Game Thread 2020 Debate Part 3 - Sept 12

[CupWizier]

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Let me make it simple for you. This is what I posted (notice I asked you a question).

and so if they don't say they are against war, that means they are pro war? lol, that's pretty ridiculous logic.

your response which didn't debunk my question as you could have easily said, I don't think anyone is pro war, but instead, this is what you came back with

Voting for bloated defense budgets isn’t exactly anti-interventionist policy.

 

[jonnyboy]

Let me make it simple for you. This is what I posted (notice I asked you a question).



your response which didn't debunk my question as you could have easily said, I don't think anyone is pro war, but instead, this is what you came back with

I was making my own point, not debunking the words you put in my mouth.

 

[Lanny]

You are the only one in the discussion who ever typed the words “pro war”. I never accused anyone of that. I said there are candidates that aren’t anti-interventionist, and their voting records prove it. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are actively cheerleading for war, it just means they don’t care...like you.

If you can’t see the correlation between military spending and interventionism then maybe you shouldn’t be calling other people uninformed.

There's no firm connection between the two.
For example, what about the Congressional approval for more money for elementary schools for children of our military who are serving outside the United States?
What about more money for decent food for GIs serving in combat zones. We got shit to eat in Vietnam and I don't want that to happen to our military.
How about more money for defensive measures such as the Navy's Phalanx?
What about more money for armoring our Humvees?
You would want all kinds of weapons' systems development to minimize our losses in combat, wouldn't you?
You need a strong military as a deterrent. The sticky part is making sure we elect those who use our military only when truly necessary. In other words the responsibility falls on us voters.

 

[jonnyboy]

There's no firm connection between the two.
For example, what about the Congressional approval for more money for elementary schools for children of our military who are serving outside the United States?
What about more money for decent food for GIs serving in combat zones. We got shit to eat in Vietnam and I don't want that to happen to our military.
How about more money for defensive measures such as the Navy's Phalanx?
What about more money for armoring our Humvees?
You would want all kinds of weapons' systems development to minimize our losses in combat, wouldn't you?
You need a strong military as a deterrent. The sticky part is making sure we elect those who use our military only when truly necessary. In other words the responsibility falls on us voters.

A very small percentage goes to the things you mentioned. A very large percentage goes to defense contractors who price gouge. The strong defense argument is bunk. We have a military presence all over the world and are bombing people perpetually. That’s not defense, that’s offensive.

Literally every thing you mentioned could be mitigated simply by not have thousands upon thousands of our troops deployed all over the world at all times. That is the fallacy in your argument, you act like it is a given that we HAVE to have troops all over the world at all times. We don’t. Bring them home and use all that money at home. Bringing most of them home would allow better care for the few that needed to be overseas also.

 

[barfo]

A very small percentage goes to the things you mentioned. A very large percentage goes to defense contractors who price gouge. The strong defense argument is bunk. We have a military presence all over the world and are bombing people perpetually. That’s not defense, that’s offensive.

Literally every thing you mentioned could be mitigated simply by not have thousands upon thousands of our troops deployed all over the world at all times. That is the fallacy in your argument, you act like it is a given that we HAVE to have troops all over the world at all times. We don’t. Bring them home and use all that money at home. Bringing most of them home would allow better care for the few that needed to be overseas also.

I think there is a big difference between having troops in Germany or S. Korea, and having troops fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever.

Providing defensive forces for other countries I think is in our clear interest, as it reduces the possibility of wars breaking out.

I'm not at all keen on the various wars we are fighting, and I would definitely not vote for someone I thought was likely to start another one.

I don't see any of the candidates hankering to. A few of them are such wild cards that I can't predict what they might do.

barfo

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I think there is a big difference between having troops in Germany or S. Korea, and having troops fighting in Afghanistan or Iraq or wherever.

Providing defensive forces for other countries I think is in our clear interest, as it reduces the possibility of wars breaking out.

I'm not at all keen on the various wars we are fighting, and I would definitely not vote for someone I thought was likely to start another one.

I don't see any of the candidates hankering to. A few of them are such wild cards that I can't predict what they might do.

barfo

I want to start a war on the Lakers.

 

[Lanny]

A very small percentage goes to the things you mentioned. A very large percentage goes to defense contractors who price gouge. The strong defense argument is bunk. We have a military presence all over the world and are bombing people perpetually. That’s not defense, that’s offensive.

Literally every thing you mentioned could be mitigated simply by not have thousands upon thousands of our troops deployed all over the world at all times. That is the fallacy in your argument, you act like it is a given that we HAVE to have troops all over the world at all times. We don’t. Bring them home and use all that money at home. Bringing most of them home would allow better care for the few that needed to be overseas also.

Troops all over the world has saved our butts. Take S. Korea for example, what do you think N. Korea would do the moment we left? How about Europe, what do you think the Russians would love to do, take Crimea and Eastern Ukraine for example. Now, let's look at Iraq and Afghanistan, what do you think ISIS would do if we left Iraq? Now, do you recall where the 9-11 attack was planned and who ran their government when that attack was in the planning stage, do you want to ever see anything like that horrific disaster to happen to us ever again? Well, those are the places where most of our overseas forces are stationed and I'm against eliminating any of them.
The war in Iraq should never have been started but once it was we were stuck over there. Show me the way out. Oh, and Vietnam should never have got going in the first place. President Kennedy told Senator Wayne Morse that he was gonna pull our troops out of South Vietnam shortly before he was assassinated.

 

[jonnyboy]

Now, do you recall where the 9-11 attack was planned

That would be Saudi Arabia boss. You know, our good allies over there.

Iraq had ZERO involvement in 9/11.

Almost all of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian and many investigators think the funding came from Saudi Arabia as well.

Lanny do you really think Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks?? I didn’t think there was anybody left peddling that long-debunked theory in the year 2019. It’s no wonder the powers that be can convince people to go to war all the time, people will believe anything.

 

[Lanny]

That would be Saudi Arabia boss. You know, our good allies over there.

Iraq had ZERO involvement in 9/11.

Almost all of the hijackers were Saudi Arabian and many investigators think the funding came from Saudi Arabia as well.

Lanny do you really think Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks?? I didn’t think there was anybody left peddling that long-debunked theory in the year 2019. It’s no wonder the powers that be can convince people to go to war all the time, people will believe anything.

Not true, it was planned in Afghanistan by mostly a Saudi organization.
This from wikipedia:
"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed first presented the idea for the September 11 plot to bin Laden in 1996 in Afghanistan."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planning_of_the_September_11_attacks

 

[calvin natt]

I don’t get the Gabbard love. Don’t like her. I’ll take Warren, Buttigieg, Yang, Klobachar, all ahead of her

I knew she was a hack

 

[barfo]

That's pathetic. The DNC is rigging the election by holding debates?

She should just drop out if that's what she wants to do. She doesn't need an excuse.

barfo

 

[jonnyboy]

I knew she was a hack

How did you come up with ‘hack’ out of this?

 

[Hoopguru]

I knew she was a hack

Don't you believe DNC did Bernie wrong last primary?

 

[CupWizier]

Don't you believe DNC did Bernie wrong last primary?

Sanders lost by a rather large margin. The conspiracy theorists on this are Bernie bots.

 

[jonnyboy]

Sanders lost by a rather large margin. The conspiracy theorists on this are Bernie bots.

That makes it ok?

Things that are verifiably proven are generally not considered theories.

 

[jonnyboy]

Its funny, I was watching MSNBC the other day (purely for entertainment purposes) and they had a segment talking about corruption. They brought on an ‘expert’ to give their take.... and what appeared on my television screen?

Debbie Wasermann-Shultz big ugly head.

I’m not fucking kidding. And I don’t think MSNBC was trolling either, although that would’ve been brilliant.

This “news” network actually brought on a person who spearheaded a successful campaign to commit election fraud to school the public about corruption. And they were dead serious.

 

[calvin natt]

How did you come up with ‘hack’ out of this?

Because it’s a bullshit way of dealing with it. Reminds me of a 7th grader. If you are about doing something for the country (like be President) step you’re and say it on a national stage and go ahead and call people out. Don’t sit out like a baby.

 

[jonnyboy]

Because it’s a bullshit way of dealing with it. Reminds me of a 7th grader. If you are about doing something for the country (like be President) step you’re and say it on a national stage and go ahead and call people out. Don’t sit out like a baby.

Dumb.

Candidates who get all their funding from corporate billionaires and super pacs = not hacks.

Candidates who are funded by small individual donors, don’t accept corporate donations or super pac money, and consider boycotting a debate out of principle after they already earned a spot = hacks.

You obviously don’t know what hack means.

 

[calvin natt]

Dumb.

Candidates who get all their funding from corporate billionaires and super pacs = not hacks.

Candidates who are funded by small individual donors, don’t accept corporate donations or super pac money, and consider boycotting a debate out of principle after they already earned a spot = hacks.

You obviously don’t know what hack means.

lol. Yeah. She is fake. She’s trying too hard to do something to stand out and she won’t get what she’s hoping for. She’s an average at best candidate. She has zero chance and needs to bow out.

 

[barfo]

Dumb.

Candidates who get all their funding from corporate billionaires and super pacs = not hacks.

Candidates who are funded by small individual donors, don’t accept corporate donations or super pac money, and consider boycotting a debate out of principle after they already earned a spot = hacks.

You obviously don’t know what hack means.

Was she unprincipled in the first three debates, then?

I don't know what the principle is supposed to be. Democrats shouldn't have debates? Or is it that they should let absolutely anyone who wants to get on stage?

Or maybe it's that they shouldn't make rules that might exclude anyone named Tulsi from missing any future debates?

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

lady was actually stuffed face first into my left armpit.

I struggled to get a hole

we were clamped in position

where some got off

That is some fucking weird porn.

 

[MarAzul]

That is some fucking weird porn.

Now that you put it that way.

 

[CupWizier]

That makes it ok?

Things that are verifiably proven are generally not considered theories.

You have verifiable proof that Sanders won against Clinton? Well damn boy, bring it.

 

[jonnyboy]

lol. Yeah. She is fake. She’s trying too hard to do something to stand out and she won’t get what she’s hoping for. She’s an average at best candidate. She has zero chance and needs to bow out.

Like I said, you don’t know what hack means. Or do you just not like her because she’s anti-interventionist and you get a boner from war, like the piles of shit you’re on here cheerleading for? You need to hop off that establishment dick and come up with a few original thoughts once in awhile. It’s clear as day you absorb CNN and MSNBC like a dry sponge and disregard the work of any independent journalists.

It’s funny how the people on here who can’t think for themselves are the ones always posting other people’s twitter ideas and linking to corporate news stories. And they attack any original thoughts if they don’t include a link to THEIR favorite news source.

You’re constantly on here parroting mainstream talking points, almost verbatim, and trying to pretend you’re having a thoughtful discussion. You’re not. If we wanna know what Calvin Natt thinks we can just flip on the television to one of 2 channels. Your input here is really just redundant.

 

[jonnyboy]

Was she unprincipled in the first three debates, then?

I don't know what the principle is supposed to be. Democrats shouldn't have debates? Or is it that they should let absolutely anyone who wants to get on stage?

Or maybe it's that they shouldn't make rules that might exclude anyone named Tulsi from missing any future debates?

barfo

You know just as well as I do the DNC cheated in 2016, it’s a fact that we shouldn’t even have to argue about.
As to the points about the current debate criteria being arbitrary and not transparent, that’s more debatable. I think there’s some truth to it, although i don’t think it’s outright cheating as some would claim. I would guess it’s definitely by design though, and helps the DNC groom certain candidates they find desirable. That’s not something I can prove, however. The DNC doesn’t offer any reasoning behind their choice of acceptable polls. It’s just a guess based on the poor character of the DNC.

 

[Lanny]

I knew she was a hack

You can say what you want about her but I believe her to be speaking from the heart. Not my heart, but her heart.

 

[Lanny]

You know just as well as I do the DNC cheated in 2016, it’s a fact that we shouldn’t even have to argue about.
As to the points about the current debate criteria being arbitrary and not transparent, that’s more debatable. I think there’s some truth to it, although i don’t think it’s outright cheating as some would claim. I would guess it’s definitely by design though, and helps the DNC groom certain candidates they find desirable. That’s not something I can prove, however. The DNC doesn’t offer any reasoning behind their choice of acceptable polls. It’s just a guess based on the poor character of the DNC.

Cheated in what? How do we know whether to respond or not when we don't know what you're talking about?

 

[jonnyboy]

Cheated in what? How do we know whether to respond or not when we don't know what you're talking about?

If you don’t know, you’re uninformed. I will not explain.

 

[jonnyboy]

You can say what you want about her but I believe her to be speaking from the heart. Not my heart, but her heart.

That’s called an opinion, and you’re entitled to it.

 

[CupWizier]

If you don’t know, you’re uninformed. I will not explain.

If you are so informed, then you should be able to show us those verifiable facts that you speak about. Otherwise it's just more conspiracy theories. Like the saying goes, put up or shut up.