I disagree. We never see Biden in anything but brief and highly-staged managed appearances. And in those he reads (badly) from his note cards and still manages to cause international incidents with his alarming ad-libs. He won't even talk to the New York Times. His campaign seems detached from reality and unaware that it is losing. A little trial-by-fire is exactly what we need to see.
At the very least, a competent debate performance would put those claims to fucking rest. I suppose an incompetent one could make things worse, but people in the middle (swing voters) are already pretty uncertain about Biden's age.
Have to disagree. Since one of this election's biggest injustices is that Biden's age is an issue but Trump's isn't, this is probably the best way to clarify who's more cognitively competent.
Awe... so cute how the Democrat left screams through their corporate media feeds how great is the Biden talent and performance but opposes Biden coming out of the basement to debate the other choice for President. "Did you see the SOTU speech?! Wow, wasn't president Biden just spectacular!?" The intellectual dishonesty of Democrats is so transparent that the entire party is becoming invisible.
He's a self-described "cranky liberal", but I would argue that as an academic, his idea of liberal at times borders on illiberal / progressive or he at least gives the illiberal / progressive left a pass in many cases when they should be called out.
Tbh, I'm new to listening to the Glenn Show. I'm just basing my opinion on what I've heard so far after listening to the two of them chew on a few issues. I'll certainly be listening for more clues, but so far, I'm not sure grouchy liberal is the best descriptor. Of course, I could be wrong and will change my opinion after watching more shows if that's the case.
He claims to be. His history of political opinions are such that he appears to be.
It seems to me that your question is related to the fact that the modern "Democratic left" is the same as what we only a decade ago would have labeled as the radical left... and more so... an illiberal radical left. Because McWhorter has not drifted along with that change and thus appears to not present fealty to the modern Democrat Party, you ask that question.
Well someone needs to define what the "Democratic left" really is before that question can be answered. I find a lot of Democrats like to claim they are not part of the radical left but never renounce any of the views and demands of the radical left. Sorry, no cake and eating it too.
I agree. Trump is such a gangster, liar, and coup plotter that he should not be debated. He should not even be on the ballot since he tried to foment an insurrection. He has been a criminal most of his adult life.
He's already validated by the half of America that will vote for him. I don't really think the debate moves the needle. Unless, of course, it highlights a less-understood strength or weakness in one of the candidates...which is a good reason to do it.
The one thing a town hall can't provide that a debate can (at least in theory) is letting ideas rub up against each other. Right now, we are extremely short on venues where we expose audiences to disparate and conflicting ideas side by side. While I think a Trump-Biden debate would be a farce for the most part, I disagree strongly that presidential debates have outlived their usefulness.
I will not watch these so-called debates. There is no reason to put myself through an experience sure to be an international embarrassment for America. The inevitable "cringe factor" is far beyond my level of tolerance.
The idea of a televised town hall moderated by some respected, non-partisan journalists (are there any left?) would be far more enlightening that the verbal cage fight that is sure to ensue when the two candidates meet. When Biden debates Trump, inevitably on Trunp's incivil, loud, testorone infused terms, Biden will only look frustrated and weak because he can't bring the Donald under control. Rather, the juxtaposition of multiple, serious town halls vs. Trump's inchoate rallies over time would serve Biden well. It would emphasize time and again Biden's thoughtful, steady seriousness vs. Trump's ranting incomprehension. The Biden team should reconsider.
It's not the size of the audience that matters, it's the quality. Those who just want to see the cage fight and are probably unpersuadable wouldn't watch a town hall. Those that are interested in issues, but undecided would. The 100,000 people in swing districts in swing states that will decide the election are the target audience. Nobody else matters.
Perhaps it's political parties that have outlived their usefulness. There's no longer any way someone can say what a Democrat is or what a Republican is since the fundamentalists poked their noses into the ginormous party tents. The Democrats have the liberals, but also the illiberal white-hating progressives. The Republicans have the conservatives, but also the white-supremacist nationalists. Not only do the parties not mean anything anymore, but they're increasingly focused on unconstitutional pursuits like neo-racism, violent demonstrations, censorship, and more. The candidates are just individuals herding cats with changing messages depending on the audience and dictatorship-like intra-party opposition extinguished. If RFKjr was included in the debates, it would probably tell people that calling him out as nuts is nothing more than politics as usual. At the very least he can think, speak, and write which is perhaps more than the chosen ones can do.
Thanks John McWhorter, I have been thinking the same things and wishing someone more articulate than I would point them out. What we call formal political debates are nothing but performance art in which everyone attempts to find the best "zinger" moment. Nuanced content about significant issues is nowhere to be found. Why Biden, who is a poor orator even at his best, would want to go on national TV and be ridiculed by the class bully for no good purpose is a mystery to me. Obama might have held his own and turned the tables on Trump's antics, but I can't see any hope for Biden. He's done much good and has reasonable ideas, but quick-on-your-feet communication is not in his repertoire. The only politician I've seen who has mastered this of late is Pete Buttigieg, but there may be others.
Your points are completely valid; but I disagree with them. A debate is an absurd proposition when one candidate has denied that the other was even elected. It requires of everyone a both soderism that basically accomplishes everything Trump wanted in the first place. To put a question about any policy I can think of -:taxes, tariffs, China, you name it - on a plane with Trumps actions is the same thing as deciding that an effort to overthrow the government is no more consequential than any other minor dispute. . Debating is a tactical mistake; a worse strategic mistake; and a far worse mistake for the idea of democracy.
This may seem cynical to you but the truth is the SPM destroyed the purpose of the General Government in practically all aspects except (1) subsidizing the war industry by having the FRB sell debt (2) paying back interest free loans in the form of social security and (3) pork barrel politics to keep the SPM elected. Otherwise, Barry Goldwater's "The New Federalism" overthrew The General Government beginning one day after he lost the landslide election because the Jumping Jack Asses really didn't care. Consequently, there are no adverse consequences to whatever local governments want to do to your fundamental rights: Life, Liberty and Property unless the state in which you reside is willing to disturb Provincialism. From the 1964 landslide came the Viet Nam war, then Richard Nixon and then Ronald RayGun - with Tip O'Neil &co having Jameson "Old Dawny Boy" parties at the White House while RayGun wheedled fedsoc in thru the side doors. Anyone that cared about any of it With Any Juice, died, the ones that didn't are happy with their cash flow and the youngsters were/remain generally ignorant and thus it all went to hell. Just look at the National Debt. That's what it takes to keep this SPM fiasco going. The General Government is already ruined storming the Capitol was demonstrative expressionism. Trump can't make the reality much worse. As long as the war industry is happy anyone can be President. The social parasites hiding behind ight to Life figured out that the only real danger that might lead to losing their office(s) is social security so they 're trying to make another baby boom to dilute the numbers of old people and the JJAs are helping them by importing immigrants that no one needs. 870 Judges for 325 million people ? The General Government is gone the Southern Confederacy won the civil war why? Because they were all Democrats and the republicans collapsed circa 1929. "Stick a fork in it turn it over, it's done". The mere fact Donald Trump could be President just dinks it out and him losing the election or winning it changes nothing. Last Word? There's no will to abandon the SPM because no one has the independent intellect to know what to replace it with and it needs replacing.
"While McWhorter advocates for avoiding debates with Trump to maintain the dignity and quality of political discourse, I believe engaging in these debates is not just essential but empowering. We can use this tool to challenge undemocratic ideas and uphold democratic values. Debates, despite their flaws, are not just vital but our strongest weapon for exposing the weaknesses in authoritarian arguments and reinforcing the principles of democracy."
I totally agree with Professor McWhorter. And then there's this: Joe Biden is the President of the United States, elected by a majority of the Electoral College and the popular vote after a distinguished career of public service. Donald Trump is a man who is under multiple credible felony indictments, who attempted a coup against the Constitution of the United States, and who was elected President by a fluke in our system in spite of losing the popular vote after a career of grifting, business fraud, and serial bankruptcies. Implying any equivalence between the two by putting them on the same stage is obscene.
I disagree. We never see Biden in anything but brief and highly-staged managed appearances. And in those he reads (badly) from his note cards and still manages to cause international incidents with his alarming ad-libs. He won't even talk to the New York Times. His campaign seems detached from reality and unaware that it is losing. A little trial-by-fire is exactly what we need to see.
At the very least, a competent debate performance would put those claims to fucking rest. I suppose an incompetent one could make things worse, but people in the middle (swing voters) are already pretty uncertain about Biden's age.
Have to disagree. Since one of this election's biggest injustices is that Biden's age is an issue but Trump's isn't, this is probably the best way to clarify who's more cognitively competent.
Awe... so cute how the Democrat left screams through their corporate media feeds how great is the Biden talent and performance but opposes Biden coming out of the basement to debate the other choice for President. "Did you see the SOTU speech?! Wow, wasn't president Biden just spectacular!?" The intellectual dishonesty of Democrats is so transparent that the entire party is becoming invisible.
Are you under the impression that McWhorter is part of "the Democratic left"?
He's a self-described "cranky liberal", but I would argue that as an academic, his idea of liberal at times borders on illiberal / progressive or he at least gives the illiberal / progressive left a pass in many cases when they should be called out.
This comment smacks of someone who hasn't read any McWhorter.
This comment smacks of someone who hasn't read any McWhorter.
Tbh, I'm new to listening to the Glenn Show. I'm just basing my opinion on what I've heard so far after listening to the two of them chew on a few issues. I'll certainly be listening for more clues, but so far, I'm not sure grouchy liberal is the best descriptor. Of course, I could be wrong and will change my opinion after watching more shows if that's the case.
He claims to be. His history of political opinions are such that he appears to be.
It seems to me that your question is related to the fact that the modern "Democratic left" is the same as what we only a decade ago would have labeled as the radical left... and more so... an illiberal radical left. Because McWhorter has not drifted along with that change and thus appears to not present fealty to the modern Democrat Party, you ask that question.
Seems like a pretty valid question then.
Well someone needs to define what the "Democratic left" really is before that question can be answered. I find a lot of Democrats like to claim they are not part of the radical left but never renounce any of the views and demands of the radical left. Sorry, no cake and eating it too.
I agree. Trump is such a gangster, liar, and coup plotter that he should not be debated. He should not even be on the ballot since he tried to foment an insurrection. He has been a criminal most of his adult life.
I completely agree with him. Debating with Trump validates him. I think Biden will,do fine in the debates but his campaign made the wrong decision
He's already validated by the half of America that will vote for him. I don't really think the debate moves the needle. Unless, of course, it highlights a less-understood strength or weakness in one of the candidates...which is a good reason to do it.
The one thing a town hall can't provide that a debate can (at least in theory) is letting ideas rub up against each other. Right now, we are extremely short on venues where we expose audiences to disparate and conflicting ideas side by side. While I think a Trump-Biden debate would be a farce for the most part, I disagree strongly that presidential debates have outlived their usefulness.
I will not watch these so-called debates. There is no reason to put myself through an experience sure to be an international embarrassment for America. The inevitable "cringe factor" is far beyond my level of tolerance.
The idea of a televised town hall moderated by some respected, non-partisan journalists (are there any left?) would be far more enlightening that the verbal cage fight that is sure to ensue when the two candidates meet. When Biden debates Trump, inevitably on Trunp's incivil, loud, testorone infused terms, Biden will only look frustrated and weak because he can't bring the Donald under control. Rather, the juxtaposition of multiple, serious town halls vs. Trump's inchoate rallies over time would serve Biden well. It would emphasize time and again Biden's thoughtful, steady seriousness vs. Trump's ranting incomprehension. The Biden team should reconsider.
But those town halls wouldn’t attract the size of audience debates would.
It's not the size of the audience that matters, it's the quality. Those who just want to see the cage fight and are probably unpersuadable wouldn't watch a town hall. Those that are interested in issues, but undecided would. The 100,000 people in swing districts in swing states that will decide the election are the target audience. Nobody else matters.
Perhaps it's political parties that have outlived their usefulness. There's no longer any way someone can say what a Democrat is or what a Republican is since the fundamentalists poked their noses into the ginormous party tents. The Democrats have the liberals, but also the illiberal white-hating progressives. The Republicans have the conservatives, but also the white-supremacist nationalists. Not only do the parties not mean anything anymore, but they're increasingly focused on unconstitutional pursuits like neo-racism, violent demonstrations, censorship, and more. The candidates are just individuals herding cats with changing messages depending on the audience and dictatorship-like intra-party opposition extinguished. If RFKjr was included in the debates, it would probably tell people that calling him out as nuts is nothing more than politics as usual. At the very least he can think, speak, and write which is perhaps more than the chosen ones can do.
Thanks John McWhorter, I have been thinking the same things and wishing someone more articulate than I would point them out. What we call formal political debates are nothing but performance art in which everyone attempts to find the best "zinger" moment. Nuanced content about significant issues is nowhere to be found. Why Biden, who is a poor orator even at his best, would want to go on national TV and be ridiculed by the class bully for no good purpose is a mystery to me. Obama might have held his own and turned the tables on Trump's antics, but I can't see any hope for Biden. He's done much good and has reasonable ideas, but quick-on-your-feet communication is not in his repertoire. The only politician I've seen who has mastered this of late is Pete Buttigieg, but there may be others.
Your points are completely valid; but I disagree with them. A debate is an absurd proposition when one candidate has denied that the other was even elected. It requires of everyone a both soderism that basically accomplishes everything Trump wanted in the first place. To put a question about any policy I can think of -:taxes, tariffs, China, you name it - on a plane with Trumps actions is the same thing as deciding that an effort to overthrow the government is no more consequential than any other minor dispute. . Debating is a tactical mistake; a worse strategic mistake; and a far worse mistake for the idea of democracy.
This may seem cynical to you but the truth is the SPM destroyed the purpose of the General Government in practically all aspects except (1) subsidizing the war industry by having the FRB sell debt (2) paying back interest free loans in the form of social security and (3) pork barrel politics to keep the SPM elected. Otherwise, Barry Goldwater's "The New Federalism" overthrew The General Government beginning one day after he lost the landslide election because the Jumping Jack Asses really didn't care. Consequently, there are no adverse consequences to whatever local governments want to do to your fundamental rights: Life, Liberty and Property unless the state in which you reside is willing to disturb Provincialism. From the 1964 landslide came the Viet Nam war, then Richard Nixon and then Ronald RayGun - with Tip O'Neil &co having Jameson "Old Dawny Boy" parties at the White House while RayGun wheedled fedsoc in thru the side doors. Anyone that cared about any of it With Any Juice, died, the ones that didn't are happy with their cash flow and the youngsters were/remain generally ignorant and thus it all went to hell. Just look at the National Debt. That's what it takes to keep this SPM fiasco going. The General Government is already ruined storming the Capitol was demonstrative expressionism. Trump can't make the reality much worse. As long as the war industry is happy anyone can be President. The social parasites hiding behind ight to Life figured out that the only real danger that might lead to losing their office(s) is social security so they 're trying to make another baby boom to dilute the numbers of old people and the JJAs are helping them by importing immigrants that no one needs. 870 Judges for 325 million people ? The General Government is gone the Southern Confederacy won the civil war why? Because they were all Democrats and the republicans collapsed circa 1929. "Stick a fork in it turn it over, it's done". The mere fact Donald Trump could be President just dinks it out and him losing the election or winning it changes nothing. Last Word? There's no will to abandon the SPM because no one has the independent intellect to know what to replace it with and it needs replacing.
Have we been joined by QAnon?
I had to Google it - https://www.bbc.com/news/53498434
I truly don;' know what QAnon is otherwise
So you're Artificial Intelligence Brown?
😎🤘🏻
Unquestionably biological, arguably intelligent. You?
My response
"While McWhorter advocates for avoiding debates with Trump to maintain the dignity and quality of political discourse, I believe engaging in these debates is not just essential but empowering. We can use this tool to challenge undemocratic ideas and uphold democratic values. Debates, despite their flaws, are not just vital but our strongest weapon for exposing the weaknesses in authoritarian arguments and reinforcing the principles of democracy."
https://vlademocracy.substack.com/p/debate-or-die
I think that one can debate against Trump/ism but not with Trump/ism
O AL Brown - I Googled you, according to Google you died !!
So by act of Necromancy
You disagree with my commentary?
So why not just say so?
Are you actually from the Bull Work ? O wait The Bulwark ?
Yeah, represent.
So what is your argument in support of your purported
intelligence
🙂
I totally agree with Professor McWhorter. And then there's this: Joe Biden is the President of the United States, elected by a majority of the Electoral College and the popular vote after a distinguished career of public service. Donald Trump is a man who is under multiple credible felony indictments, who attempted a coup against the Constitution of the United States, and who was elected President by a fluke in our system in spite of losing the popular vote after a career of grifting, business fraud, and serial bankruptcies. Implying any equivalence between the two by putting them on the same stage is obscene.