• 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!

DWS and Murphy win their primaries.

Murphy should handle Rubio..................
 
FieldTheorist said:
There's something seriously wrong with America.
Click to expand...

I personally can't stand this attitude. There are plenty of members of Congress I don't like (indeed, DWS is one of them). But their districts do like them. And they get to choose.

This Tea Party bull****--left or right--about how nobody who thinks differently than I do should have a seat in Congress is insane. This is a large country with a multitude of opinions and political viewpoints. There will always be politicians you disagree with because there will always be American citizens they represent whose views you disagree with. If you view that as a flaw in the system then you just might be in the wrong place.

PS: Grayson deserved the senate seat, and Canova deserved to win his congressional seat,
Click to expand...

Neither of those are your choice to make, unless you happen to be a constituent. In which case you simply lost.
 
Greenbeard said:
I personally can't stand this attitude. There are plenty of members of Congress I don't like (indeed, DWS is one of them). But their districts do like them. And they get to choose.
Click to expand...

Really? Really? Tell me with a straight face that there's not something wrong with America that Louie Gohmert is an national elected official in America.

This Tea Party bull****--left or right--about how nobody who thinks differently than I do should have a seat in Congress is insane. This is a large country with a multitude of opinions and political viewpoints. There will always be politicians you disagree with because there will always be American citizens they represent whose views you disagree with. If you view that as a flaw in the system then you just might be in the wrong place.
Click to expand...

This would be a lot more compelling if America's actual views were being represented in Congress. But the problem is, they totally ****ing aren't, Greenbeard, and studies show this over an over again. What is the majoritarian, public opinion has almost no influence on public policy. If they're for it? 30% chance of happening. If they're against it? 30% chance of it happening. If you poll economic elites, and a majority of them are for it? 80% chance of that it happens. These aren't theoretical, extremist, "Leftist Tea Party" opinions, although it's good to know you're watching Bill Maher. These are basic facts. The only question is how we respond to them.

We live in a system where gerrymandering is very easy and very legal (with the exception of, I believe, Ohio). We live in a system where it's very easy to buy off politicians because they're totally dependent upon soliciting and listening to the problems of multi-millionaires, billionaires, and corporate donors.

Neither of those are your choice to make, unless you happen to be a constituent. In which case you simply lost.
Click to expand...

If Donald Trump should win in November, I hope you'll see things exactly this way. And I am sure I can expect absolutely no "This is awful" rants, because that'll just be sour grapes, Greenbeard.
 
Rico Suave said:
Murphy should handle Rubio..................
Click to expand...

This will be one of only a handful of times that I'll be gleeful to see a Republican obliterate a Democrat. Murphy has it coming.
 
FieldTheorist said:
Really? Really? Tell me with a straight face that there's not something wrong with America that Louie Gohmert is an national elected official in America.
Click to expand...

Tell me what we do to get the voters from electing candidates you don't like. Poll taxes, literacy tests, IQ tests, loyalty oaths, what? Maybe we can borrow from Iran and set up a Guardian Council that selects which candidates are allowed to run.

This would be a lot more compelling if America's actual views were being represented in Congress. But the problem is, they totally ****ing aren't, Greenbeard, and studies show this over an over again.
Click to expand...

Not really.


We live in a system where gerrymandering is very easy and very legal (with the exception of, I believe, Ohio). We live in a system where it's very easy to buy off politicians because they're totally dependent upon soliciting and listening to the problems of multi-millionaires, billionaires, and corporate donors.
Click to expand...

What does gerrymandering have to do with your preferred candidates losing partisan primaries (including a Senate race, which I can tell you is quite difficult to gerrymander)?

If Donald Trump should win in November, I hope you'll see things exactly this way. And I am sure I can expect absolutely no "This is awful" rants, because that'll just be sour grapes, Greenbeard.
Click to expand...

This isn't my first election. I've lost before. Whether it's awful isn't the question.

I have never attempted to delegitimize an election because I didn't like the outcome. Grow the hell up.
 
Last edited:
Greenbeard said:
Tell me what we do to get the voters from electing candidates you don't like. Poll taxes, literacy tests, IQ tests, loyalty oaths, what? Maybe we can borrow from Iran and set up a Guardian Council that selects which candidates are allowed to run.
Click to expand...

This is an absurd response. I would like a well-informed, non-delusional voting public who vote in districts that aren't gerrymandered. Apparently, you think that makes me, what, a supporter of dictatorial regimes or a supporter of Jim Crow laws? I've been very clear about what changes to our democracy I would like to see happen, and it doesn't include any of the anti-democratic tactics you list above.

This line of baseless accusation is so intellectually bankrupt it doesn't merit further commentary. You should take your rebuttals more seriously.

Not really.
Click to expand...

That articles' rebuttal is pretty comical. Let's assume for the moment that everything in this article is totally correct --because I'm not interested in taking up an academic debate over this-- and let's take their opening, chief counterpoint:

"When the rich and middle class disagree, each wins about half the time"​

That's the stupidest counter they could possibly have to the Vox article. That's saying that when the top 10% disagrees with the bottom 90%, it's a toss up between which one wins.

If anyone thinks that's what a democracy means, they either need a dictionary to look up what the word "democracy" means or else they need a remedial course in high school-level probability theory.

What does gerrymandering have to do with your preferred candidates losing partisan primaries (including a Senate race, which I can tell you is quite difficult to gerrymander)?
Click to expand...

I'm discussing the general system and its systemic problems --gerrymandering obviously doesn't apply to Grayson, per se, and I didn't state that it did. I didn't think that this needed to be pointed out, my apologies if I overestimated people's ability to follow context. As for why I brought all of this up, it was because you were acting like the government and the will of the people were actually being followed by these kinds of elections. Gerrymandering is a trivial counter-example to this being true, even in the case where you have a so-called fair democratic election.

As for the particulars of this specific election, I go back to the fact that Floridian voters apparently have their collective heads up their asses.

I have never attempted to delegitimize an election because I didn't like the outcome. Grow the hell up.
Click to expand...

My needing to "grow up" would imply that I'm being childish. If you think I am, that's your opinion, but people bemoan the outcomes of elections all of the times and decry the realities that befall all of us for piss poor decisions that people make at the voting booth. That's not called being childish, that's called engaging in part of the public debate that's necessary for a functioning democracy, Green.

Secondly, you're committing a strawman. I'm not delegitimizing the election: DWS won, Murphy won. That's not to say that one should think the voters are sane, rational, informed people, but no one is claiming fraud or misconduct. I am claiming that the people of Florida are, apparently, overwhelming incapable of doing their own research or being informed on money in politics, and it appears in the second case that Murphy's disingenuous, debunked mudslinging campaign was wildly successful.
 
FieldTheorist said:
This is an absurd response. I would like a well-informed, non-delusional voting public who vote in districts that aren't gerrymandered. Apparently, you think that makes me, what, a supporter of dictatorial regimes or a supporter of Jim Crow laws? I've been very clear about what changes to our democracy I would like to see happen, and it doesn't include any of the anti-democratic tactics you list above.
Click to expand...

You are emblematic of that subset of the left that is apparently incapable of conceiving of a pluralistic society in which informed people have different values and opinions. If only everyone were well-informed they'd all agree with you! Over and over again you roll out the same dicta:

Any politician expressing different preferences than you is bought.
Any voter voting against your candidate is deluded.
Any policy defeat is proof of deep systemic corruption.

It is impossible for a difference of opinion to have any legitimacy in your world. Rather, such differences of opinion are always just another bit of proof of the grand conspiracy. When things don't go your way it's because your opponents are bad actors, institutions are rotten, society is blind. "Rigged," "bought," "shill," "collective heads up their asses," and on and on. This toxic, corrosive attitude--increasingly prevalent on the far left and the far right--is disturbing to me.

Someone pointed out DWS is liked locally in part because she hasn't neglected her district and puts a lot of effort into constituent services. You literally responded with "She's a piece of ****."

Meanwhile, you find time to step away from your contempt of the poorly informed and deluded voting public long enough to demand their responses in opinion polls have greater influence on policymaking (ignoring that the vast majority of time those expressed preferences were aligned with outcomes).

"...and such small portions!"
 
FieldTheorist said:
America is very angry with Congress, but they keep on picking ****tier and ****tier members of Congress:

https://www.rt.com/usa/357697-florida-primary-results-rubio-wasserman-schultz/

There's something seriously wrong with America. The Democrats who vote in Florida appear to have a screw loose. I really cannot fathom the stupidity of Florida right now. It's their own personal Brexit moment.


PS: Grayson deserved the senate seat, and Canova deserved to win his congressional seat, even if DWS and Murphy weren't complete pieces of ****.
Click to expand...

With democrats, scandal is usually a help to get reelected. So DWS got that going for her. Grayson is just a smug ass, glad to see him lose again.
 
Greenbeard said:
You are emblematic of that subset of the left that is apparently incapable of conceiving of a pluralistic society in which informed people have different values and opinions.
Click to expand...

Again, this would be a compelling case if the overwhelming majority of Americans didn't agree with me, but they do. You can sit here and hold to the pretense of our system being fair and representative, but it's not.

A majority of Americans support legalization of marijuana, an overwhelming majority of Americans think the rich have more power in politics than they do, an overwhelming majority of Americans (including conservatives) think there's too much money in politics, an overwhelming majority of Americans support single-payer, medicare-for-all healthcare, an overwhelming majority of Americans (including conservatives) support universal background checks, the majority of Americans support abortions rights, a majority of Americans support expanding social security and increasing taxes to cover it, the majority do not support wars in other countries and think diplomacy is a superior solution, etc.

Take a few hours reading public opinion polls. It's pretty illuminating.

If only everyone were well-informed they'd all agree with you!
Click to expand...

Apparently the lack of an ability to rebut what I say necessitates your repeated implications that I'm a child.

I understand that people don't agree with me, but I'm still allowed to voice my loud disagreement. If it makes you uncomfortable that I vehemently disagree with people --e.g. conservatives, whether they're Democrat or Republican, or people who think that the things DWS supports are good-- then that's your problem, Green, not mine. You may need to re-read the point of this forum.

Over and over again you roll out the same dicta:

Any politician expressing different preferences than you is bought.
Any voter voting against your candidate is deluded.
Any policy defeat is proof of deep systemic corruption.
Click to expand...

1.) No, not any politician. I don't think that Rand Paul and Ron Paul are "bought off," but I do think their opinions are ludicrous.

2.) I don't think anyone voting against my candidate is necessarily deluded, but I'm more than happy to point to how effective mudslinging campaigns are --that's not my opinion, either. It's a fact that Grayson was starting to beat Murphy before Murphy spent millions of his daddy's money funneled through the DCCC to spread lies about Grayson on the air. Again, this isn't my opinion. You can look at the polls, at right up to the point Grayson overtook Murphy, Grayson was catching up and then about to beat Murphy. After the mudslinging and false accusations, Grayson dropped in the polls. The public was fed a lie that the police involved confirmed was a lie --it didn't matter though. It was a convenient narrative for Murphy.

3.) It is when there's such a disconnect between public opinion and public policy. The two should at least be marginally related.

Someone pointed out DWS is liked locally in part because she hasn't neglected her district and puts a lot of effort into constituent services. You literally responded with "She's a piece of ****."
Click to expand...

I stand by that. Also, you should note that I didn't stop there like you claimed. I linked to the opinions of well-known activists and union leaders who have, needless to say, quite a different view of DWS and have known DWS for decades.

Meanwhile, you find time to step away from your contempt of the poorly informed and deluded voting public long enough to demand their responses in opinion polls have greater influence on policymaking (ignoring that the vast majority of time those expressed preferences were aligned with outcomes).
Click to expand...

Even the articles you've raised don't agree with you on that last point, so I'm not going to bother rebutting this.
 
Greenbeard said:
You are emblematic of that subset of the left that is apparently incapable of conceiving of a pluralistic society in which informed people have different values and opinions. If only everyone were well-informed they'd all agree with you! Over and over again you roll out the same dicta:

Any politician expressing different preferences than you is bought.
Any voter voting against your candidate is deluded.
Any policy defeat is proof of deep systemic corruption.

It is impossible for a difference of opinion to have any legitimacy in your world. Rather, such differences of opinion are always just another bit of proof of the grand conspiracy. When things don't go your way it's because your opponents are bad actors, institutions are rotten, society is blind. "Rigged," "bought," "shill," "collective heads up their asses," and on and on. This toxic, corrosive attitude--increasingly prevalent on the far left and the far right--is disturbing to me.

Someone pointed out DWS is liked locally in part because she hasn't neglected her district and puts a lot of effort into constituent services. You literally responded with "She's a piece of ****."

Meanwhile, you find time to step away from your contempt of the poorly informed and deluded voting public long enough to demand their responses in opinion polls have greater influence on policymaking (ignoring that the vast majority of time those expressed preferences were aligned with outcomes).

"...and such small portions!"
Click to expand...

In otherwords, a disingenuous attempt to smear progressives (while being sure to dismiss/marginalize them as the 'far left' and equate their behaviour with ultranationalists and fascists despite their views being generally in lockstep with the majority of the first world's liberalism... much unlike the brand you seem to personally support that could only be considered conservatism beyond US borders) and lampoon justified outrage at specific outcomes as toxic behaviour that's 'always' applied regardless of the circumstances.

You're insufferable to interact with precisely because you constantly engage in spewing generalizations against those who oppose and disagree with you, even within your own party or approximate ideological bent, while accusing them of doing the same; classic projection.

DWS is indeed a piece of **** per her demonstrated corruption and unethical bias and she has no business being near public office, nevermind her stances on things like medical marijuana, fracking in a state like Florida that is exceedingly vulnerable to its fallout and repercussions, payday loans, etc... Meanwhile faulting voters for poor choices over individual elections != lamenting their lack of discretion and judgement in totality such that it defeats the point of demanding greater representation and democratic accountability in a system per your very own linked source features greatly disproportionate influence of the rich (as FieldTheorist said, 10% or less of the population winning a whopping ~53% of the time vs the rest when in disagreement is by no means 'democratic').
 
Last edited:
Kobie said:
Oh, and by the way ...



That's on you. ALWAYS fathom the stupidity of Florida.
Click to expand...

Only in Florida can they make a ballot, the infamous butterfly ballot, in which many Jews mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan. LOL.
 
FieldTheorist said:
America is very angry with Congress, but they keep on picking ****tier and ****tier members of Congress:

https://www.rt.com/usa/357697-florida-primary-results-rubio-wasserman-schultz/

There's something seriously wrong with America. The Democrats who vote in Florida appear to have a screw loose. I really cannot fathom the stupidity of Florida right now. It's their own personal Brexit moment.


PS: Grayson deserved the senate seat, and Canova deserved to win his congressional seat, even if DWS and Murphy weren't complete pieces of ****.
Click to expand...

Grayson ??? Wow......He's set the bar really low when it comes to low life Politicians




 
Fenton said:
Grayson ??? Wow......He's set the bar really low when it comes to low life Politicians
Click to expand...

The pot calling the kettle black...

Click to expand...


Sure, that's a negative ad. Politifact rates the claim false, but not for straightforward reasons. Grayson misrepresented what his opponent said, verbatim, and therefore Politifact rated it as false. However, Politifact also points out that Grayson's opponent was at the time, a 30 year member, outspoken supporter, and leader of the group The Institute in Basic Life Principles, which is a Christian organization that has said things like "The man provides servant leadership and the woman responds with reverent submission and assistance," a wife must "stay beautiful for her husband" and "Resistance or indifference to your husband’s need for physical intimacy is the unspoken crushing of his spirit."

So, the exact quoting of his opponent was disingenuous, but the stated beliefs of his opponent? Pretty spot on, because Grayson's opponent was a part of an organization that does promote extremist religious beliefs.

Click to expand...


I watched the whole video and waited for something to find objectionable. Republicans are knuckle-dragging obstructionist neanderthals. They've literally set historical records over out 240 year history for obstructive congress, refusing to hear laws, filibustering at literally historically record levels, refusing to affirm Federal circuit justices, refusing to affirm a SCOTUS seat, and refusing to even fill out other basic Federal appointments. And that barely touches their lack of support for any substantial policies, and instead their diehard insistence on having repeated hearings on the six or so different fake controversies for Democrats at millions of dollars to the taxpayer.
 
FieldTheorist said:
I don't think that will fix anything. What would fix something is if we had run-off ballots, automatic voter registration, publicly-funded campaigns, a ban on corporate money, a voter holiday, and no mid-terms.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you should move to California.

They have:
Top 2 vote-getters in general election
Automatic (opt-out) voter registration upon going to the DMV to obtain/renew your license
Time-off to vote
Early Voting
No-excuse absentee voting
Voting rights for all criminals out of prison/off parole
Election day voter registration
 
Gaea said:
Sounds like you should move to California.

They have:
Top 2 vote-getters in general election
Automatic (opt-out) voter registration upon going to the DMV to obtain/renew your license
Time-off to vote
Early Voting
No-excuse absentee voting
Voting rights for all criminals out of prison/off parole
Election day voter registration
Click to expand...

Some of that is an excellent start, but it's woefully short of the most important issues: Firstly, it's state not national laws. Given that they're already wildly proportionately underrepresented at the Federal level, it's a severely attenuated effect. Secondly, that doesn't actually address the rampant money in politics issue that exists at the Federal level, or even the state level. Thirdly, this doesn't affect alternative and truly democratic representation that is afforded by run-off ballots. California will likely never accept run-off ballots, either, because they are so heavily controlled by the Democratic party.
 
FieldTheorist said:
It's a fact that Grayson was starting to beat Murphy before Murphy spent millions of his daddy's money funneled through the DCCC to spread lies about Grayson on the air. Again, this isn't my opinion. You can look at the polls, at right up to the point Grayson overtook Murphy, Grayson was catching up and then about to beat Murphy.
Click to expand...

What makes you think the polls were even accurate? The last poll I see on realclearpolitics shows Murphy up by 9 points, and Grayson 10 points ahead of Keith.

When people actually cast their ballots, it wasn't even remotely close. Grayson nearly came in third place.

bc17349ff80d4ccabf39187bf67bae4a.png
 
Gaea said:
What makes you think the polls were even accurate? The last poll I see on realclearpolitics shows Murphy up by 9 points, and Grayson 10 points ahead of Keith.

When people actually cast their ballots, it wasn't even remotely close. Grayson nearly came in third place.

bc17349ff80d4ccabf39187bf67bae4a.png
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a pretty serious deviation, but as we've learned this election cycle, polls are a pretty hairy business. RCP gives the best evidence you can get leading into the election day, but there are always deviations. I'm not saying that cheating didn't transpire, but I don't see any rock solid evidence that it did --so I'm going under the assumption that there wasn't.
 
FieldTheorist said:
The pot calling the kettle black...



Sure, that's a negative ad. Politifact rates the claim false, but not for straightforward reasons. Grayson misrepresented what his opponent said, verbatim, and therefore Politifact rated it as false. However, Politifact also points out that Grayson's opponent was at the time, a 30 year member, outspoken supporter, and leader of the group The Institute in Basic Life Principles, which is a Christian organization that has said things like "The man provides servant leadership and the woman responds with reverent submission and assistance," a wife must "stay beautiful for her husband" and "Resistance or indifference to your husband’s need for physical intimacy is the unspoken crushing of his spirit."

So, the exact quoting of his opponent was disingenuous, but the stated beliefs of his opponent? Pretty spot on, because Grayson's opponent was a part of an organization that does promote extremist religious beliefs.



I watched the whole video and waited for something to find objectionable. Republicans are knuckle-dragging obstructionist neanderthals. They've literally set historical records over out 240 year history for obstructive congress, refusing to hear laws, filibustering at literally historically record levels, refusing to affirm Federal circuit justices, refusing to affirm a SCOTUS seat, and refusing to even fill out other basic Federal appointments. And that barely touches their lack of support for any substantial policies, and instead their diehard insistence on having repeated hearings on the six or so different fake controversies for Democrats at millions of dollars to the taxpayer.
Click to expand...

The GOP is the obstructionist party ? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.....

Harry Reids reign of paralysis
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/08/04/harry-reids-reign-of-paralysis/?utm_term=.218aefca3251
 
Fenton said:
The GOP is the obstructionist party ? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.....

Harry Reids reign of paralysis
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/08/04/harry-reids-reign-of-paralysis/?utm_term=.218aefca3251
Click to expand...

Harry Reid is a sack of ****, too, you'll find no disagreement from me on this point, and the sooner he is out of office, the better. That being said, this is an extremely partisan article that gives a hilariously, comically rosy picture of Republican's willingness to "debate" anything in 2014, let alone any time from 2008-2016. It's just an immutable fact that Republicans have been historically obstructionist, partisan, and unwilling to debate --it makes Republicans look worse, not better, for complaining just 2 years ago that Harry Reid wouldn't debate any of the issues they wanted, and now that they control both Houses they won't hear any other issues. That is the pot calling the kettle black.
 
Absentglare said:
All irrelevant.

The level of obstruction from the GOP in congress during President Obama's presidency has been historically high.
Click to expand...

You're exaggerating but you should consider any push back from the GOP Congress as a blessing.

Obama had the Senate and the House for 2 years and managed to do more damage to the Democrat brand in 2 years than the GOP could do in 8.

His " signature legislation " was so disastrous and so unpopular by the time the Midterms roled around that his own Party had to pretend it didn't exist.

They still got routed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom