• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans: Your favorite?

Your favorite

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 5 25.0%
  • Ted Cruz

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Another

    Votes: 13 65.0%

  • Total voters
    20
And you'll have to provide some sort of actual counter argument if you want to.. Well.... Counter the Argument. Trump has a long history of taking leftist positions, and his support now is strongest in the GOP among those who identify as moderate/liberal. He was a Hillary booster and an Obama supporter longer than he has been a candidate for President.

And I didn't cite Breitbart - I cited Sanders. ;)

My counter argument is that your argument is made-up drivel, citing (when you bother) the likes of Glenn Beck, Buzzfeed, and National Review. You're right about not citing Breitbart, though. You just cited practically every other crap source on the internet you could find.

You provided a mountain of terrible claims, perhaps two or three were actually true when one bothered to do the work of tracking them back to non-crap sources.

You're wrong on this issue, and repeating the same false claim over and over again isn't making it any truer.

Donald Trump on the Issues
Bernie Sanders on the Issues
 
Last edited:
My counter argument is that your argument is made-up drivel, citing (when you bother) the likes of Glenn Beck, Buzzfeed, and National Review.

I cite Glenn Beck only when discussing inter-conservative debates (example: on the Ted Cruz v Rubio exchange). There is nothing wrong with citing National Review anymore than there is citing The Nation or The Atlantic, or City Journal. Ad Sourcinem remains a fallacy.

That being said, none of the positions I have ascribed to Trump were made up. :) Which is why you are trying to pretend that anything found in a conservative source doesn't count, instead of demonstrating those claims to be incorrect.

You provided a mountain of terrible claims, perhaps two or three were actually true when one bothered to do the work of tracking them back to non-crap sources.

Feel free to disprove any of them.

You're wrong on this issue, and repeating the same false claim over and over again isn't making it any truer.

:) Woops?

MSNBC: Sanders says he can win Trump Supporters
Politico: Sanders says he's courting Trump Supporters

Feel the Bern ;)
 
I cite Glenn Beck only when discussing inter-conservative debates (example: on the Ted Cruz v Rubio exchange). There is nothing wrong with citing National Review anymore than there is citing The Nation or The Atlantic, or City Journal. Ad Sourcinem remains a fallacy.

That being said, none of the positions I have ascribed to Trump were made up. :) Which is why you are trying to pretend that anything found in a conservative source doesn't count, instead of demonstrating those claims to be incorrect.



Feel free to disprove any of them.



:) Woops?

MSNBC: Sanders says he can win Trump Supporters
Politico: Sanders says he's courting Trump Supporters

Feel the Bern ;)

Your narrative has been that Trump is liberal. Of the positions you've cited, two or three positions were actually shared by Sanders and Trump, only one of which I could find was unconditional. All the rest you were dead wrong about. Again, when one bothered to investigate each claim individually. You were so wrong, in fact, that you actually called Trump a "pro-abortion extremist" and a gun control advocate, two hot button topics you knew would resonate with fellow conservatives, and two topics you were dead wrong about.

And every candidate tries to draw voters away from their opponents. That's what "campaigning" is. The idea that this means their opponent is the same political ideology as themselves is lunacy. As I know from past experience you're not unintelligent, so the only reason I can assume from your continued demonstration of such mental contortions is an agenda to draw Conservative voters away from Trump toward a candidate you personally believe is more electable. You want to do that? Fine, but lying about the candidates is not acceptable, let alone an admirable debate tactics.
 
Your narrative has been that Trump is liberal.

....not quite. My argument has consistently been that Trump is instinctively liberal. Actual modern leftism / liberalism / progressivism / however-you-wish-to-describe-it is a mature political philosophy with established a priori's and conclusions that flow logically from them. Trump doesn't do that, because that would require requisite reading and reflection, and Trump doesn't "do" "thinking". What he spews instead reflects the streams in which he is swimming - urban New York.

Which is why, over his long history in the public eye, he has consistently been on the left side of issues.

Of the positions you've cited, two or three positions were actually shared by Sanders and Trump, only one of which I could find was unconditional. All the rest you were dead wrong about.

Really. I am dead wrong when I state that Trump has argued in favor of Single Payer? I am dead wrong when I state that he has argued in favor of Gun Control? I am dead wrong when I point out that he was to the left of Mitt Romney in 2012, on the issue of immigration, no less? I am dead wrong when I point out that the man was a Hillary Supporter in the 2008 Democrat Primary? I am dead wrong when I point out that Trump was in favor of the bailouts?

Again, when one bothered to investigate each claim individually. You were so wrong, in fact, that you actually called Trump a "pro-abortion extremist"

No, I stated that he had said he would like to put a Judge on SCOTUS who is a pro-abortion extremist. Which he did, because (and, this is such an excellent way to decide who should go on the Supreme Court Bench) she was his sister.

and a gun control advocate

And he was. :shrug:

Then, some time last late spring, he decided he wanted to run for President on the GOP ticket, and now claims to be a conservative.

The man wrote The America We Deserve in 2000, and took positions supporting abortion (but willing to entertain a partial birth abortion ban), support the "Assault Weapons" Ban and longer waiting periods for gun purchases, single payer healthcare, and a wealth tax. In 2007 he was a booster for the Hillary campaign, and in particular supported her healthcare plan. This isn't some kind of secret conservative conspiracy stretching back for years, anticipating and wishing to knock off his candidacy - it's the mans own words.

And, again, this isn't to suggest that Trump has really sat down and weighed different ideological positions and come to meaningful conclusions about what Truth is. It's just to point out that, when taking positions, reliably his instincts are to jump a bit left. Regardless of what positions he thinks he has to take now in order to play in the GOP field, that's his history.

And every candidate tries to draw voters away from their opponents. That's what "campaigning" is.

Except Sanders isn't running against Trump. He's running against Hillary. And he's not trying to boost his numbers by appealing to Cruz fans, or Carson fans or even (assuming he could find some) Huckabee fans. He is reaching out to Trump fans because he sees the overlap there that he can take advantage of.

:shrug: and he is right.



Look, I get it. You like Bernie, you don't like Trump, you therefore want them to be juxtaposed. I like Rubio, and I think our debt is dangerous. I wish Rubio's tax plan didn't add to the deficit. It does. I don't get to simply wish that away by claiming that everyone who points that out is lying. Reality isn't that kind to our preferences.
 
....not quite. My argument has consistently been that Trump is instinctively liberal. Actual modern leftism / liberalism / progressivism / however-you-wish-to-describe-it is a mature political philosophy with established a priori's and conclusions that flow logically from them. Trump doesn't do that, because that would require requisite reading and reflection, and Trump doesn't "do" "thinking". What he spews instead reflects the streams in which he is swimming - urban New York.

Which is why, over his long history in the public eye, he has consistently been on the left side of issues.



Really. I am dead wrong when I state that Trump has argued in favor of Single Payer? I am dead wrong when I state that he has argued in favor of Gun Control? I am dead wrong when I point out that he was to the left of Mitt Romney in 2012, on the issue of immigration, no less? I am dead wrong when I point out that the man was a Hillary Supporter in the 2008 Democrat Primary? I am dead wrong when I point out that Trump was in favor of the bailouts?



No, I stated that he had said he would like to put a Judge on SCOTUS who is a pro-abortion extremist. Which he did, because (and, this is such an excellent way to decide who should go on the Supreme Court Bench) she was his sister.



And he was. :shrug:

Then, some time last late spring, he decided he wanted to run for President on the GOP ticket, and now claims to be a conservative.

The man wrote The America We Deserve in 2000, and took positions supporting abortion (but willing to entertain a partial birth abortion ban), support the "Assault Weapons" Ban and longer waiting periods for gun purchases, single payer healthcare, and a wealth tax. In 2007 he was a booster for the Hillary campaign, and in particular supported her healthcare plan. This isn't some kind of secret conservative conspiracy stretching back for years, anticipating and wishing to knock off his candidacy - it's the mans own words.

And, again, this isn't to suggest that Trump has really sat down and weighed different ideological positions and come to meaningful conclusions about what Truth is. It's just to point out that, when taking positions, reliably his instincts are to jump a bit left. Regardless of what positions he thinks he has to take now in order to play in the GOP field, that's his history.



Except Sanders isn't running against Trump. He's running against Hillary. And he's not trying to boost his numbers by appealing to Cruz fans, or Carson fans or even (assuming he could find some) Huckabee fans. He is reaching out to Trump fans because he sees the overlap there that he can take advantage of.

:shrug: and he is right.



Look, I get it. You like Bernie, you don't like Trump, you therefore want them to be juxtaposed. I like Rubio, and I think our debt is dangerous. I wish Rubio's tax plan didn't add to the deficit. It does. I don't get to simply wish that away by claiming that everyone who points that out is lying. Reality isn't that kind to our preferences.

Again, I'm not interested in more stream-of-consciousness writing with no citations, super-bad citations from rag sources, and sources from a hundred years ago.

As for the matter of Sanders running against Hillary, not Trump, you should tell that to your boy Rubio:

As Republicans entered the home stretch of selecting a candidate to win back the White House, Marco Rubio asked voters to envision a general election in which Hillary Clinton could “lecture” him on the lives of struggling Americans.

Rubio makes it personal against Clinton as candidates tour New Hampshire | US news | The Guardian

So can I expect you to criticize Rubio for focusing on a Democratic candidate who hasn't even won the primary yet instead of his opposing leading Republican foes?
 
Again, I'm not interested in more stream-of-consciousness writing with no citations, super-bad citations from rag sources, and sources from a hundred years ago.

:) I accept your implicit admission that you cannot counter the points due to their accuracy.

As for the matter of Sanders running against Hillary, not Trump, you should tell that to your boy Rubio:

Sure, and Trump is now trying to get into a public fight with Bill on women's issues, just as Hillary tried to argue that the "enemy" she was most proud of having was "Republicans". In a primary race, using the other party as a foil is a good tactic, if you can pull it off.

Sanders isn't running against Trump, he's trying to appeal to Trumps supporters, because he see's the political overlap that would allow him to do so. He's not going after Carson's supporters or Cruz's supporters. He's going after Trump's because as he points out, there is political overlap there for him to take advantage of.
 
:) I accept your implicit admission that you cannot counter the points due to their accuracy.

I accept your concession that after multiple challenges, you've unable to dig up anything by a reputable, current source that supports your position.



Sure, and Trump is now trying to get into a public fight with Bill on women's issues, just as Hillary tried to argue that the "enemy" she was most proud of having was "Republicans". In a primary race, using the other party as a foil is a good tactic, if you can pull it off.

Sanders isn't running against Trump, he's trying to appeal to Trumps supporters, because he see's the political overlap that would allow him to do so. He's not going after Carson's supporters or Cruz's supporters. He's going after Trump's because as he points out, there is political overlap there for him to take advantage of.

So by that logic nobody is actually running against each other, they're just vying for each other's voters. :lol:

And yes, there is political overlap between Trump and Sanders, just as if you looked hard enough you'd find "political overlap" between Mahatma Ghandi and Cthulu. Doesn't mean I'd confuse one for the other in a dark alley.
 
I accept your concession that after multiple challenges, you've unable to dig up anything by a reputable, current source that supports your position.

Now that's a neat little piece of circular reasoning. Any source which demonstrates my argument isn't reputable because it's demonstrating my argument :).

MSNBC, Politico, National Review, even the actual writings by Trump themselves... they're all lying. National Review traveled 15 years backwards through time to falsely insert all those positions into Trump's book, and Buzzfeed had one of their writers get plastic surgery so as to look and sound exactly like Trump, and then sent him back in time 9 years to get him to support Hillary in 2007, back the bailouts in 2009, and attack Romney from the left in 2012.

:D And we wouldn't have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for that poster on that debate board!!!!

Scooby-Fortress-06-Unmasked.jpg



So by that logic nobody is actually running against each other, they're just vying for each other's voters.

:doh

no. Sanders is running in a Primary (this means he is running against other Democrats). So is Hillary. Trump is also running in a Primary (this means he is running against other Republicans).

One common tactic in a Primary is to attack the other side of the political aisle in order to get them to attack you, in order to get the people whose votes you are trying to get to come to your defense against "the other side". Hillary does this when she declares Republicans to be the enemy she's most proud of, and Trump does this when he goes after Bill's record with women.

An uncommon tactic in a Primary is to actually try to take the supporters of a candidate in an entirely different race. Sanders thinks he can take Trump voters, and make them into voters in a Democrat primary, and then Democrat Voters in a General. He thinks this because he see's the overlap that makes that plausible and possible.

Unless, of course, you are still stuck in the mode where MSNBC and Politico are making this up because they are right wing sources trying to discredit Sanders :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom