• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1471 year ago

    If it was any other, normal country, the debate schedule would not be based on whether someone wants to show up or not.

    If a canditate doesn’t show up, the other candidate gets to talk about their campaign.

    • Coelacanth
      link
      fedilink
      481 year ago

      The US is bizarro world in so many aspects. Political Supreme Court appointees that are appointed for life (!), two party system, the electoral college, the absurdly long election cycles…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Political Supreme Court appointees that are appointed for life (!),

        Judges are appointed for life, so they can be impartial and don’t need to worry about who won’t hire them after their term ends if they made unfavorable decisions.

        the absurdly long election cycles…

        4 years is absurdly long to you? Getting things done in politics takes time. How long should the cycle be in your opinion?

        • Coelacanth
          link
          fedilink
          61 year ago

          Judges are appointed for life, so they can be impartial and don’t need to worry about who won’t hire them after their term ends if they made unfavorable decisions.

          Brother I’m not talking about letting the new president fire them at will, I’m talking about term limits and retirement ages.

          4 years is absurdly long to you?

          This one is maybe on me since my word choice was possibly ambiguous, but I was referring to the campaign cycle - not the length of the term.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Ok, then we agree on all points except term limits for judges. Forced retirement is fine by me, but yanking them out of office before they retire has the drawback I mentioned before.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          101 year ago

          The “political” before “Supreme Court apointees” implies a lack of impartiality.

          “Election cycle” and “term of office” aren’t synonymous.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          The US supreme court judges are appointed by politicians: They are political appointees. In a lot of other countries supreme court judges are selected by a non-political committee, like every other non-political appointee.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            In a lot of other countries supreme court judges are selected by a non-political committee

            My worldwide knowledge of this is limited. In Germany, each of the two ‘houses’ of parliament (Bundestag and Bundesrat) elect one half of the ‘Supreme Court’’s (Bundesverfassungsgericht) members (judges and other staff).

            Article 94 of the constitution. (Translated)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        321 year ago

        The fact that the first lady does speeches and the presidents family is in the spotlight at all. (Rather dynastic for a democracy)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          Come on now we can’t have the poors voting now can we??

          How are we supposed to keep our stranglehold on wealth the country if we allowed the poors to have their say!?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      141 year ago

      In a normal country an insurrectionist and rapist would not be a candidate, let alone in the top two. We are already well beyond rational thinking about any of this.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    331 year ago

    Didn’t he just say the other day that he wanted to debate her multiple times? Don’t tell us that was a weak ass lie Donnie! (We already know it was).

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    231 year ago

    This is the same reason he didn’t show up to the republican debates: he knows he can’t keep up with anyone.

  • PorradaVFR
    link
    fedilink
    491 year ago

    “FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!”

    ……but, talk to Kamala Harris about policies and record?

    *flee

    Coward. Total and utter chickenshit.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    471 year ago

    Even if Trump says no, Harris should at the very least discuss her opinions and views on camera. It could just be a single person question and answering, a debate other Democrats, or debating a third party candidtae if they don’t want to back other Democrat candidates. Leaving Harris a mystery is the worst thing Democrats can do.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      13
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This! Do the debate whether he shows up or not. It will expose him for being a massive pussy

      I know it’s hard to believe sometimes but people are slowly realizing what he is. All of my Trumper family are now apolitical all of a sudden lol

      Works for me!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        pussies are tough. he’s a ballsack: quite sensitive, shrivels up in cold weather, and prone to premature ejaculation

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      She should %100 debate RFK. No one voting for her is going to magically jump to him…but people who voting trump might jump to voting RFK…plus she can show how scared the turnip is of debating someone who is semi competent

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Why are we giving a man who had a brain worm and believes that Wi-Fi gives you cancer a platform?

        This man was trying to be a spoiler for the Democratic party, extremely unsuccessfully. He does not have hopes of being president he has hopes of swaying moderates away from the left.

        He is a brain dead Trump cultist. He never wanted to win.

    • Schadrach
      link
      fedilink
      English
      221 year ago

      Leaving Harris a mystery is the worst thing Democrats can do.

      This is half the reason he doesn’t want to do it.

      The other half is that "man yelling at clouds* might beat “well meaning elderly man with a poor memory” but doesn’t stand a chance against anyone who can consistently string three sentences together in a coherent fashion.

      Having the debate would both make Trump look bad and make Harris less of a mystery and neither of those things helps Trump.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    231 year ago

    He can’t handle that he will lose to a woman. He’s got nothing to fight her with except insults about women.