teddit

genuine political question:

if you believe in a free democracy, how do you grapple with the fact that the DNC isn’t  having debates for any of its presidential nominees and will likely not allow for a presidential debate? 

i genuinely don’t understand why it seemingly doesn’t bother anyone, regardless of party.

/ted | exploring the onchain frontier | surfing @ venice, ca | eating @ gjusta / gjelina

Yeah. Mostly because the risk of undermining the incumbent’s electoral odds isn’t worth the reward of seeing the marketplace of ideas in action. Parties are instruments of interests that want to win

I’m with you, but I suspect the bother factor is less than odds-are-worse with-debate factor, so no debate

Of course! Yep, agree it feels weak. Biden’s in a precarious spot. I assume the calculation is something like better to avoid risk of damage offered in a live debate and accept the risk of perceived weakness, which is already a downside he’s managing

this is the best, most logical answer. thank you. 

so it’s a smart risk-assessment decision, which i get, but also feels weak. imagine if we did that with sports lol.

This is the alt account of Sister Hazel. Writings at https://powerlaw.systems.

Institutions inform the incentives that drive behavior. For sure! Civil war is a low probability high impact scenario that most folks (me included) want to avoid. Fortunately, the US is Lindy as they say. And it’s why @packy’s stuff and e/acc and all the goodness that comes from the US should be more top of mind

An understanding I started to develop for some time is that it may not even be the actors within our systems but our systems themselves that we created and now ended up being captivated in. What I do now not like are the odds of fixing the system. Like, civil war would be one option. But that is not good.