Politics Super Tuesday

[BigGameDamian]

The new voting machines aren't working

Couldn't be any more of a laughing stock than the dems are right now. What a clusterfuck.

Your a Trump fan?

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

If that's your definition of "corrupt," then yes.



The point is, one of the parties does try to put some restrictions on the power of corporations, in the form of regulations. One of the parties is "less corrupt." What's the point in ignoring that? If you ignore one of the parties being less of what you consider evil, then you're not creating any incentive to move in that direction.

I think some of the regulations are signs of their corruption, maybe not always, but ridiculous rules and regulations don't usually hurt large businesses, they typically hurt small ones. Big corporations can cope, while their competition gets snuffed out by regulations that are put in place as a hurdle to their success.
Edit: I do realize that some regulations have merit, and there is a balance, but I think there are at times regulations put in place that Large Corporations push for because they know their competition doesn't have the capital or other resources to deal with it. I think this is where crony capitalism comes into play too. Hey law-makers we'll make you rich if you push this bill through that keeps our competition from being able to compete, and we'll look like it really hurts us, but it doesn't.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Your a Trump fan?

for the most part, yes.

 

[Road Ratt]

The point is, one of the parties does try to put some restrictions on the power of corporations, in the form of regulations. One of the parties is "less corrupt."

You are arguing in a circle. Here we are back to the "lesser of two evils" argument, yet again. You don't get how I see things, lets move on.

What's the point in ignoring that? If you ignore one of the parties being less of what you consider evil, then you're not creating any incentive to move in that direction.

Now I am being accused, yet again, of something in this thread. It would be just as simple of me to accuse you of ignoring democrat corruption. See how that works? It doesn't get us anywhere in a conversation. So lets not go there either shall we.

If you would like to rethink your points I will listen. But I also don't argue like most people do either.

 

[Minstrel]

Now I am being accused, yet again, of something in this thread. It would be just as simple of me to accuse you of ignoring democrat corruption. See how that works? It doesn't get us anywhere in a conversation. So lets not go there either shall we.

But I'm not ignoring "Democratic corruption." I'm agreeing that they also do some protecting of corporate interests. So, no, I don't see how that works. You are quite literally ignoring that the Democrats do more of what you want to happen by saying "Corruption is corruption, being less corrupt is 'lesser of two evils' and I don't care."

Less of a bad thing should be chosen over more of a bad thing. Assuming you don't like that bad thing and want less of it in the world.

 

[Minstrel]

I think some of the regulations are signs of their corruption, maybe not always, but ridiculous rules and regulations don't usually hurt large businesses, they typically hurt small ones. Big corporations can cope, while their competition gets snuffed out by regulations that are put in place as a hurdle to their success.

I didn't say all regulations are good or hurt big corporations. In an earlier post, I identified specific ones.

 

[Road Ratt]

But I'm not ignoring "Democratic corruption." I'm agreeing that they also do some protecting of corporate interests. So, no, I don't see how that works. You are quite literally ignoring that the Democrats do more of what you want to happen by saying "Corruption is corruption, being less corrupt is 'lesser of two evils' and I don't care.

A republican hits you in the face with a baseball bat, then a democrat comes along and does the same thing, then sits you down and gives you a band-aid. That doesn't make the democrat better. (That seems to be the basis of your argument. It's flawed logic.)

You just don't get how I see things. It would probably be best to just agree to disagree at this point. I don't see this conversation going anywhere.

Edit: Telling me that I am ignoring anything isn't helpful. It's like you are trying to read my mind. If that is your stance, we might as well have a hypothetical conversation, or just lie like Trump.

 

[Minstrel]

A republican hits you in the face with a baseball bat, then a democrat comes along and does the same thing, then sits you down and gives you a band-aid. That doesn't make the democrat better. (That seems to be the basis of your argument. It's flawed logic.)

The point is that parties are made of different individuals and factions. Yes, some Democrats are fine with "hitting you with a baseball bat." But others in the party want to ban hitting people with baseball bats. Whereas, nearly all of the other party wants the right to hit you with a baseball bat. The party that has a significant number that want to ban that activity has a far greater chance of getting where you want it to be.

That's the basis of my argument.

You just don't get how I see things. It would probably be best to just agree to disagree at this point. I don't see this conversation going anywhere.

If you'd prefer to stop talking about it with me, I'm okay with that. I like discussing things with people with different perspectives, but I won't force discussion on anyone who specifically doesn't want it.

 

[Road Ratt]

The point is that parties are made of different individuals and factions. Yes, some Democrats are fine with "hitting you with a baseball bat." But others in the party want to ban hitting people with baseball bats. Whereas, nearly all of the other party wants the right to hit you with a baseball bat. The party that has a significant number that want to ban that activity has a far greater chance of getting where you want it to be.

That's the basis of my argument.

The basis of your argument is flawed. I don't see how people get sold on this lesser of two evils stuff. Trump might sell America down the river faster than Biden will, but America will be just as sold none the less.

If you'd prefer to stop talking about it with me, I'm okay with that. I like discussing things with people with different perspectives, but I won't force discussion on anyone who specifically doesn't want it.

Stop accusing me of crap and I would be happy to (being autistic you might as well tell me that I am lying), you usually seem like a reasonable poster. As soon as people make a conversation personal, they lose the argument with me.

I am done for the day. Talking to humans is exhausting.

Take it easy everyone.

 

[Minstrel]

Stop accusing me of crap and I would be happy to, you usually seem like a reasonable poster. As soon as people make a conversation personal, they lose the argument with me.

Sorry you felt that I made it personal, that wasn't my intention. I've never considered telling someone that I feel they're ignoring a salient (as I see it) fact to be a personal attack. I wouldn't take it personally if someone told me they felt I was ignoring something. Clearly we see that differently.

 

[Road Ratt]

Sorry you felt that I made it personal, that wasn't my intention. I've never considered telling someone that I feel they're ignoring a salient (as I see it) fact to be a personal attack. I wouldn't take it personally if someone told me they felt I was ignoring something. Clearly we see that differently.

I didn't say it was a personal attack, it was personal though. When you start accusing the other poster of things, like a mind reader, you have turned your argument away from their point and onto them themselves. You aren't a mind reader, so please stop trying. Thank you.

Take it easy.

 

[Minstrel]

I didn't say it was a personal attack, it was personal though. When you start accusing the other poster of things, like a mind reader, you have turned your argument away from their point and onto them themselves. You aren't a mind reader, so please stop trying. Thank you.

I wasn't commenting on your mind, I was commenting on your post--that you weren't addressing a point I was making, thus you were ignoring it in your response. That's all.

Have a nice day, too!

 

[Lanny]

The DNC & RNC have one goal in mind. Raise a ton of money and get their guy/gal in the WH.

God and the Devil both want to rule heaven. Do you think this makes them the same?

 

[Road Ratt]

I wasn't commenting on your mind, I was commenting on your post--that you weren't addressing a point I was making, thus you were ignoring it in your response. That's all.

Have a nice day, too!

I never ignored your point, your point was flawed from the start. This is fucked up.

 

[Hoopguru]

God and the Devil both want to rule heaven. Do you think this makes them the same?

 

[Minstrel]

I never ignored your point, your point was flawed from the start. This is fucked up.

We can agree to disagree.

 

[Hoopguru]

lol...in the case of the DNC or RNC, I do.
Which one represents God the most? Or the least?

 

[Road Ratt]

We can agree to disagree.

Wrong again...

 

[BigGameDamian]

Trump's going to loose and he will be put in an orange jump suit.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I didn't say all regulations are good or hurt big corporations. In an earlier post, I identified specific ones.

Im not really sure I claimed you said that all the regulations were good. Was just making the point that at least in my opinion just because a politician says they’ll fight corporations by regulating business it doesnt mean they will and in our political landscape “regulating” businesses is often done in a way that keeps the law-makers and their buddies rich.

 

[Minstrel]

Im not really sure I claimed you said that all the regulations were good. Was just making the point that at least in my opinion just because a politician says they’ll fight corporations by regulating business it doesnt mean they will and in our political landscape “regulating” businesses is often done in a way that keeps the law-makers and their buddies rich.

You quoted my post, so I thought you were responding to my assertion that Democrats have championed certain regulations on big corporations.

 

[Road Ratt]

Who needs Russia when we have the democrats and the republicans.

 

[Lanny]

Trump's going to loose and he will be put in an orange jump suit.

He'll look right in place with up and down bars and also with stripes on his clothing. I hope he likes bugs in his food and cleaning toilets. He's gonna find love in his new digs.

 

[yankeesince59]

Couldn't be any more of a laughing stock than the dems are right now. What a clusterfuck.

The "clusterfuck" resides in the white house.

 

[yankeesince59]

Do you seriously believe Biden/Bernie will trounce the God Emperor?

Do you seriously believe that Trump is what's best for the country moving forward, and that what the GOP did during the impeachment proceedings was righteous?

If you say yes to either or both questions, IMO, it spells out what's wrong with our country/society.

 

[Natebishop3]

Trump's going to loose and he will be put in an orange jump suit.

But what happens if instead of loosing, he tightens?

 

[H.C.]

Yes. I'd suggest Jeff Sessions, for instance. Warren has made some big mistakes, but has also made some smart moves.



Bernie lost last time, and it seems he hasn't changed his campaign at all. So would you say he hasn't learned anything either?



Well, you don't have to convince me, moderates, or the DNC. You need to convince Bernie's base to actually vote in larger numbers.

If he was able to bring out the young and other low-propensity voters like he claimed, he would have won more tonight.

barfo

Ew's voting base was progressive - anti-establishment. By taking a superpac she did herself in and proved she was part of the swamp that her voting base wants to drain.
Every politician can point to ''bad moves'' and ''smart moves''. But this superpac, along with her blunders in the debates cost her votes.

The 18-29 turnout on super Tuesday was obviously a disappointment. Unlike you I won't attempt to spin it any other way.
Should Biden get the nomination and the Democrats lose a second time with the same strategy.
Maybe they then will learn from their mistakes and stop believing a ''moderate'' nominee will bring the party together like Obama did.
Your vote is already secured for the DNC regardless of the Democratic nominee.

Minority votes, I would guess. There was about 8% downturn in minority votes between 2012 and 2016 - where minority votes have won Biden the south.

So, if he continues to appeal to minority voters going forward, that's how it is different.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.
This is actually what I was looking for.
An actually thought out response not a spin.
Should Biden get the nomination. We'll see if it works.

 

[barfo]

Ew's voting base was progressive - anti-establishment. By taking a superpac she did herself in and proved she was part of the swamp that her voting base wants to drain.
Every politician can point to ''bad moves'' and ''smart moves''. But this superpac, along with her blunders in the debates cost her votes.

No doubt it cost her some votes. Whether that, or some other issue, was the primary reason for her downfall, is arguable.

The 18-29 turnout on super Tuesday was obviously a disappointment. Unlike you I won't attempt to spin it any other way.

How did I 'spin it'? They didn't vote. That's simply a fact.

Should Biden get the nomination and the Democrats lose a second time with the same strategy.
Maybe they then will learn from their mistakes and stop believing a ''moderate'' nominee will bring the party together like Obama did.

You didn't see the Super Tuesday results? The party is united behind a "moderate" nominee.

Your vote is already secured for the DNC regardless of the Democratic nominee.

That's true. I'd vote for Bernie if I needed to. But there's no reason for me to negotiate with terrorists. If Bernie supporters withhold their votes, so be it. Apparently they withhold their votes even when they have the opportunity to vote for Bernie himself, so there's no reason to believe they'd vote for anyone else.

barfo

 

[Lanny]

Ew's voting base was progressive - anti-establishment. By taking a superpac she did herself in and proved she was part of the swamp that her voting base wants to drain.
Every politician can point to ''bad moves'' and ''smart moves''. But this superpac, along with her blunders in the debates cost her votes.

The 18-29 turnout on super Tuesday was obviously a disappointment. Unlike you I won't attempt to spin it any other way.
Should Biden get the nomination and the Democrats lose a second time with the same strategy.
Maybe they then will learn from their mistakes and stop believing a ''moderate'' nominee will bring the party together like Obama did.
Your vote is already secured for the DNC regardless of the Democratic nominee.



Thank you for the thoughtful response.
This is actually what I was looking for.
An actually thought out response not a spin.
Should Biden get the nomination. We'll see if it works.

So far, Biden is way out in front of Trump and things aren't looking good for Trump in the future. I don't see a chance in hell of Trump even making a race out of it. In the future, I think we should all refer to him as President Biden.

 

[crandc]

If Michigan goes to Biden the contest is pretty much over.

A lot of Democrats seem to just want this to end, stop arguing among themselves and get ready for November. Seems to be pushing some folks who like Sanders into Biden camp.