The Democratic Presidential Debates
Comments
-
I’m loving your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history.ecdanc said:
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?Post edited by cincybearcat onhippiemom = goodness0 -
Did the irony of posting this mere moments after calling me condescending give you even a second's pause?cincybearcat said:
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.0 -
I try to limit my condescension to the posters here who've earned it. I suppose I could emulate you and extend it to all voters who aren't as rational and policy-driven as you are.cincybearcat said:
I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history.ecdanc said:
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 -
The last I saw, it was a solid minority of Sanders voters that would go to Warren. The strong majority go to Biden or Bloomberg. That doesn't feel policy-centric, so it cuts both ways. If you don't think there are sexists in the D party, even among Sanders supporters, you're kidding yourself.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.0 -
A very interesting op ed:
Oh no, not Bernie!
https://www.nj.com/opinion/2020/02/oh-no-not-bernie-moran.htmlIn the 2018 midterms, Democrats took control of the House by winning swing districts in states like New Jersey, where four seats flipped. All four winners ran as centrists, with support for Obamacare at the heart of their pitch. It worked.
Now, Sen. Bernie Sanders wants to throw out that playbook and go hard left, with plans to roughly double the size of the federal government, and hike taxes substantially on everyone earning more than $29,000 a year.
Please, Democrats, don’t do this. Why abandon a strategy that worked wonders in 2018, and choose this moment in history to place such a risky bet? Can’t the revolution wait until the Mad King is gone?
Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-7th, is one of the four freshman Democrats who took a Republican seat in the last election. He knows something about this dynamic.
“We win, and the country wins, if we nominate a candidate who unites the majority of Americans who are disgusted with Trump’s leadership and divides the other side -- rather than a candidate who does the exact reverse,” he says.
Another Democrat in a swing district, promised anonymity, was blunt: “If Sanders is the nominee, I will lose,” the member said. “I think a bunch would lose. Bernie would drag us right down.”
Start with this: Republican are rooting for Bernie. In South Carolina, where anyone can vote in Saturday’s primary, Republican groups are asking their own people to vote in the Democratic primary and choose Sanders. Across the country, Republicans are already attacking Democratic rivals by attaching them to Sanders.
“Sanders offers that foil up and down the ballot for Republicans, and it’s one we’re going to take advantage of,” Austin Chambers, president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, told Politico recently.
I called Mike DuHaime, a leading Republican strategist and former political director of the Republican National Committee, to get a glimpse of GOP thinking. It boils down to this: Bring on Bernie!
“He plays this class warfare game and pretends it’s going to be a handful of billionaires who pay for all this,” he says. “But you can’t double the size of government without doubling many people’s taxes.”
Bernie’s program is more radical than people think. He actually would double the size of the federal government, roughly. It accounts for about 20 percent of the gross domestic product, in an average year. Bernie’s plans would swell that to 37 percent, according to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
Today you're the expert on sexism!mrussel1 said:
The last I saw, it was a solid minority of Sanders voters that would go to Warren. The strong majority go to Biden or Bloomberg. That doesn't feel policy-centric, so it cuts both ways. If you don't think there are sexists in the D party, even among Sanders supporters, you're kidding yourself.Spiritual_Chaos said:
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.0 -
2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2, 2025: Pittsburgh 1
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com0 -
Spiritual_Chaos said:Chris Matthews with his personal agenda and his weird red-scare fears. How can they allow these people sit there spewing BS from a veneer of authority.He is saying if Bernie is the nominee, the Dems lose to trump, Lose congress and probably two seats on the court and we will not see ANY govt supported healthcare for the masses for 40 years with a 7-2 court. The dems will become the Washington Generals.
is that what our euro friends want?0 -
Capital--for which Matthews is a mouthpiece--would rather Trump win than Sanders win. It's not complicated.Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:Chris Matthews with his personal agenda and his weird red-scare fears. How can they allow these people sit there spewing BS from a veneer of authority.He is saying if Bernie is the nominee, the Dems lose to trump, Lose congress and probably two seats on the court and we will not see ANY govt supported healthcare for the masses for 40 years with a 7-2 court. The dems will become the Washington Generals.
is that what our euro friends want?0 -
The op ed piece I linked says the same exact thing. The dude is a god damn socialist; that right there will be used against him 24/7.Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:Chris Matthews with his personal agenda and his weird red-scare fears. How can they allow these people sit there spewing BS from a veneer of authority.He is saying if Bernie is the nominee, the Dems lose to trump, Lose congress and probably two seats on the court and we will not see ANY govt supported healthcare for the masses for 40 years with a 7-2 court. The dems will become the Washington Generals.
is that what our euro friends want?I'll ride the wave where it takes me......0 -
a) he's a democratic socialist; and b) that's why he's so popular. It might be used against him, but it will also be used FOR him, as it has been to this point.mcgruff10 said:
The op ed piece I linked says the same exact thing. The dude is a god damn socialist; that right there will be used against him 24/7.Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:Chris Matthews with his personal agenda and his weird red-scare fears. How can they allow these people sit there spewing BS from a veneer of authority.He is saying if Bernie is the nominee, the Dems lose to trump, Lose congress and probably two seats on the court and we will not see ANY govt supported healthcare for the masses for 40 years with a 7-2 court. The dems will become the Washington Generals.
is that what our euro friends want?0 -
I don't think of socialism as a dirty word, although it's had a mixed history of success here in the States. But I agree the label will be potent with the older generation of voters, who are the most engaged.mcgruff10 said:
The op ed piece I linked says the same exact thing. The dude is a god damn socialist; that right there will be used against him 24/7.Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:Chris Matthews with his personal agenda and his weird red-scare fears. How can they allow these people sit there spewing BS from a veneer of authority.He is saying if Bernie is the nominee, the Dems lose to trump, Lose congress and probably two seats on the court and we will not see ANY govt supported healthcare for the masses for 40 years with a 7-2 court. The dems will become the Washington Generals.
is that what our euro friends want?0 -
mrussel1 said:
I don't think of socialism as a dirty word, although it's had a mixed history of success here in the States. But I agree the label will be potent with the older generation of voters, who are the most engaged.mcgruff10 said:
The op ed piece I linked says the same exact thing. The dude is a god damn socialist; that right there will be used against him 24/7.Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:Chris Matthews with his personal agenda and his weird red-scare fears. How can they allow these people sit there spewing BS from a veneer of authority.He is saying if Bernie is the nominee, the Dems lose to trump, Lose congress and probably two seats on the court and we will not see ANY govt supported healthcare for the masses for 40 years with a 7-2 court. The dems will become the Washington Generals.
is that what our euro friends want?
0 -
ecdanc said:mrussel1 said:
I don't think of socialism as a dirty word, although it's had a mixed history of success here in the States. But I agree the label will be potent with the older generation of voters, who are the most engaged.mcgruff10 said:
The op ed piece I linked says the same exact thing. The dude is a god damn socialist; that right there will be used against him 24/7.Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:Chris Matthews with his personal agenda and his weird red-scare fears. How can they allow these people sit there spewing BS from a veneer of authority.He is saying if Bernie is the nominee, the Dems lose to trump, Lose congress and probably two seats on the court and we will not see ANY govt supported healthcare for the masses for 40 years with a 7-2 court. The dems will become the Washington Generals.
is that what our euro friends want?
You're really smart. 
*Source - US Census Bureau0 -
Smart enough to know that political engagement isn't coextensive with voting.mrussel1 said:ecdanc said:mrussel1 said:
I don't think of socialism as a dirty word, although it's had a mixed history of success here in the States. But I agree the label will be potent with the older generation of voters, who are the most engaged.mcgruff10 said:
The op ed piece I linked says the same exact thing. The dude is a god damn socialist; that right there will be used against him 24/7.Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:Chris Matthews with his personal agenda and his weird red-scare fears. How can they allow these people sit there spewing BS from a veneer of authority.He is saying if Bernie is the nominee, the Dems lose to trump, Lose congress and probably two seats on the court and we will not see ANY govt supported healthcare for the masses for 40 years with a 7-2 court. The dems will become the Washington Generals.
is that what our euro friends want?You're really smart.
*Source - US Census Bureau0 -
You should go back to elementary school and learn about 'context clues'. The entire context of this conversation I'm having with McGruff and lex is about the election. Stop being an argumentative dolt. When you said you would only comment on things where you had some knowledge, I assumed we would only hear from you on the trans page. You've broken your promise very quickly.ecdanc said:
Smart enough to know that political engagement isn't coextensive with voting.mrussel1 said:ecdanc said:mrussel1 said:
I don't think of socialism as a dirty word, although it's had a mixed history of success here in the States. But I agree the label will be potent with the older generation of voters, who are the most engaged.mcgruff10 said:
The op ed piece I linked says the same exact thing. The dude is a god damn socialist; that right there will be used against him 24/7.Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:Chris Matthews with his personal agenda and his weird red-scare fears. How can they allow these people sit there spewing BS from a veneer of authority.He is saying if Bernie is the nominee, the Dems lose to trump, Lose congress and probably two seats on the court and we will not see ANY govt supported healthcare for the masses for 40 years with a 7-2 court. The dems will become the Washington Generals.
is that what our euro friends want?You're really smart.
*Source - US Census Bureau0 -
You are drawing quite the picture here.ecdanc said:
I try to limit my condescension to the posters here who've earned it. I suppose I could emulate you and extend it to all voters who aren't as rational and policy-driven as you are.cincybearcat said:
I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history.ecdanc said:
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?
if someone isn’t basing their vote in the DNC primary based on the positions of the candidates...what are they basing them on?hippiemom = goodness0 -
No matter how hard you try, you still manage to misread things. It's almost endearing.mrussel1 said:
You should go back to elementary school and learn about 'context clues'. The entire context of this conversation I'm having with McGruff and lex is about the election. Stop being an argumentative dolt. When you said you would only comment on things where you had some knowledge, I assumed we would only hear from you on the trans page. You've broken your promise very quickly.ecdanc said:
Smart enough to know that political engagement isn't coextensive with voting.mrussel1 said:ecdanc said:mrussel1 said:
I don't think of socialism as a dirty word, although it's had a mixed history of success here in the States. But I agree the label will be potent with the older generation of voters, who are the most engaged.mcgruff10 said:
The op ed piece I linked says the same exact thing. The dude is a god damn socialist; that right there will be used against him 24/7.Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:Chris Matthews with his personal agenda and his weird red-scare fears. How can they allow these people sit there spewing BS from a veneer of authority.He is saying if Bernie is the nominee, the Dems lose to trump, Lose congress and probably two seats on the court and we will not see ANY govt supported healthcare for the masses for 40 years with a 7-2 court. The dems will become the Washington Generals.
is that what our euro friends want?You're really smart.
*Source - US Census Bureau0 -
A) Whatever the fuck they want. B ) You're changing your position now that I've called you on it.cincybearcat said:
You are drawing quite the picture here.ecdanc said:
I try to limit my condescension to the posters here who've earned it. I suppose I could emulate you and extend it to all voters who aren't as rational and policy-driven as you are.cincybearcat said:
I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history.ecdanc said:
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?
if someone isn’t basing their vote in the DNC primary based on the positions of the candidates...what are they basing them on?Post edited by ecdanc on0 -
I know exactly what you're saying. But it's not a relevant argument when discussing how VOTERS will react to the policy debates. Any by every measure, every exit poll, even piece of census data, it's crystal clear that older voters are the MOST likely to participate in an election.ecdanc said:
No matter how hard you try, you still manage to misread things. It's almost endearing.mrussel1 said:
You should go back to elementary school and learn about 'context clues'. The entire context of this conversation I'm having with McGruff and lex is about the election. Stop being an argumentative dolt. When you said you would only comment on things where you had some knowledge, I assumed we would only hear from you on the trans page. You've broken your promise very quickly.ecdanc said:
Smart enough to know that political engagement isn't coextensive with voting.mrussel1 said:ecdanc said:mrussel1 said:
I don't think of socialism as a dirty word, although it's had a mixed history of success here in the States. But I agree the label will be potent with the older generation of voters, who are the most engaged.mcgruff10 said:
The op ed piece I linked says the same exact thing. The dude is a god damn socialist; that right there will be used against him 24/7.Lerxst1992 said:Spiritual_Chaos said:Chris Matthews with his personal agenda and his weird red-scare fears. How can they allow these people sit there spewing BS from a veneer of authority.He is saying if Bernie is the nominee, the Dems lose to trump, Lose congress and probably two seats on the court and we will not see ANY govt supported healthcare for the masses for 40 years with a 7-2 court. The dems will become the Washington Generals.
is that what our euro friends want?You're really smart.
*Source - US Census Bureau0
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