The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.ecdanc said:
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.mrussel1 said:
Absolutelycincybearcat said:
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
i believe those people exist.0 -
Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party. So I don’t get your point there.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.ecdanc said:
I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical.mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other.
Just because they are on seperate ends doesnt mean the voter has to be at one end and then jumping all the way over to the other.mrussel1 said:
Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.ecdanc said:
I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical.mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other.
also, just because you believe there is a huge chasm between opinions om certain issues - doesnt mean another voter has to believe the issue is as important.
hippiemom = goodness0 -
Then just put on your Big Mama Thornton record and my point will be proven.ecdanc said:
It’s gonna be tough to find the time to teach MORE classes on the subject and give MORE presentations, but I’ll see what I can do.mrussel1 said:
And that's the sum total of all the times you've heard a man being referred to as a dog.. A 'lap dog' 'attack dog' 'he's such a dog', you ain't nothing but a hound dog...ecdanc said:
I once heard a white person called the n-word.mrussel1 said:
I thought you lived in the same world as me where both sexes have been referred to as a dog.ecdanc said:
I thought you studied history?mrussel1 said:
So no men have ever been referred to as dogs, it's purely women?ecdanc said:
Clearly there's no history of referring to women--specifically--as dogs.mrussel1 said:
You muzzle a dog. I've never heard of that term being pointed at a particular race or sex. That's a reach.Spiritual_Chaos said:The toxic Pete Pals. Just like the Trumpeters and also not far enough from the other side.
You should engage in popular culture a little more often.0 -
What am I going to be offended about today?
MSNBC'S CHRIS MATTHEWS FACES CALLS TO RESIGN AFTER COMPARING SANDERS' NEVADA VICTORY TO NAZI GERMANY'S DEFEAT OF FRANCE
https://apple.news/A5pmP3bpeT1e65VimmX4hPg
Post edited by mcgruff10 onI'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Honestly, maybe they are sexist and homophobe and won't vote for a women or a gay guy. Could be...Spiritual_Chaos said:
Then why is many Biden fans second choice Bernie?mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
By your binary view of it all.0 -
Because voters don't judge candidates solely on their place on the very narrow spectrum of DNC stances?cincybearcat said:
Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party. So I don’t get your point there.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.ecdanc said:
I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical.mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other.
Just because they are on seperate ends doesnt mean the voter has to be at one end and then jumping all the way over to the other.mrussel1 said:
Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.ecdanc said:
I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical.mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other.
also, just because you believe there is a huge chasm between opinions om certain issues - doesnt mean another voter has to believe the issue is as important.0 -
Kinda funny that you like to accuse me of bullying and closemindedness, when I take your stances far more seriously than you take mine. It's ok, though: many students don't want to learn.mrussel1 said:
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.ecdanc said:
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.mrussel1 said:
Absolutelycincybearcat said:
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
i believe those people exist.0 -
I have a serious question: may I share this post with my students?mrussel1 said:
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.ecdanc said:
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.mrussel1 said:
Absolutelycincybearcat said:
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
i believe those people exist.0 -
I wrote you off as worthy debater long ago. You're a one trick pony who knows a lot about a select and limited number of subjects. This particular debate about dogs as metaphors shows your limitation. So it's not worth the time.ecdanc said:
Kinda funny that you like to accuse me of bullying and closemindedness, when I take your stances far more seriously than you take mine. It's ok, though: many students don't want to learn.mrussel1 said:
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.ecdanc said:
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.mrussel1 said:
Absolutelycincybearcat said:
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
i believe those people exist.
*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?0 -
During the DNC primary?ecdanc said:
Because voters don't judge candidates solely on their place on the very narrow spectrum of DNC stances?cincybearcat said:
Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party. So I don’t get your point there.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.ecdanc said:
I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical.mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other.
Just because they are on seperate ends doesnt mean the voter has to be at one end and then jumping all the way over to the other.mrussel1 said:
Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.ecdanc said:
I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical.mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other.
also, just because you believe there is a huge chasm between opinions om certain issues - doesnt mean another voter has to believe the issue is as important.
Please elaborate.hippiemom = goodness0 -
You should share your condescending posts so that they don’t get this out of context.ecdanc said:
I have a serious question: may I share this post with my students?mrussel1 said:
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.ecdanc said:
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.mrussel1 said:
Absolutelycincybearcat said:
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
i believe those people exist.hippiemom = goodness0 -
It's not the greatest analogy and hyper-dramatic. I didn't think about Sanders being Jewish as he doesn't seem to use that heritage as part of his identity. So as usual, a dumb comment, and a silly reaction (calling for his resignation).mcgruff10 said:What am I going to be offended about today?MSNBC'S CHRIS MATTHEWS FACES CALLS TO RESIGN AFTER COMPARING SANDERS' NEVADA VICTORY TO NAZI GERMANY'S DEFEAT OF FRANCE
https://apple.news/A5pmP3bpeT1e65VimmX4hPg0 -
Basically calling you his student is just another in a long line of condescending remarks .mrussel1 said:
I wrote you off as worthy debater long ago. You're a one trick pony who knows a lot about a select and limited number of subjects. This particular debate about dogs as metaphors shows your limitation. So it's not worth the time.ecdanc said:
Kinda funny that you like to accuse me of bullying and closemindedness, when I take your stances far more seriously than you take mine. It's ok, though: many students don't want to learn.mrussel1 said:
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.ecdanc said:
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.mrussel1 said:
Absolutelycincybearcat said:
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
i believe those people exist.
*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?hippiemom = goodness0 -
”not the greatest analogy” yeah. ok.mrussel1 said:
It's not the greatest analogy and hyper-dramatic. I didn't think about Sanders being Jewish as he doesn't seem to use that heritage as part of his identity. So as usual, a dumb comment, and a silly reaction (calling for his resignation).mcgruff10 said:What am I going to be offended about today?MSNBC'S CHRIS MATTHEWS FACES CALLS TO RESIGN AFTER COMPARING SANDERS' NEVADA VICTORY TO NAZI GERMANY'S DEFEAT OF FRANCE
https://apple.news/A5pmP3bpeT1e65VimmX4hPg
He has also expressed concern about Bernie executing him in central park.
Chris is not well."Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0 -
During the DNC primary?
Because voters don't judge candidates solely on their place on the very narrow spectrum of DNC stances?
Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party. So I don’t get your point there.of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.
Just because they are on seperate ends doesnt mean the voter has to be at one end and then jumping all the way over to the other.mrussel1 said:
Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.ecdanc said:
I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical.mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other.
also, just because you believe there is a huge chasm between opinions om certain issues - doesnt mean another voter has to believe the issue is as important.
Please elaborate.
I'm not sure what there is to elaborate. There are as many ways of evaluating candidates as there are voters. I'm sure there are plenty of voters (even in the DNC primary) who don't look at Klobuchar and Warren and see polar opposites. You can think their judgements are inappropriate or ill-informed, but they certainly exist.cincybearcat said:
During the DNC primary?ecdanc said:
Because voters don't judge candidates solely on their place on the very narrow spectrum of DNC stances?cincybearcat said:
Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party. So I don’t get your point there.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.ecdanc said:
I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical.mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other.
Just because they are on seperate ends doesnt mean the voter has to be at one end and then jumping all the way over to the other.mrussel1 said:
Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.ecdanc said:
I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical.mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other.
also, just because you believe there is a huge chasm between opinions om certain issues - doesnt mean another voter has to believe the issue is as important.
Please elaborate.0 -
That's bizarre. What's the context and/or quote?Spiritual_Chaos said:
”not the greatest analogy” yeah. ok.mrussel1 said:
It's not the greatest analogy and hyper-dramatic. I didn't think about Sanders being Jewish as he doesn't seem to use that heritage as part of his identity. So as usual, a dumb comment, and a silly reaction (calling for his resignation).mcgruff10 said:What am I going to be offended about today?MSNBC'S CHRIS MATTHEWS FACES CALLS TO RESIGN AFTER COMPARING SANDERS' NEVADA VICTORY TO NAZI GERMANY'S DEFEAT OF FRANCE
https://apple.news/A5pmP3bpeT1e65VimmX4hPg
He has also expressed concern about Bernie executing him in central park.
Chris is not well.0 -
"A worthy debater." LOL. I'll give you credit, sir, you make me laugh. But, you are absolutely correct that my knowledge is select and limited to a small number of subjects. That's why I've avoided posting on anything outside those areas.mrussel1 said:
I wrote you off as worthy debater long ago. You're a one trick pony who knows a lot about a select and limited number of subjects. This particular debate about dogs as metaphors shows your limitation. So it's not worth the time.ecdanc said:
Kinda funny that you like to accuse me of bullying and closemindedness, when I take your stances far more seriously than you take mine. It's ok, though: many students don't want to learn.mrussel1 said:
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.ecdanc said:
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.mrussel1 said:
Absolutelycincybearcat said:
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
i believe those people exist.
*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?0 -
Well, if you are comparing candidates in that stage and trying to pick a political leader without even considering their political stances....that seems pretty bad to me. Just as bad as other 1 issue voters that ignore lots of other things.ecdanc said:
During the DNC primary?
Because voters don't judge candidates solely on their place on the very narrow spectrum of DNC stances?
Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party. So I don’t get your point there.of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.
Just because they are on seperate ends doesnt mean the voter has to be at one end and then jumping all the way over to the other.mrussel1 said:
Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.ecdanc said:
I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical.mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other.
also, just because you believe there is a huge chasm between opinions om certain issues - doesnt mean another voter has to believe the issue is as important.
Please elaborate.
I'm not sure what there is to elaborate. There are as many ways of evaluating candidates as there are voters. I'm sure there are plenty of voters (even in the DNC primary) who don't look at Klobuchar and Warren and see polar opposites. You can think their judgements are inappropriate or ill-informed, but they certainly exist.cincybearcat said:
During the DNC primary?ecdanc said:
Because voters don't judge candidates solely on their place on the very narrow spectrum of DNC stances?cincybearcat said:
Well if jumping from a Warren to an Amy or vice versa there are certainly jumping the entire length of the policy debate within the party. So I don’t get your point there.Spiritual_Chaos said:mrussel1 said:
Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.ecdanc said:
I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical.mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other.
Just because they are on seperate ends doesnt mean the voter has to be at one end and then jumping all the way over to the other.mrussel1 said:
Considering the two are on the ends of the spectrum on health care and student debt, the two hallmarks of Warren's candidacy, that would simply make you an uniformed voter.ecdanc said:
I sometimes imagine you at your computer saying to yourself "ha! I've got him now!!" A good portion of the time, though, you might as well just type the word "potato" instead of your actual responses--it would be equally sensical.mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
But....since you're going to complain I'm avoiding things, I'll go ahead and explain the nature of your, ahem, inaccuracy in this case: the conversation surrounding SC's comment(s) was not "you're factually incorrect," but "what you're saying is somehow offensive/sexist." The latter is false on its face, because he was making a comment about voters without defining their gender. I can see myself falling into the group he described (in slightly different circumstances), so reading his comment as about women voters says more about the reader than about his post. So, we can address whether he's factually inaccurate. Are there voters for whom electing a woman is as important or more important than minor policy differences? I believe so. I, for one, don't see Warren's and Klobuchar's platforms and particularly different, so if I were amongst that group, I could imagine myself switching allegiance from one to the other.
also, just because you believe there is a huge chasm between opinions om certain issues - doesnt mean another voter has to believe the issue is as important.
Please elaborate.
hippiemom = goodness0 -
See, you can read well when you put your mind to it!cincybearcat said:
Basically calling you his student is just another in a long line of condescending remarks .mrussel1 said:
I wrote you off as worthy debater long ago. You're a one trick pony who knows a lot about a select and limited number of subjects. This particular debate about dogs as metaphors shows your limitation. So it's not worth the time.ecdanc said:
Kinda funny that you like to accuse me of bullying and closemindedness, when I take your stances far more seriously than you take mine. It's ok, though: many students don't want to learn.mrussel1 said:
Listen, I just want to be straightforward with you. If you think about writing a long post to me, don't. I don't give a fuck what you say, so you will be fundamentally wasting your time. Don't mistake a reply with the belief that I care or value your opinion. I don't. I will read it with the most negative lens available, which could lead to me misconstruing it. I'd prefer not to read it.ecdanc said:
Great. Now I wasted five minutes explaining something to you that you already know, but because you're so intent on trolling me, you pretended (being generous here) to be confused.mrussel1 said:
Absolutelycincybearcat said:
That is true, but do you not think there are people out there that just want a woman to win? I mean, as long as the woman meets whatever they believe is qualified?mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
i believe those people exist.
*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?0 -
Sounds like something that come with the right-wing territorymrussel1 said:
Honestly, maybe they are sexist and homophobe and won't vote for a women or a gay guy. Could be...Spiritual_Chaos said:
Then why is many Biden fans second choice Bernie?mrussel1 said:
Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies killing your entire theory.ecdanc said:
I can't speak for SC, but I do know what he wrote. He implied that people likely to vote for one woman might be drawn to vote for a different woman. This isn't a particularly contentious claim.cincybearcat said:Can we stop with the people don’t read nonsense?
SC - you states that Amy and Warren voters would go to the other? Is that right?
You think so because they are women. Right?
So you think some people are only voting for them cause they are women? Or are you quoting a news source that stated this? Not agreeing or disagreeing just trying to understand why you said that?And yes i went back... I think far enough to look for it. But coulda accidentally scrolled passed it on my phone.
I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but that's all SC's claim would require to be true, so I'll offer one example: Me. If there were two candidates, both of whom I felt I could vote for, who had identical platforms, and one was a woman (the other a man), I'd vote for the woman.
Edited to add: he did not say that people are ONLY voting for them because they are women.
By your binary view of it all.
So plausable."Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help