The Democratic Presidential Debates

mcgruff10

Lerxst1992 said:

Are we trying to get another democratic topic shut down?

No but when people say stupid things they need to be addressed.  I enjoy debating but getting personal and insulting shows to me that those particular people do not have the intelligence or skills to rationally discuss.   (even you and I had a funny back and forth but no harm no foul.)

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

CM189191 said:

mcgruff10 said:

CM189191 said:

mcgruff10 said:

CM189191 said:

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

CM189191 said:

mcgruff10 said:

CM189191 said:

mcgruff10 said:

CM189191 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I was responding to the "and moderates are terrified" article that was posted. 

Fair enough, but hte 'terror' is from Warren and Sanders trying to outflank each other on the left on all of their policies, not just a wealth tax thing.  Their escalating price tags is a problem. 

Correct.  I might honestly vote third party if warren or sanders is the candidate.  (Not that it matters in nj)

jfc not this shit again

We are a two party system

Voting third party reflects a complete ignorance of how our government is set up

It's not edgy or cool or a protest.  It's flat out ignorant. 

Lol. I always love the holier than thou attitude and ignorant assumptions by some people.  Thanks for telling me how to vote.  

It's not holier than thou, or making assumptions.

Grass is green, sky is blue, USA has a two party political system.  It's really not up for debate.

Voting third party is like buying a vowel on Jeopardy.  You don't even deserve a participation ribbon. 

So if people don't like either candidate then they should stay home and not vote?  

False dilemma : 
A fallacy of oversimplification that offers a limited number of options (usually two) when in reality more options are available. Also known as the either-or fallacy, the fallacy of the excluded middle, and the black and white fallacy.

If people don't like either candidate, they should get the fence post out of their ass and realize one candidate is clearly a better option than the other. 

That candidate is nearly always a Democrat.  By any and every metric, the Democratic party has outperformed the GOP. 

Prove me wrong.  Or sit down and shut up.  

so you post the definition of false dilemma, the fallacy of there being only two options, as your argument to mcgruff that there are only two options? interesting debate tactic.  

shouting at people and insulting their intelligence isn't the way to get them to vote democrat. 

It is this sense of elitism that gives the dems a bad name and gives more and more ammo to trump. 

Well, if you want to re-elect Team Trump Treason, vote third party.

I m not gonna vote for someone on the far left.  Biden Or Pete I will vote for. Sander or warren?  Hell no. 

https://twitter.com/GeorgeTakei/status/1187956431468806144?s=19

What's the point of calling yourself a liberal if you don't allow anyone else to have a different view?  People should absolute analyze each candidate and decide which one most closely aligns with their own beliefs.  This is especially true in the primaries.  

Because dumb shits throw a fit when their perfect candidate isn't nominated, and vote third party or sit out.  There is no perfect candidate for everyone.  Individuals voters have to compromise their own beliefs for what is good for all of society.  

That is why the GOP playbook is fear, uncertainty, and doubt.  It plays on the emotions of the individual, rather than promoting actual societal solutions.  

The question is not which candidate is best for me, it's which candidate is best for the country.  Vote blue no matter who!

so anyone who votes third party is a dumb shit?  would you consider Teddy Roosevelt a dumb shit? Ralph Nader? Ross Perot?   So I"m supposed to compromise my own beliefs and vote just based on party?  Sounds like you are the blind "dumb shit".  
I feel like you are calling out millennials but you yourself are the definition of one.  (not me, born 1977)

so anyone who votes third party is a dumb shit?  
Yes

would you consider Teddy Roosevelt a dumb shit?
pretty sure Teddy was a Republican, and we had a two party system then too

Ralph Nader? Ross Perot?  
Yes - both dumb shits.  See also : Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.  

So I"m supposed to compromise my own beliefs and vote just based on party?  
No, apparently you just need a better set of beliefs. 

But if you were to vote based on party, I thinks it's an obvious choice.  Do you want to associate yourself with criminals, pedophiles, racists and warmongers?  Or with the party that wants to figure out how to provide healthcare and education.  You would think it's a no-brainer, but here we are...

I love the uneducated.  You would do well in politics based on how open you are to other peoples ideas.  I hope you run one day.

Teddy Roosevelt is nominated for the presidency by the Progressive Party, a group of Republicans dissatisfied with the renomination of President Taft. Also known as the Bull Moose Party, the Progressive platform called for the direct election of U.S. senators, woman suffrage, reduction of the tariff, and many social reforms. Roosevelt, who served as the 26th president of the United States from 1901 to 1909, embarked on a vigorous campaign as the party’s presidential candidate. A key point of his platform was the “Square Deal”–Roosevelt’s concept of a society based on fair business competition and increased welfare for needy Americans.

Except Teddy became president as a Republican upon the death of McKinley, having been VP. Then was elected again after mcKinley’s original term was up. He ran as a third party in1912 after becoming dissatisfied with Taft’s policies, giving us Wilson as a dem. Had repubs stuck with Taft, rather than vote 3rd party, maybe WW1 doesn’t happen nor the rise of Nazi germany, as some blame Wilson, League of Nations, treaty of Versailles, etc. The point being, third parties gave us Wilson, Clinton twice and GWB. Had the party faithful stuck with their party’s nominee or indies voted with the party that they mostly identified with, they would have gotten “something.” Instead, they got much less of what were closer to their ideals. People who run third party aren’t dumb but people who vote third party may very well be. It seems you’d rather have 4 more years of Team Trump Treason because the dem nominee “might be too far left.” The other funny thing is that regardless of who the eventual POTUS is, they have to work through Congress. A too far left dem has as much chance of passing radical legislation as a far too right Team Trump Treason. Except you probably more closely align with TTT’s repub party?

mcgruff10

Ghandi could have been elected to the us and world war 1 would have still happened because Europe 1914 had literally nothing to do with the US.  Princip is still killing Franz Ferdinand regardless of an election in 1912. 
The treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with Wilson.  Dude do you need me to send you a few books on world war 1?  

I ve been voting blue since 1996 so I don’t understand this blind alliegiance to the Democratic Party. It is ok to criticize and give to suggestions to where the party should go.  

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

Ghandi could have been elected to the us and world war 1 would have still happened because Europe 1914 had literally nothing to do with the US.  Princip is still killing Franz Ferdinand regardless of an election in 1912. 
The treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with Wilson.  Dude do you need me to send you a few books on world war 1?  

I ve been voting blue since 1996 so I don’t understand this blind alliegiance to the Democratic Party. It is ok to criticize and give to suggestions to where the party should go.  

The treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with Wilson? WTF? POTUS has nothing to do with the treaty despite the US entry while he’s president and his entry of US forces wins the war? Yea, send me some books so I can see how you became so misinformed.

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

Ghandi could have been elected to the us and world war 1 would have still happened because Europe 1914 had literally nothing to do with the US.  Princip is still killing Franz Ferdinand regardless of an election in 1912. 
The treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with Wilson.  Dude do you need me to send you a few books on world war 1?  

I ve been voting blue since 1996 so I don’t understand this blind alliegiance to the Democratic Party. It is ok to criticize and give to suggestions to where the party should go.  

Do you think the Iraq war happens too under a Gore Administration? Or 9/11? Or the Medicaid donut hole?

dignin

Voting 3rd party is ridiculous.

It's only going to help Trump.

Even if you disagree with Warren, Biden or Sanders on policy, at least they aren't an embarrassment or a threat to your country.

And if we are to believe some people, there is no way they are going to pass legislation anyways because of a divided country and Congress. So you have nothing to be worried about there.

But at least there will be an adult in the oval office.

mcgruff10

Correct, Wilson had his 14 points but Britain and France wanted some revenge and punish Germany and the rest of the Central Powers hence the reason why the Treaty of Versailles was used as opposed to Wilson's 14 points.  Wilson's 14 points wanted to forgive, forget and try to move on while making the world a better place.  (Although they did keep the League of Nations around.)  Do you want me to send you the power point I used for the past 18 years?  I usually have my students pick which treaty is better then discuss why France and Britain picked the treaty of Versailles over the 14 Points.  Let me know.

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

Correct, Wilson had his 14 points but Britain and France wanted some revenge and punish Germany and the rest of the Central Powers hence the reason why the Treaty of Versailles was used as opposed to Wilson's 14 points.  Wilson's 14 points wanted to forgive, forget and try to move on while making the world a better place.  (Although they did keep the League of Nations around.)  Do you want me to send you the power point I used for the past 18 years?  I usually have my students pick which treaty is better then discuss why France and Britain picked the treaty of Versailles over the 14 Points.  Let me know.

Who were the four western powers who signed the treaty of Versailles? Who was POTUS for the US during that time? A far cry from “had nothing to do with the treaty,” wouldn’t you say? Or does your PowerPoint show Wilson playing golf or relaxing on a beach?

mcgruff10

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Correct, Wilson had his 14 points but Britain and France wanted some revenge and punish Germany and the rest of the Central Powers hence the reason why the Treaty of Versailles was used as opposed to Wilson's 14 points.  Wilson's 14 points wanted to forgive, forget and try to move on while making the world a better place.  (Although they did keep the League of Nations around.)  Do you want me to send you the power point I used for the past 18 years?  I usually have my students pick which treaty is better then discuss why France and Britain picked the treaty of Versailles over the 14 Points.  Let me know.

Who were the four western powers who signed the treaty of Versailles? Who was POTUS for the US during that time? A far cry from “had nothing to do with the treaty,” wouldn’t you say? Or does your PowerPoint show Wilson playing golf or relaxing on a beach?

Yeah Wilson was for his 14 points but not the treaty of Versailles. Blame Britain and France on the treaty of Versailles, not the US.  

cincybearcat

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Ghandi could have been elected to the us and world war 1 would have still happened because Europe 1914 had literally nothing to do with the US.  Princip is still killing Franz Ferdinand regardless of an election in 1912. 
The treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with Wilson.  Dude do you need me to send you a few books on world war 1?  

I ve been voting blue since 1996 so I don’t understand this blind alliegiance to the Democratic Party. It is ok to criticize and give to suggestions to where the party should go.  

Do you think the Iraq war happens too under a Gore Administration? Or 9/11? Or the Medicaid donut hole?

Wait - so you think 9/11 doesn’t happen during Gore? What about the WTC bombing during Clinton? What was magical about Gore?

Halifax2TheMax

cincybearcat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Ghandi could have been elected to the us and world war 1 would have still happened because Europe 1914 had literally nothing to do with the US.  Princip is still killing Franz Ferdinand regardless of an election in 1912. 
The treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with Wilson.  Dude do you need me to send you a few books on world war 1?  

I ve been voting blue since 1996 so I don’t understand this blind alliegiance to the Democratic Party. It is ok to criticize and give to suggestions to where the party should go.  

Do you think the Iraq war happens too under a Gore Administration? Or 9/11? Or the Medicaid donut hole?

Wait - so you think 9/11 doesn’t happen during Gore? What about the WTC bombing during Clinton? What was magical about Gore?

Maybe he would have reacted and acted differently had he read the PDB that warned of an attack utilizing commercial airlines. But we’ll never know because of those Nader voters.

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Correct, Wilson had his 14 points but Britain and France wanted some revenge and punish Germany and the rest of the Central Powers hence the reason why the Treaty of Versailles was used as opposed to Wilson's 14 points.  Wilson's 14 points wanted to forgive, forget and try to move on while making the world a better place.  (Although they did keep the League of Nations around.)  Do you want me to send you the power point I used for the past 18 years?  I usually have my students pick which treaty is better then discuss why France and Britain picked the treaty of Versailles over the 14 Points.  Let me know.

Who were the four western powers who signed the treaty of Versailles? Who was POTUS for the US during that time? A far cry from “had nothing to do with the treaty,” wouldn’t you say? Or does your PowerPoint show Wilson playing golf or relaxing on a beach?

Yeah Wilson was for his 14 points but not the treaty of Versailles. Blame Britain and France on the treaty of Versailles, not the US.  

I wasn’t placing blame but pointing out that the US under Wilson was a party to the treaty of Versailles and that things might have been different had Teddy not run as a third party, leading to Wilson being POTUS. You then claimed Wilson had nothing to do with the treaty of Versailles and offered to send me some books. But like 9/11, we’ll never know because of third party votes. The US, under Wilson, was at the table and being at the table is a far cry from “having nothing to do with the treaty.”

mcgruff10

Halifax2TheMax said:

cincybearcat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Ghandi could have been elected to the us and world war 1 would have still happened because Europe 1914 had literally nothing to do with the US.  Princip is still killing Franz Ferdinand regardless of an election in 1912. 
The treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with Wilson.  Dude do you need me to send you a few books on world war 1?  

I ve been voting blue since 1996 so I don’t understand this blind alliegiance to the Democratic Party. It is ok to criticize and give to suggestions to where the party should go.  

Do you think the Iraq war happens too under a Gore Administration? Or 9/11? Or the Medicaid donut hole?

Wait - so you think 9/11 doesn’t happen during Gore? What about the WTC bombing during Clinton? What was magical about Gore?

Maybe he would have reacted and acted differently had he read the PDB that warned of an attack utilizing commercial airlines. But we’ll never know because of those Nader voters.

stop blaming Nader.  Gore couldn't carry his home state of Tennessee and 200,000 dems voted against him in florida.   

Halifax2TheMax

cincybearcat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Ghandi could have been elected to the us and world war 1 would have still happened because Europe 1914 had literally nothing to do with the US.  Princip is still killing Franz Ferdinand regardless of an election in 1912. 
The treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with Wilson.  Dude do you need me to send you a few books on world war 1?  

I ve been voting blue since 1996 so I don’t understand this blind alliegiance to the Democratic Party. It is ok to criticize and give to suggestions to where the party should go.  

Do you think the Iraq war happens too under a Gore Administration? Or 9/11? Or the Medicaid donut hole?

Wait - so you think 9/11 doesn’t happen during Gore? What about the WTC bombing during Clinton? What was magical about Gore?

Yea, the 1993 WTC bombing happened under Clinton and it was the Clinton Administration that tracked down those responsible and tried and convicted them. Your point being?

Halifax2TheMax

mcgruff10 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

cincybearcat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Ghandi could have been elected to the us and world war 1 would have still happened because Europe 1914 had literally nothing to do with the US.  Princip is still killing Franz Ferdinand regardless of an election in 1912. 
The treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with Wilson.  Dude do you need me to send you a few books on world war 1?  

I ve been voting blue since 1996 so I don’t understand this blind alliegiance to the Democratic Party. It is ok to criticize and give to suggestions to where the party should go.  

Do you think the Iraq war happens too under a Gore Administration? Or 9/11? Or the Medicaid donut hole?

Wait - so you think 9/11 doesn’t happen during Gore? What about the WTC bombing during Clinton? What was magical about Gore?

Maybe he would have reacted and acted differently had he read the PDB that warned of an attack utilizing commercial airlines. But we’ll never know because of those Nader voters.

stop blaming Nader.  Gore couldn't carry his home state of Tennessee and 200,000 dems voted against him in florida.   

Gore lost FL by 537 votes, if you believe the recount and SCOTUS. If 537 Nader voters would have voted dem, oh how things could have been different. But you know, war and oil and fracking are better for the environment. Dumb.

mcgruff10

mickeyrat said:

voted in every election since 88.

not one of the candidates EVER courted my vote. That of registered independent. Not one. ALWAYS play to the base.

Independents represent approx 45% of the electorate. WE have the power.

You are obviously a dumb shit.  Oh and ignorant  

mrussel1

dignin said:

Voting 3rd party is ridiculous.

It's only going to help Trump.

Even if you disagree with Warren, Biden or Sanders on policy, at least they aren't an embarrassment or a threat to your country.

And if we are to believe some people, there is no way they are going to pass legislation anyways because of a divided country and Congress. So you have nothing to be worried about there.

But at least there will be an adult in the oval office.

Depends on the third party, as to whether it helps or hurts Trump.  As of now,  is there even a candidate? What if it's Weldon and he takes R votes? 

The WW1 argument that it doesn't happen if TR doesn't run is a huge stretch.  The US was meaningless in a geopolitical sense in the early 20th. That was an Old World war, steeped in the nationalism movement. 

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

dignin said:

Voting 3rd party is ridiculous.

It's only going to help Trump.

Even if you disagree with Warren, Biden or Sanders on policy, at least they aren't an embarrassment or a threat to your country.

And if we are to believe some people, there is no way they are going to pass legislation anyways because of a divided country and Congress. So you have nothing to be worried about there.

But at least there will be an adult in the oval office.

Depends on the third party, as to whether it helps or hurts Trump.  As of now,  is there even a candidate? What if it's Weldon and he takes R votes? 

The WW1 argument that it doesn't happen if TR doesn't run is a huge stretch.  The US was meaningless in a geopolitical sense in the early 20th. That was an Old World war, steeped in the nationalism movement. 

Taft being POTUS instead of Wilson May have resulted in a different outcome. Not that it would have prevented it but the US may have entered earlier, or not, or not been involved, or not, or negotiated Versailles from a different position, or not. My argument remains, that voting third party as a protest against the party you most align with does more harm to those cause you care about than good. But hey, put Team Trump Treason in office for four more years because the dem nominee is “too far left.” And if you’re willing to do that, then you more closely align with Team Trump Treason and his repub party because you’re (you’re in the general sense before someone accuses me of accusing them of being a Team Trump Treason deplorable) more okay with that outcome.

darwinstheory

mcgruff10 said:

Ghandi could have been elected to the us and world war 1 would have still happened because Europe 1914 had literally nothing to do with the US.  Princip is still killing Franz Ferdinand regardless of an election in 1912. 
The treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with Wilson.  Dude do you need me to send you a few books on world war 1?  

I ve been voting blue since 1996 so I don’t understand this blind alliegiance to the Democratic Party. It is ok to criticize and give to suggestions to where the party should go.  

You've been told to sit down and shut up, dumb shit.

cincybearcat

Halifax2TheMax said:

cincybearcat said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

Ghandi could have been elected to the us and world war 1 would have still happened because Europe 1914 had literally nothing to do with the US.  Princip is still killing Franz Ferdinand regardless of an election in 1912. 
The treaty of Versailles had nothing to do with Wilson.  Dude do you need me to send you a few books on world war 1?  

I ve been voting blue since 1996 so I don’t understand this blind alliegiance to the Democratic Party. It is ok to criticize and give to suggestions to where the party should go.  

Do you think the Iraq war happens too under a Gore Administration? Or 9/11? Or the Medicaid donut hole?

Wait - so you think 9/11 doesn’t happen during Gore? What about the WTC bombing during Clinton? What was magical about Gore?

Yea, the 1993 WTC bombing happened under Clinton and it was the Clinton Administration that tracked down those responsible and tried and convicted them. Your point being?

My point being you saying 9/11 doesn’t happen if gore is president is stupid.