717
Trump rejects second Harris debate
(www.cnbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
717 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19135 readers
1870 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That reminds of the 2020 presidential election in Poland when both candidates did exactly what you describe - they debated at the same time but in separate studios. And the story how it came to that is wild.
This was after the first round of the elections (where two candidates are selected for the second round), which involved things like last-minute rescheduling of the elections, last-minute candidate swap and effectively throwing away 20 million dollars of public money. Currently there are several criminal investigations conducted against people involved in organisation of that first round. And of course it was all in the middle of the pandemic. So the political chaos was at its absolute peak.
The two candidates were the country's president representing then ruling party and capital city's mayor representing then biggest opposition party. Both of course wanted the debate. The issue was that then ruling party turned the public broadcaster into a party propaganda machine compared by experts to that created by Goebbels. And the core of that propaganda was that the second biggest (private) broadcaster in Poland (owned by Discovery Group) is anti-Polish and cannot be trusted.
Both broadcasters offered they can organise the debate. The private one I believe was also willing to jointly host it. But the ruling party candidate couldn't agree to a debate hosted by the private broadcaster because that would significantly impact the propaganda and expose his many wrongdoings to the manipulated ruling party voters.
On the other hand, the opposition candidate couldn't agree for the debate hosted only by the public broadcaster because that would effectively be 2 hours of him trying to deny lies spread by hosts and the other candidate.
The 2nd round was coming close and no compromise has been found. So on the same day the two broadcasters prepared their studios for two candidates with audience. Ruling party candidate went to public broadcaster, opposition candidate to private one. Both declared the other as a "no-show" and proceeded to have a "debate" with hosts and audience.
Few days later the opposition candidate lost by a small margin.
What a clown show