Don't act like Walz wiping the floor with Vance is a forgone conclusion, it's not. That's what people thought about Biden's debate. Whether we admit it or not, there's intelligent Republican debaters who can't be baited out there, Trump just isn't one of them.

I genuinely wonder if the best option wouldn't be to refuse the VP debate until live, fact-checking is in place for both candidates. That, or correcting simple untruths didn't count toward their time. I love Tom Walz, but if he has to literally spend his entire time refuting very obvious lies continuously spewed by Vance, his time would be better spent campaigning in swing states. How much does a Vice-Presidential debate really matter, anyway?

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

correcting simple untruths didn’t count toward their time

This would be THE BEST rule ever for all debates of any kind.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

I disagree, that'll be abused by candidates to get more screen time.

We should keep the fact checking ABC did and perhaps deduct time for candidates that are consistently caught out on lies. The fact checkers should be approved by all candidates as well, so they can't just point to the hosts as favoring one or another.

[–] PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

There’s intelligent Republican debaters who can’t be baited out there

This is true, but I've seen Vance speak, he has zero charisma. I feel like you need some amount of charisma to be a bullshit artist and have people not see straight through you. I mean people with any semblance of intelligence will see through you no matter what, but votes aren't weighted on intelligence.

[–] 4lan@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

I've been saying for years that votes should be weighted on IQ. 1 vote for 100IQ points, 1.2 votes for 120IQ. If people literally rip up their children's homework because they are learning about pronouns (the grammatical concept) then they should be considered mentally unfit to vote

edit: sub-100 IQ people keep downvoting :)

[–] goatbeard@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

IQ is inaccurate at best, racist at worst. Bad take.

[–] 4lan@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Fair, I wish there was a way to judge one's general grasp on reality accurately.

[–] PresidentCamacho@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah as others have mentioned, this is a surefire way to find corruption in new an exciting ways.

How do you determine IQ?

No matter how you answer this question you open yourself up to different methods of corruption, as well as coincidental prejudice.

Is your test based on things only taught in college? Boom! now poor people cant vote.

Is your test based on common knowledge about the world? Boom, people outside of your bubble cant vote.

Also who runs the tests? Who oversees the questions asked? How do you make testing accessible for people with physical impairments? How do you ensure a proper testing environment? Each and every step has a way to inject corruption, and the kind of corruption that grows, since once you start limiting the voting pool u can limit it in a way that allows your brand of corruption to grow.

Its unfortunately not feasible.