#ElectionDebates

[infohub-24]

American Election Debate, Ignores China

In Election Debate In America Ignored China: The Forgotten Geopolitical Challenge. With the U.S. preparing for its next election, there are several different issues currently under discussion across the nation – from the economy and healthcare to immigration and climate change. Yet a key subject is noticeably absent: China. Although America is on the verge of an election debate, China has done little in the way of a debate about its position in the global order given that it is arguably one of America’s largest geopolitical and economic adversaries. This is all the more surprising given how wide-ranging those relations can be, from trade and technology to national security and global diplomacy.

This piece examines why China has fallen out of the American election debate, what this significant gap means for U.S. foreign policy, and where the country stands as a world leader in the future.

Why U.S.-China Relations Are So Important

Today, few bilateral relationships in the world are as important as that between the United States and China. In recent years, China has emerged as a powerful economic competitor to America, and its military power and technological prowess threaten the facade of US hegemony. These two nations are intertwined in a tangled web of cooperation Read more...

[inexable]

Is Immigration Really Driving Up Housing Prices?

Senator JD Vance claims that undocumented immigration is one of the main drivers of rising home prices, prompting a heated debate just weeks before an election. While immigrants contribute to housing demand, experts emphasize that their impact on home prices is minimal compared to factors like post-2008 construction shortfalls and pandemic-triggered demand surges. Additionally, many immigrants rent rather than buy homes, questioning the narrative of them driving up purchase prices. What do you think: is immigration really a significant factor in housing affordability, or are we missing the bigger picture? Let's discuss!

[anilevesosm321]

Digitaalinen demokratia

Kuva: https://www.theloquitur.com/internet-search-engines-may-impact-our-political-opinions/

[vegan4jesus]

Reposted from @datastuffplus Trump tax. Yes business people know how to game the system and take risks for gain but just compare your quality of life and the taxes you pay to trumps. Don't matter what side you are ain't no way you more baller than trump and pay less tax. By @statista • • • • • • Ahead of tonight's first #electiondebate against @joebiden, @realdonaldtrump is spinning from a bombshell @nytimes reported, showing his chronic financial losses and years of tax avoidance. The investigation found that #Trump paid $750 in taxes in 2016 and 2017, considerably less than the average U.S. citizen. In 10 of the previous 15 years, he paid no #incometax at all. So how do Trump's tax returns compare with previous U.S. presidents? According to a @washingtonpost analysis, @barackobama, Trump's predecessor, paid nearly $1.8m in federal income tax in his first year in office, primarily due to royalties from the sale of his books. @georgewbush, #BillClinton, and #RonaldReagan have paid at least $100k during the first year of their administration. #uselections2020 #dataisbeautiful #dataviz #infographics #datavisualization #interesting #cool #instafacts #woah #picoftheday #amazing #factoftheday #politics #americanpolitics #trump #Biden #sidenwithbiden https://www.instagram.com/p/CF6-mpSJQsVf5awBDlVIOZXhERDXBQaA9Euw4E0/?igshid=lm8ijuyptabg

[goteamphoto]

#debate #trumpvshillary #electiondebates The debate on Monday may become the most watched event in television history with over 100 million viewers from around the world projected. I can't wait to watch them two go at it. It's going to be drama, sport and pay per view level entertainment. Especially if one or both of them goes off the deep end and starts losing control. Hopefully, it won't get too embarrassing. Peace!

[thelivingbreathinggoddess]

RENEGADE I go against the truth which is a lie that's disguised. I've told enough lies and time to live my True/Truth. I Fight the societal norms which cause more harm than the good. When you reject me you deject the movement which is love. Believe that if you come in the way of my destined path I'll bring you hell , and I shall do it with love. #fire #electiondebate #trump #biden #us #coronovirus #democrats #republicans #vote #right #wrong #equality https://www.instagram.com/p/CFvpEdEnWe0/?igshid=1vwtfeaurebn5

[owensherwood]

Rest of tonight's sketching... #electiondebate #jeremycorbyn #theresamay #owensherwoodillustrator #illustration #politics #news #sketch #tombowmarkers

[progressiveparty]

Voters need more third-party options. Americans should demand it.

“In any other country, Joe Biden and I would not be in the same party,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, said recently. She’s right. Ocasio-Cortez and her preferred presidential candidate Bernie Sanders are self-described democratic socialists. In every other political system, they would belong to a far left party such as Germany’s Die Linke or France’s Socialist Party. And yet Sanders, Congress’s longest serving self-described independent, is now in the top-tier, and arguably even the frontrunner among candidates to become the Democratic nominee for president. Likewise, Michael Bloomberg is also no Democrat. Bloomberg was elected mayor of New York City twice as a Republican and once as an independent. While socially progressive, his time in government was marked by fiscally responsible, pro-business policies. His moderate record seems well outside the mainstream of today’s Democratic Party.

2020 Democratic presidential hopeful US Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) wave to a crowd of supporters during a campaign rally on October 19, 2019 in New York City. JOHANNES EISELE, AFP via Getty Images So why isn’t Sanders, who remains technically an independent, or Bloomberg, a former Republican, running as either an independent or a member of a third party? Why do they both feel the need to compete for the helm of and pledge fealty to a political party whose platform seems inconsistent with their policies? The answer is that our electoral system, although designed by patriots with a healthy skepticism of political parties, has been reconfigured to make it impossible to challenge from outside the partisan duopoly. Sanders and Bloomberg both know this, which is why they have eschewed an independent run in the mold of a Ross Perot or Teddy Roosevelt in favor of the Democratic Party nomination process. They’re not wrong. I should know. I tried. In 2018, I ran for the U.S. Senate, raised more than $1.8 million and polled as high as 18 percent. But I confronted barriers every step of the way. Preventing new competition, I learned, is one area where our two major parties work well together. It starts with restricting ballot access and debate exposure. For congressional races, gerrymandered districts, closed primaries and warped campaign finance laws have been honed by party bosses to protect incumbent lawmakers preferred by their base. Talking it out: Learning to discuss complicated issues ahead of the election We want to hear from you: Be a part of the solution to finding solutions. Tell us here. For presidential races, it’s even worse. Simply being listed on the ballot is tough and expensive. In 2016, when Evan McMullin ran as an independent and received 22 percent of the vote in Utah, he was able to gain ballot access in only 10 other states. Each state has different requirements, and some have made it nearly impossible outside the two major parties. Party insiders also make it excruciatingly difficult to be included in debates. The Commission on Presidential Debates, a duopoly controlled by the two parties, has set the polling threshold for the general election debates at 15 percent. Perot was the last third-party candidate to qualify for a general election debate. That was in 1992. The truth is that in 2020 the only path to victory is through the two major parties, which means that our options are determined by the minority of loyal partisans and activists who show up to vote in the primary elections. The result is widespread apathy, even disgust, for two bad options, options which in recent years have been opposed by a majority of Americans. In 2016, candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton had the worst favorability ratings of any Democratic or Republican nominee in modern times. With a political system that both parties continually tweak each election cycle to present voters with polarizing candidates, 2020 might end up even surpassing unfavorability records. This sad state of affairs isn’t entirely hopeless. We need a set of reforms, passed on a bipartisan basis, that changes the political incentives for candidates.  Among them are nonpartisan redistricting, easier ballot access, open primaries, frequent and accessible debates, financial transparency in campaigns with spending limits, term limits, and ranked-choice voting, which allows voters to express preferences among multiple candidates. Convinced that titans of industry had bought off both parties, Americans were similarly disenchanted with their national politics at the dawn of the 20th century. A groundswell of organic, bottom-up reforms swept the nation. The Progressive Era brought us women’s suffrage, the direct election of senators, many anti-corruption laws, and viable national independent candidacies with Bull Moose Teddy Roosevelt. If Americans truly want a third option in politics (or even if they just want more moderate Democrats and Republicans), then they will pressure lawmakers to pass these reforms. I am tired of choosing between the lesser of two evils. Source: USA Today Read the full article

[drumeshjumar]

https://www.thecampusnews.com/2022/01/Voters-day.html

The Campus News के टेलीग्राम से जुड़ने के लिए क्लिक करें https://t.me/tcnthecampusnews

#nationalvotersday #elections2021 #electiondebate #electioncommission

[inexable]

The Debate Dilemma: Trump vs. Harris Round 2?

In the aftermath of the recent debate clash, Kamala Harris's campaign seems keen on a follow-up face-off with Donald Trump. However, Trump's camp appears to be more hesitant. Trump, labeling the previous debate a victory despite criticism, blames the hosting network for bias and continues to claim a win, while rejecting a proposed second debate format.

With Fox News stepping in to offer another debate moderated by Martha MacCallum and Bret Baier, Trump seems uninterested, suggesting alternative moderators like Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. Meanwhile, Harris's campaign is game for an October debate.

What are your thoughts? Is Trump’s reluctance to debate again indicative of confidence or caution? Would a second debate offer any new insights to swaying voters? Who do you think benefits the most from another debate showdown? Share your views!

[phungthaihy]

Federal Leaders' Debate 2019 http://ehelpdesk.tk/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/logo-header.png [ad_1] Marking two weeks from election ... #2019election #andrewscheer #bernier #blanchet #bloc #blocquebecois #canada #canadianelection #canadianfederalelection #confidence #conservativeparty #conservatives #debate #election2019 #electiondebate #elizabethmay #emotionalintelligence #energyhealing #federalleadersdebate #greenparty #greens #jagmeetsingh #justintrudeau #leadersdebate #leadership #learningstrategies #liberalparty #liberals #lifecoaching #maximebernier #may #memory #mindfulness #ndp #neuro-linguisticprogramming #neuroscience #newdemocraticparty #newdemocrats #parenting #peoplesparty #peoplespartyofcanada #personaldevelopment #personalproductivity #ppc #publicspeaking #reiki #scheer #singh #speedreading #stocktrading #technicalanalysis #trudeau #yves-françoisblanchet

[8mmcineclub]

via Twitter https://twitter.com/jezturner

[worldnewsapp]

The #commission that holds the #quadrennial #presidentialdebates says that the first of the three scheduled showdowns this fall between #PresidentTrump and former #VicePresident #JoeBiden is being moved from #Indiana to #Ohio after #NotreDame withdrew as a host. The Commission on Presidential Debates (CDP) announced on Monday that the Sept. 29 debate will now be held co-hosted by Case Western Reserve University and #Cleveland Clinic and held at the Health Education Campus (HEC) in Cleveland, Ohio. The move came after Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana withdrew as the host of the first presidential general election debate. Click the link in our bio for more on this story. #Trumpadministration #presidentialcampaign2020 #debates #electiondebate #elections2020 #uselections #politics #politicsnews #americans Reposted from @foxnews https://www.instagram.com/p/CDOodEZBLBg/?igshid=ap5sc22g0zxj

[24x7politics]

बोल रहा हैं पहाड़ो का कोना कोना। हरीश रावत हैं उत्तराखंड का सोना।। #हरीश_रावत_फिर_से #rahul_संग_विजय_संकल्प… https://t.co/u0JlNjh3gm

बोल रहा हैं पहाड़ो का कोना कोना। हरीश रावत हैं उत्तराखंड का सोना।।#हरीश_रावत_फिर_से #rahul_संग_विजय_संकल्प#factsonly#ElectionDebate http://pic.twitter.com/5s4vK1hSjO

— 24x7 Politics (@24x7Politics) January 16, 2017

via Twitter https://twitter.com/24x7Politics January 16, 2017 at 06:25PM

[inexable]

The Debate Dilemma: Round Two or One and Done?

Last night's debate left us with some fascinating food for thought! Kamala Harris seems ready for another showdown with Donald Trump, who isn’t as eager this time around. Trump’s debate performance had everyone talking, with claims of a chaotic delivery and numerous fact-checks by the moderators. Yet, he’s standing firm on his victory stance.

Harris’ team is calling for a second debate, and Fox News has already lined up dates and moderators. But Trump is hesitant, dismissing the proposed moderators in favor of right-wing pundits who support him.

What do you think? Should there be a second debate? Would different moderators make a difference for an unbiased and factual discourse? And how do we gauge who truly won a debate amidst claims of media bias? Let's discuss!

[inexable]

Breaking Down the Anti-Corporate Crusade of Maggie Goodlander

Maggie Goodlander's bid for a House seat in New Hampshire has sparked an interesting debate. With a D.C. heavy resume and a mission against corporate monopolies, she's trying to resonate with local voters by addressing their everyday struggles related to health care, housing, and food industries. Her opponent, Colin Van Ostern, claims to be more in tune with local issues and criticizes Goodlander's campaign funding sources.

What do you think about candidates with strong national perspectives taking on local roles? Can anti-corporate sentiments truly influence voters, or is it too detached from everyday realities? Share your thoughts!