Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
So, What Did We Learn?
What we “discovered” last night is that President Trump is unwilling to stop talking, and that he will pursue any rhetorical rabbit in his eagerness to engage a critic, even if it means throwing away an opportunity to make a significant point. He isn’t a debater, he’s a brawler.
But we already knew that.
What we “discovered” last night is that Vice President Biden will promise the moon while dodging any inconvenient question, secure in the knowledge that “I’m not going to answer that” is an acceptable response for a member of his party.
But we already knew that, too.
We already know that both men will say untrue things, that each has a history of saying untrue things, that they’re two varieties of the same species: Trump lies like a self-promoter, telling you all the great things he’s done; Biden lies like a politician, telling you all the great things he’ll do.
What no one discovered last night, because it was never brought up, is how the two men differ on the fundamental job of governing. That should have been the purpose of the debate, to help people who haven’t decided who they’ll support understand the differences between the kind of governance the two men bring to the country.
But that really wasn’t the purpose of the debate. Had that been the purpose, Mr. Wallace would have asked each man to answer the same questions, questions about how he thinks we should address specific challenges facing the nation. We have plenty of challenges, and in almost every instance the preferred approach of a Republican administration and a Democratic administration will be diametrically opposed. That’s important; that matters. That’s something people should know.
But, again, that wasn’t the purpose of the debate. The purpose of the debate was to generate heat. The format encouraged combativeness between the candidates; the questions encouraged defensiveness. Mr. Wallace’s job was to start a dog fight, and then to act like a man who doesn’t approve of dog fights. He pulled that off pretty well, and he’s probably happy with himself.
So the nation learned nothing last night. Instead, we got a demoralizing show of pettiness, rudeness, and evasion, a reinforcement of the mistaken idea that what matters is how these men behave at their worst, rather than their very different approaches to governance.
Well done, Mr. Wallace.
There are big differences between the Republican and Democratic approaches to governance. The President has demonstrated his approach: deregulation, Constitution-loving judges, an arms-length but apparently effective foreign policy, and a broadly pro-growth, pro-business domestic agenda.
In contrast, the Democrats seem focused on racial grievance, climate change fear, an end to capitalism, an apparently immortal narrative of Russian collusion, and an implacable hatred for the man who won in 2016. What do those things look like when you put them in power? It would have been nice if that had been a topic of conversation last night.
Published in Elections
Professional vs personal
Especially after same candidate said no to court packing 11 months ago
Biden still can’t make up his mind about fracking or the green new deal.
I think we can say with 99% certainty that Biden will not stop court packing, he will not stop the green new deal and he will kill the fracking industry
These ‘debates’ are really political theatre especially on television
Trump supporters don’t care.
Most of the reaction has been one sided.
Democrats and their media collaborators complain about ‘sh-t show’ but this is what they want, let’s not kid ourselves.
They can’t discuss real issues because Biden and his campaign are both hollow and incoherent
There are several levels to these debates. Most of us would love to see point scoring on policies and who is the more worthy candidate. But in reality, it’s a wrestling match and Trump knows this.
He dominated poor doddering Biden. Yeah, he was a bully. As the deep state snakes say, “ politics ain’t beanbag”. And neither are debates. Trump showed utter contempt for Biden ( and rightfully so) as he did with Saint Hill.
Trump knows he’s no saint, but what really ticks him off is he knows these people are worse than he could or would ever be.And they pretend to be – and are treated by the media like -innocent darlings who only want what’s best for the American people and America.
Trump was born on June 14th the same day of the year as my father ( who BTW was a war hero – whatever that means) and there really may be something to astrology, because my father became similarly animated over pretense and hypocrisy. Another iconoclast. And my father never considered himself a saint, not even an altar boy, but he was a pretty good guy. Being a ‘good’ guy involves warning other people about frauds and false prophets.
Trump can’t stand people like Hillary and Biden, and neither can I.
This piece posted at The Critic and linked at Powerlineblog is interesting — and, frankly, a bit of a rebuke to the opinion expressed in my own post. The author makes a credible case for his contention that Trump’s performance may have been more skillful than I, a square old man of conventional civility, believed.
Wow. Thank you. Excellent opinion piece. Extremely interesting. And it sounds right to me.
So, what did we learn?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loxHqf95mek
I am unpersuaded. I don’t know the author, but his reaction is identical to that of Trump’s fans. “He fights!” Yes, bullies fight. But, in general, Americans don’t like bullies.
I hope Trump wins this election, because the alternative is worse. But I can’t convince myself that bad behavior is actually good.
I don’t think his behavior was at all bad, and actually, Americans do like bullies. We have a long history of liking bullies, and rough and tumble political campaigns.
I might also add, maybe he is right and this year there is not a mass of undecided voters. Maybe it is a turn out election. There is something to the idea that is what got Obama elected in the first place, Black Turn out.
The election well may turn on turnout. All the more reason it’s regrettable that the GOP is trying to persuade the voter who thinks “Trump is appalling. Can’t stand him. But I don’t like what the Democrats want to do” that he should crawl over ground glass to cast his vote rather than just not bothering.
Part of the point may be that the Democrats are the actual bullies, especially now. And a non-Trump wouldn’t stand up to the assault, as we’ve seen in the past.
Debate number one is in the history books with a new debate emerging about “who won?” Debates are not scored like boxing matches but instead like figure skating at the Olympics, judges deciding the score and who won, often inserting their own prejudices and biases.
In the case of presidential debates, big media and blue check marks on Twitter are the self-proclaimed judges. The morning after the debate has led to a new debate as to which candidate was the most “presidential” and whether the few remaining undecided voters will be swayed.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/09/trump_accomplished_what_he_needed_in_the_first_debate.html
I think, and since I’m always right it should be the case, that far more voters are basing their decision on the progress in many areas that’s been made over the past 3.5 years, not on something like any “debate.”
The UK media and pundits do a better job of covering elections in America?
I think so
turn out is another for cheating?
not verifying residence or citizenship?
not verifying postmarks and signatures?
We should vote on policy not ‘behavior’?
The opening paragraph made me laugh out loud literally (loll?)