• 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!

[w:97]Presidential debate #3

trouble13 said:
Let me yake a wild guess; you think the republicans are responsible for all the anger.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No. But they birthed it and weaponized it. BTW, I am a life long republican.
 
Obscurity said:
It's a statistical probability you are not a good parent.
Click to expand...

I like the way you think. Same with me. I always go to the numbers.

It is silly to defend oneself of such an accusation on the internet so I won;t bother.

What I will say, since you appear to understand these things, a probability does not speak to the specifics of individual within the group.

Peace
 
noonereal said:
No. But they birthed it and weaponized it. BTW, I am a life long republican.
Click to expand...
Seems to me to two partys have been hateful toward eachother from the very begining

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Integrityrespec said:
Mayor Pete is not going to be in the running for the democrat Presidential nomination because he doesn't have a message that is resonating with democrat voters. Stop making accusations of the right playing on his open gay lifestyle. Most folks on both sides whether they agree of not with his personal life simply don't care when it comes to who they vote for. He is polling in most all polls between 4 and 6%. He has a few idealogical talking points but no real plans on carrying any of them out. It's a race between Biden, Warren, Sanders and the rest are hoping for political recognition or maybe a shot at VP.
Click to expand...
Oh I don't think he's going to be chosen President, I think he may have a shot at VP if he catches on, but black voters are not yet comfortable with him secondary to that cop shooting incident regardless . He definitely could end up in a cabinet position The same exact thing will happen to him whether he is chosen President or VP.

I think it is amusing that you DON'T think there will be an effort to exploit his or his husband's orientation and come up with dirt, or fake the dirt . Most republicans did not give a whoot that Obama was black, and most did not try to use his race as a crowbar, but that did not stop the birthers, nor did it stop some efforts to paint Obama as Muslim. Trump is a very dirty fighter, much more so than McCain or Romney and he and his cronies will use whatever they can against the ticket.
 
Last edited:
As somebody here already posted, there may be an issue with Mayor Pete in dealings with Muslim countries. It's not cool, but it is the truth.
 
BrotherFease said:
The rules were setup and released on May 28th 2019. In order to qualify for the third debate, you needed at least 130k individual donors and register at least 2% in 4 major polls between June 28th and August 28th. Gabbard met the donor requirements, but only had 2 major polls in her favor -- CBS New Hampshire and CNN national poll.

It doesn't matter what RCP says for late August, early September. The time frame was between June 28th and August 28th. Arguing there's a DNC conspiracy against Gabbard is ridiculous and shows ignorance.

The fact of the matter is, we have 11 people qualifying for the October debate. That's too many people.
Click to expand...

You can’t sincerely infer that the DNC doesn’t have in in for Gabbard. Ever since gibbered bolted fromher high
position in the DNC suggesting that Wassrram Shultze had the nomination rigged in the favor of Mrs. Clinton
& went on to support Sanders it’s been established that that organization has had it in for her.

Gibbered hit 2% to 8% in 30 polls in the past 6 wks, including polls with twice the sample size and half the margin of error compared to polls DNC picked. In NH her polling average beats half the candidates in the 3rd debate. Yes, DNC announced polls in advance - but didn't fund them all: Polls where Tulsi excels were not funded, which is why 3rd debate qualifying polls included ZERO from New Hampshire, South Carolina, & Nevada - and only 1 from Iowa. I poll today had Tulsi in 4th place in NH…

New Hampshire Polls | FiveThirtyEight
538 for a longtime was the gold standard democrats have applauded

Biden 22, Sanders 21, Warren 15, Gabbard 6, Harris 5, Buttigieg 5, Booker 3, Yang 2, Steyer 2, O'Rourke 1, Klobucher 1, Delaney 1,
deBlasio 1, Willaimson1, (Bennet & Ryan & Bullock & Sestak & Castro 0.

Polls at this place in time are allover the place but if the idea is to get the 10 candidates with the most support in the debates the
DNC failed miserably. To disinvite Gabbard who falls in there between 5th & 8th shows the incompetence of the DNC or outright
conspiracy of the DNC against her. To not concede that point is as you 'eloquently elaborated' ridiculous and shows ignorance.
 
slick said:
Polls at this place in time are allover the place but if the idea is to get the 10 candidates with the most support in the debates the
DNC failed miserably. To disinvite Gabbard who falls in there between 5th & 8th shows the incompetence of the DNC or outright
conspiracy of the DNC against her. To not concede that point is as you 'eloquently elaborated' ridiculous and shows ignorance.
Click to expand...

I don't want to be rude, but I am having problems following what you're saying. You seem to be dipping into Alex Jones conspiracy land and trying to argue that the DNC should have changed the rules in mid-stream to help out Gabbard.

The rules applied to ALL the candidates. They had two months and 15 different opportunities to get at least four 2% polls in their favor.

It doesn't matter which polls FiveThirtyEight or RCP approves of, it only matters the polls the DNC approved back in May. Arguing that the DNC had some crystal ball and intentionally picked polls which would not favor Gabbard is pretty far-fetched. The DNC literally used the same polls as they used for June and July qualifications, except for the Reuters poll.
 
BrotherFease said:
I don't want to be rude, but I am having problems following what you're saying. You seem to be dipping into Alex Jones conspiracy land and trying to argue that the DNC should have changed the rules in mid-stream to help out Gabbard.

The rules applied to ALL the candidates. They had two months and 15 different opportunities to get at least four 2% polls in their favor.

It doesn't matter which polls FiveThirtyEight or RCP approves of, it only matters the polls the DNC approved back in May. Arguing that the DNC had some crystal ball and intentionally picked polls which would not favor Gabbard is pretty far-fetched. The DNC literally used the same polls as they used for June and July qualifications, except for the Reuters poll.
Click to expand...

My point simply was if the the idea was to get the 10 candidates with the most support into the debates, the DNC failed miserably. I have no intention
of voting for any of the candidates, no dog in this fight except to have an interest in fair play. Even the sports books today still have Gabbard in the
top 7. Before the DNC ruled Gabbard out she was far ahead of Klobucher, Castro, O'Rourke and slightly ahead of Booker. Since she was ruled unqualified by the DNC,
she is still 7th ahead of of O'Rourke, Booker, Klobucher & way ahead of Castro although the odds of her winning have dropped from 15 to 1 to 25 to 1.

U.S. Politics Democratic Nominee for the 2020 Election

Politics Futures Bettings Odds & Lines at BetOnline.ag Sportbook

Politics Futures
Rot. Selection Odds
Friday, Sep 20, 2019
U.S. Politics
Democratic Nominee for the 2020 Election

2254 Elizabeth Warren +190
2253 Joe Biden +275
2251 Bernie Sanders +500
2274 Andrew Yang +800
2252 Kamala Harris +1200
2275 Pete Buttigieg +2000
2271 Tulsi Gabbard +2500
2266 Beto ORourke +3300
2255 Cory Booker +3300
2265 Tom Steyer +4000
2261 Amy Klobuchar +5000
2284 Jay Inslee +8000
2260 Julian Castro +8000
2278 Marianne Williamson +8000
 
slick said:
My point simply was if the the idea was to get the 10 candidates with the most support into the debates, the DNC failed miserably.
Click to expand...

No, the point was to raise the bar up. If there were more than 10 candidates, then they would have divided the debate into two parts.

I have no intention of voting for any of the candidates, no dog in this fight except to have an interest in fair play.
Click to expand...

How is this not fair play? The rules were setup back in May. How to get into the debate was clearly laid out by the DNC. If you're accusing the DNC of rigging polls or creating special rules to hurt Gabbard, then you're engaging in Alex Jones territory.

Before the DNC ruled Gabbard out she was far ahead of Klobucher, Castro, O'Rourke and slightly ahead of Booker.
Click to expand...

You seem to be engaging in fantasy land my friend. Lets review:

1. August is the first month Gabbard registered at least 1% on the national level. You take all of the DNC approved national August polls, and average them together (use the most recent Quinnipiac poll), and you have Gabbard at exactly 1% and tied with Klobuchar. Here are the exact numbers: Yang 2.6% (6th place), Booker 2.4%, O'Rourke 2%, Castro 1.2%, and then Klobuchar & Gabbard tied for 10th place.

2. The DNC is not looking at averages. They are looking at whether or not a candidate scored at least 2% in a major (approved) poll. As I pointed out before, the candidates had 15 opportunities to score at least 2%. Nationally, only the CNN August poll had Gabbard at 2%. No other major national poll had her above 1%. You can look it up. Wiki has all the approved polls highlighted.

3. You seem to be hung up on counting polls, the DNC has never approved of, and looking at vegas odds. That's not how it works.

4. You used the words "far ahead", which is a ridiculous statement if you look at the DNC-approved polls between June 28th and August 28th. Lets see here:

IOWA
August Monmouth - Gabbard was tied for 9th at 1%
July CBS News - Gabbbard hit 0%
July USA Today - Gabbard tied for 8th place at 1%

NH
July CBS News - Tied for 6th place at 2%
July CNN/UNH - Tied for 8th place at 1%

SC
Fox News & CBS News - Registered at 0%

So again, between June 28th and August 28th, Gabbard was at best a 2% candidate. Nothing more.

I wonder what fair play means in your book. Is it rigging the system in favor of Gabbard and focusing on minor polls?
 
BrotherFease said:
No, the point was to raise the bar up. If there were more than 10 candidates, then they would have divided the debate into two parts.



How is this not fair play? The rules were setup back in May. How to get into the debate was clearly laid out by the DNC. If you're accusing the DNC of rigging polls or creating special rules to hurt Gabbard, then you're engaging in Alex Jones territory.



You seem to be engaging in fantasy land my friend. Lets review:

1. August is the first month Gabbard registered at least 1% on the national level. You take all of the DNC approved national August polls, and average them together (use the most recent Quinnipiac poll), and you have Gabbard at exactly 1% and tied with Klobuchar. Here are the exact numbers: Yang 2.6% (6th place), Booker 2.4%, O'Rourke 2%, Castro 1.2%, and then Klobuchar & Gabbard tied for 10th place.

2. The DNC is not looking at averages. They are looking at whether or not a candidate scored at least 2% in a major (approved) poll. As I pointed out before, the candidates had 15 opportunities to score at least 2%. Nationally, only the CNN August poll had Gabbard at 2%. No other major national poll had her above 1%. You can look it up. Wiki has all the approved polls highlighted.

3. You seem to be hung up on counting polls, the DNC has never approved of, and looking at vegas odds. That's not how it works.

4. You used the words "far ahead", which is a ridiculous statement if you look at the DNC-approved polls between June 28th and August 28th. Lets see here:

IOWA
August Monmouth - Gabbard was tied for 9th at 1%
July CBS News - Gabbbard hit 0%
July USA Today - Gabbard tied for 8th place at 1%

NH
July CBS News - Tied for 6th place at 2%
July CNN/UNH - Tied for 8th place at 1%

SC
Fox News & CBS News - Registered at 0%

So again, between June 28th and August 28th, Gabbard was at best a 2% candidate. Nothing more.

I wonder what fair play means in your book. Is it rigging the system in favor of Gabbard and focusing on minor polls?
Click to expand...


move along!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom