Trump reveals the speaker’s personal stake in the political landscape, influencing their perspective on electoral outcomes. This recognition underscores the role of individual perspectives in shaping political attitudes and beliefs.
6. The speaker’s concerns about the potential repercussions of a Trump presidency on the US reflect broader anxieties about the country’s future trajectory. This apprehension underscores the high stakes involved in electoral decision-making and the lasting impact of political choices.
7. The call to prioritize policy substance over performance in debates underscores the need for a more substantive approach to political discourse. By focusing on the content of candidate proposals rather than their presentation style, voters can make more informed decisions based on policy considerations.