The Democratic Presidential Debates

benjs said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

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. 

https://twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1231321300670537733?s=20

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?

 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.

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.  

You're really smart.  



*Source - US Census Bureau

Smart enough to know that political engagement isn't coextensive with voting. 

I think that political engagement and voting should track pretty closely (unless you disagree with that, which I'd be curious to hear why), which would permit you to use it as a proxy metric at least for trending. Most people who are politically engaged want to do something with that engagement, and I can't imagine they'd forfeit their votes. On the opposite side, even if the argument is that younger people reverse this skew with outsized non-voting political engagement, I'd say its effectiveness should be based on seeing these voting rates increase over time, yet they appear to be more or less stable (and slightly declining in some cases), so an outsized non-vote impact to round up that political engagement from other avenues, doesn't seem to be present either. 

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

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'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. 

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. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

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?

i believe those people exist. 

Absolutely

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.  

*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?

Basically calling you his student is just another in a long line of condescending remarks .

See, you can read well when you put your mind to it! 

I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history. 

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. 

You are drawing quite the picture here.

if someone isn’t basing their vote in the DNC primary based on the positions of the candidates...what are they basing them on?

A) Whatever the fuck they want. You're changing your position now that I've called you on it. 

Ummm what? I said that 1 issue voters are ignoring a lot and I don’t believe that is a good thing. 

So - you thinks it’s good to vote for a political candidate based on things other than their actual political positions?  Hair color? Shoe size? 

There are variations of the old saying that fits here, Cincy...

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference"
"Never argue with crazy.  They'll drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

benjs said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

mcgruff10 said:

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. 

https://twitter.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1231321300670537733?s=20

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?

 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.

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.  

You're really smart.  



*Source - US Census Bureau

Smart enough to know that political engagement isn't coextensive with voting. 

I think that political engagement and voting should track pretty closely (unless you disagree with that, which I'd be curious to hear why), which would permit you to use it as a proxy metric at least for trending. Most people who are politically engaged want to do something with that engagement, and I can't imagine they'd forfeit their votes. On the opposite side, even if the argument is that younger people reverse this skew with outsized non-voting political engagement, I'd say its effectiveness should be based on seeing these voting rates increase over time, yet they appear to be more or less stable (and slightly declining in some cases), so an outsized non-vote impact to round up that political engagement from other avenues, doesn't seem to be present either. 

I don't entirely disagree with you, but I'm surrounded by people whose political engagement far exceeds voting. Look at Sanders's popularity and the demographics of votes he's pulling. There's a reason; that reason has a lot to do with political engagement; and that political engagement is coming largely from young people. 

And if they don't turnout to vote, then what's the point?  You work in a privileged world of higher education and certainly not representative of all young people.  So your analysis that is completely anecdotal is fundamentally flawed when compared to the empirical data of actual voting results by age demographic.  And in every one of those data sets, the cohort of older voters participate in the election at a higher rate than young people.  Which was exactly my point that I'm 100% sure Lex and McGruff understood.  

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

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'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. 

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. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

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?

i believe those people exist. 

Absolutely

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.  

*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?

Basically calling you his student is just another in a long line of condescending remarks .

See, you can read well when you put your mind to it! 

I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history. 

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. 

You are drawing quite the picture here.

if someone isn’t basing their vote in the DNC primary based on the positions of the candidates...what are they basing them on?

A) Whatever the fuck they want. You're changing your position now that I've called you on it. 

Ummm what? I said that 1 issue voters are ignoring a lot and I don’t believe that is a good thing. 

So - you thinks it’s good to vote for a political candidate based on things other than their actual political positions?  Hair color? Shoe size? 

You started by judging people for HOW they were evaluating candidates' positions ("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."). Now you've shifted to accusing them of not basing their decision on positions at all. 

I wasn’t judging. SC said that people were jumping. I said and still believe that between the candidates left in the race that is a pretty giant leap policy wise. So they are making their decision based on either 1 main issue or not on issues, it seems. 

Anyone know how to get the ignore feature? I am trying from my phone but can seem to find it.

Coward. 

Typical response from you.  I’d like to be able to post here and dealing with you could risk that. Enjoy what’s left of your time here.

hedonist said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

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'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. 

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. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

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?

i believe those people exist. 

Absolutely

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.  

*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?

Basically calling you his student is just another in a long line of condescending remarks .

See, you can read well when you put your mind to it! 

I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history. 

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. 

You are drawing quite the picture here.

if someone isn’t basing their vote in the DNC primary based on the positions of the candidates...what are they basing them on?

A) Whatever the fuck they want. You're changing your position now that I've called you on it. 

Ummm what? I said that 1 issue voters are ignoring a lot and I don’t believe that is a good thing. 

So - you thinks it’s good to vote for a political candidate based on things other than their actual political positions?  Hair color? Shoe size? 

You started by judging people for HOW they were evaluating candidates' positions ("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."). Now you've shifted to accusing them of not basing their decision on positions at all. 

I wasn’t judging. SC said that people were jumping. I said and still believe that between the candidates left in the race that is a pretty giant leap policy wise. So they are making their decision based on either 1 main issue or not on issues, it seems. 

Anyone know how to get the ignore feature? I am trying from my phone but can seem to find it.

I'd like to know too.  This is very tiresome and kills what is normally an interesting place to discuss issues. 

mrussel wants to go back to pretending he's smart everyone!! 

Do you speak to your students this way?  If so, do you find it fosters an open forum for the exchange of ideas, even if polar opposites?

When I was in junior high, I had a history teacher who had a reputation of being an asshole to those he felt were worthy of it (ring a bell?).  He could be a good teacher and I suppose I was fortunate that he liked me and my contributions, but he treated some in ways that would get him fired today.

It's a shame too, because he had some decent ideas and methods, but his "bedside manner" made it all moot.

hedonist said:

ecdanc said:

hedonist said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

ecdanc said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

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'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. 

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. 

Except their platforms are different, in the world of Democratic policies  killing your entire theory.

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?

i believe those people exist. 

Absolutely

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.  

*question, is calling you a one trick pony sexist?

Basically calling you his student is just another in a long line of condescending remarks .

See, you can read well when you put your mind to it! 

I’m living your continued practice of condescending post. Creating quite the history. 

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. 

You are drawing quite the picture here.

if someone isn’t basing their vote in the DNC primary based on the positions of the candidates...what are they basing them on?

A) Whatever the fuck they want. You're changing your position now that I've called you on it. 

Ummm what? I said that 1 issue voters are ignoring a lot and I don’t believe that is a good thing. 

So - you thinks it’s good to vote for a political candidate based on things other than their actual political positions?  Hair color? Shoe size? 

You started by judging people for HOW they were evaluating candidates' positions ("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."). Now you've shifted to accusing them of not basing their decision on positions at all. 

I wasn’t judging. SC said that people were jumping. I said and still believe that between the candidates left in the race that is a pretty giant leap policy wise. So they are making their decision based on either 1 main issue or not on issues, it seems. 

Anyone know how to get the ignore feature? I am trying from my phone but can seem to find it.

I'd like to know too.  This is very tiresome and kills what is normally an interesting place to discuss issues. 

mrussel wants to go back to pretending he's smart everyone!! 

Do you speak to your students this way?  If so, do you find it fosters an open forum for the exchange of ideas, even if polar opposites?

When I was in junior high, I had a history teacher who had a reputation of being an asshole to those he felt were worthy of it (ring a bell?).  He could be a good teacher and I suppose I was fortunate that he liked me and my contributions, but he treated some in ways that would get him fired today.

It's a shame too, because he had some decent ideas and methods, but his "bedside manner" made it all moot.

Of course not. But, frankly, I don't think I've ever had a student with this level of unwarranted confidence in their own intellect. 

Ah, got it.  This all must be simply insufferable for you, then.

Keep on that earnest fight to enlighten those too dense to do it for themselves.  :rock_on: