Next election in the states : history in the making

Author: Mall
America
Vote
2024

Posts

Total: 73
#61
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
Basically liberals are more open or always open and progressive so much so that they leave the foundation and fundamentals.

i.e. the acceptance of same sex marriage leaving the fundamentals of sexuality between man and woman alone.
They're not leaving the foundation behind, the issue is that they have a different foundation altogether. They disagree with you that sex must be between a man and a women, that's the whole point.

Nothing about that is 'change itself must be the goal'.

I'm talking about the law of slavery didn't need to change or end except the way it was ran.
So you're ok with it being legal to own other people as property?

It's because there are people apparently you're just learning this now that believe slavery has never ended but transitioned. Now these are typically minority groups speaking this so it's understandable from their perspective they'll feel this way
At this point you're just playing word games. Slavery has a definition, and not getting called back after a job interview isn't it. People liken modern day oppression to slavery all the time but they do it as a metaphor, no rational human being thinks what's happening to any minority group (at least in the US) today is anything like what happened to most black people prior to the mid 1800's. It's just silly to pretend there's any comparison.
#62
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
Election Gambling is coming back, legally.

The question next becomes, will it be properly regulated.


#63
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,988
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ebuc
No, you won't get a cut.
#64
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,610
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc
Yes, financial exchange startup Kalshi in September got the green light to begin offering day traders, wannabe political pundits and financial institutions the chance to wager thousands of dollars on whether Democrats or Republicans will control Congress next year. Some financial firms will be allowed to bet as much as $100 million.
#65
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,988
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
I will cover your bets on Kamala. Good luck FLRW!
Topic's author
#66
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@HistoryBuff
"I don't just accept it because you haven't quoted them."

Probably won't accept it regardless. Do you not believe liberals support same sex marriage, abortion, transgender rights?

" You have given me your interpretation of their words. "

Prove it. This is bias to say it's my interpretation when you haven't verified what I heard exactly.

"It would be extremely odd for multiple people to phrase their beliefs in identical words. So i find it to be extremely unlikely that lots of people have described their beliefs exactly that way. Which means you are lying to me. You are inferring their meaning and repeating back to me what you inferred. You are then denying that is what you are doing."

Ok I acknowledge your opinion. That's all , however bias, ok.

"We have. we have been talking about proof what liberals believe. IE what ALL liberals believe. Even if you can prove to me that 1 or 10 or 100 liberals believe that, it does nothing to prove that this is what liberals believe. It just tells me what those specific individuals believe. "

Let's just leave it at what I say or said. I've heard liberals say what they believe. At the minimum that means more than one. I've heard these people say what they say. So it's not really much to discuss on the thing. Somebody just telling you what that somebody heard. It's like an "ok" and move on really.

"Liberalism is for evolving and changing just about accepting anything new". You are defining what liberalism is. you aren't saying what specific liberals believe. you are trying to say all liberals are like this. That is bullshit.


I said quote where I said ALL LIBERALS. That didn't say "all liberals" in that statement did it? This is where my EXACT WORDS ends and YOUR interpretation/reading ALL LIBERALS in there begins. Gotta be careful with exact wording.

There ain't no TRYING to say . I either used those exact words or I didn't.


"lol I've already done that. Some conservatives believe women shouldn't be allowed to vote. But that doesn't mean all conservatives believe that. It doesn't mean that is what conservatism is. So why are you trying to define liberalism by the actions or beliefs of a few people? If that is how it works, then I can say conservatism is for pedophiles, anti-semites and misogynists. "

I think I said this already. I'm not defining anything. The liberals are and I'm telling you what they are saying. Do what you want, whatever, but I encourage you to be neutral. Don't have a bias because you haven't heard what I heard or you heard different or know of different things concerning liberalism and therefore just automatically dismiss what I'm saying because it cuts against the grain making it my words against them and them superceding me. Where I'm just acting as a messenger. Don't vilify and dismiss the message just because you merely disagree.

Again, stop reading the word ALL into things. Get the context, let it fly where it don't apply. Just because there's more than one that is applicable, it doesn't necessarily mean all. People have a tendency to jump the gun assuming that a broadly nonspecific statement always means every single one . But the key there is nonspecific. So I'm not making specific. That means no specific number which would include not specifying every single one in all not specifying all.


"Liberalism is about being open to change. "

So in a yes or no specific answer, yes, liberalism is for change. Can't be open to it if not for it. It's not a trick question. Yes, liberalism is for change.


"lol you are defining terms that apply to 10's or 100's of millions of people and saying "stop reading the word all into this". Do you not see how that's dumb? You want to define a broad term that applies to huge numbers of people, but you only want to define that term by a handful of people that you get to pick. "

My friend, do yourself a favor. Stop putting numbers and all into this. I have said no numbers, I have not said all. This is you reading this into this then trying to argue with it. You're arguing with your own interpretation.




Topic's author
#67
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R
"They're not leaving the foundation behind, the issue is that they have a different foundation altogether. They disagree with you that sex must be between a man and a women, that's the whole point.

Nothing about that is 'change itself must be the goal'."

The foundation of sexual reproductive organs is with sexual reproduction. So once you leave that, you left the foundation. Using organs in a different way is change .

"So you're ok with it being legal to own other people as property?"

It depends whether the exceptions are made or not like I said. Don't just leave it broad as legalizing slavery which still is legal. But there are stipulations to it.

At this point you're just playing word games. Slavery has a definition, and not getting called back after a job interview isn't it. People liken modern day oppression to slavery all the time but they do it as a metaphor, no rational human being thinks what's happening to any minority group (at least in the US) today is anything like what happened to most black people prior to the mid 1800's. It's just silly to pretend there's any comparison.

Like I said if people still feel them and theirs are being oppressed, unjustly incarcerated and everything brought on them as being the vestiges of the past still affecting them, i.e. , reparations, they have a right to their experience. I can't speak on their experiences in a country with a particular victimizing history.

#68
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Mall
The foundation of sexual reproductive organs is with sexual reproduction. So once you leave that, you left the foundation.
So you're against sex anytime it's not with the explicit intent to create a child? So a couple in their 50's who is done with children is in your view "leaving the foundation" if they decide to have sex?

"So you're ok with it being legal to own other people as property?"

It depends whether the exceptions are made or not like I said. Don't just leave it broad as legalizing slavery which still is legal. But there are stipulations to it.
What stipulations?

Like I said if people still feel them and theirs are being oppressed, unjustly incarcerated and everything brought on them as being the vestiges of the past still affecting them, i.e. , reparations, they have a right to their experience.
No one is criticizing their experiences. We're talking about why it's ridiculous to pretend there is a meaningful parallel between what happened to the slaves and what's happening to anyone in America today.
#69
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Mall
Probably won't accept it regardless. Do you not believe liberals support same sex marriage, abortion, transgender rights?
many do. some don't. saying all liberals believe any specific thing would be a lie. 

Prove it. This is bias to say it's my interpretation when you haven't verified what I heard exactly.
I already have. Unless you are quoting someone's words verbatim, then you are giving your interpretation of them. You heard their words. You decided what their words meant. Then you repeated back your interpretation of what their words meant. You could be right. You could be wrong. But I can't know for sure. 

"It would be extremely odd for multiple people to phrase their beliefs in identical words. So i find it to be extremely unlikely that lots of people have described their beliefs exactly that way. Which means you are lying to me. You are inferring their meaning and repeating back to me what you inferred. You are then denying that is what you are doing."

Ok I acknowledge your opinion. That's all , however bias, ok.
my response isn't opinion. It is describing why your core argument is wrong. You are trying to argue that all liberals believe specific things because you supposedly heard some liberals say it. But you can't quote them. So obviously what you are repeating is not exactly what they said. It is your opinion of what they said. 

I've heard liberals say what they believe. At the minimum that means more than one. I've heard these people say what they say. So it's not really much to discuss on the thing. Somebody just telling you what that somebody heard. It's like an "ok" and move on really.
except you make grandiose claims based on what they said. Like if someone said "i support abortion rights" and you go "See! he supports aborting babies after birth!!". those are not the same thing. 

but I encourage you to be neutral. Don't have a bias because you haven't heard what I heard or you heard different or know of different things concerning liberalism and therefore just automatically dismiss what I'm saying because it cuts against the grain making it my words against them and them superceding me.
I am being neutral. you are making extreme claims. You have absolutely 0 evidence to back them up. A neutral party would absolutely question you about that. 

Where I'm just acting as a messenger.
you aren't though. You are making claims as to what liberalism is. that's not a messenger. And since your claims are extreme and inaccurate, it certainly isn't neutral either. 

Again, stop reading the word ALL into things. Get the context, let it fly where it don't apply. 
ok, let's clarify. If I said "Dogs are the worst pets". Do you think I mean specific dogs? Or do I mean all dogs? I didn't say the word "all", but my sentence clearly implies it. You didn't say the word all either, but your sentence implied it. And if you didn't mean all, then this whole discussion is pointless. If your point is that there are a few liberals with extreme views, then I agre.

So in a yes or no specific answer, yes, liberalism is for change. Can't be open to it if not for it. It's not a trick question. Yes, liberalism is for change.
you are incorrect. There is a difference between being open to something and being for it. Being willing to change if the circumstances warrant doing it, is not the same thing as being for change. 

My friend, do yourself a favor. Stop putting numbers and all into this. I have said no numbers, I have not said all. This is you reading this into this then trying to argue with it. You're arguing with your own interpretation.
ok, so you aren't talking about all liberals, you are only talking about the tiny number you have heard speak? Great! then your point means nothing. Yes there are some extreme liberals. Just like there are some extreme conservatives. If that is all we are talking about, then why are you bothering to say it?


Topic's author
#70
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@Double_R
"So you're against sex anytime it's not with the explicit intent to create a child? So a couple in their 50's who is done with children is in your view "leaving the foundation" if they decide to have sex?"

Well.....ya see now......ya know .

"What stipulations?"

Well .....

"No one is criticizing their experiences. We're talking about why it's ridiculous to pretend there is a meaningful parallel between what happened to the slaves and what's happening to anyone in America today."

I can't call what other people experience ridiculous or how they're treated. It's there experience, not mine.



Topic's author
#71
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@HistoryBuff
"many do. some don't. saying all liberals believe any specific thing would be a lie. "

So you do believe liberals believe this so it shouldn't even be hard to accept that I heard them, THE ONES THAT I'VE HEARD, THE ONES THAT I'VE HEARD, so we got that clear, say that which you believe they support.

"I already have. Unless you are quoting someone's words verbatim, then you are giving your interpretation of them. You heard their words. You decided what their words meant. Then you repeated back your interpretation of what their words meant. You could be right. You could be wrong. But I can't know for sure. "

You're double talking here. You ought to be in line with just being neutral instead of saying it's my interpretation just flat out.

"my response isn't opinion. It is describing why your core argument is wrong. You are trying to argue that all liberals believe specific things because you supposedly heard some liberals say it. But you can't quote them. So obviously what you are repeating is not exactly what they said. It is your opinion of what they said." 

We're going in circles. I've said what I said. You're being hypocritical saying I'm giving my interpretation of what somebody has said while you're actually doing it to me off what I said.

"except you make grandiose claims based on what they said. Like if someone said "i support abortion rights" and you go "See! he supports aborting babies after birth!!". those are not the same thing."

I would say the person said "i support abortion rights" .

"I am being neutral. you are making extreme claims. You have absolutely 0 evidence to back them up. A neutral party would absolutely question you about that. "

Well being that I have 0 evidence that you  know of because it's been made evident to me, you don't have evidence for the counter either, so why reject ? You don't accept nor reject, that is being neutral my friend.

"you aren't though. You are making claims as to what liberalism is. that's not a messenger. And since your claims are extreme and inaccurate, it certainly isn't neutral either. "

See how you continue to reject what I say. That's not neutral. It's not "maybe you are a messenger, perhaps not , I don't know, can't say one way or the other". It's " no you're not, no you're not". Just step outside yourself and just observe yourself.

"ok, let's clarify. If I said "Dogs are the worst pets". Do you think I mean specific dogs? Or do I mean all dogs? I didn't say the word "all", but my sentence clearly implies it. You didn't say the word all either, but your sentence implied it. And if you didn't mean all, then this whole discussion is pointless. If your point is that there are a few liberals with extreme views, then I agre."

Are you asking for my answer or are you just going to say what you think on everything?

This is what I don't do with the liberals I hear. I let them tell me what they mean. I don't go by any implications. I keep saying it as I been consistent the whole time not turning loose from it. I go by their exact words.

"you are incorrect. There is a difference between being open to something and being for it. Being willing to change if the circumstances warrant doing it, is not the same thing as being for change. "

So I can be open to something while not being for it.  What would be the point for me to be open for something I'm not for?

Have you ever heard of people criticizing liberalism as a bunch of confusion?

"ok, so you aren't talking about all liberals, you are only talking about the tiny number you have heard speak? Great! then your point means nothing. Yes there are some extreme liberals. Just like there are some extreme conservatives. If that is all we are talking about, then why are you bothering to say it?"

I didn't say tiny or a lot or any of that. I don't know why you're scared to just leave it non specific. Also I can say what I have applicable to the topic like everybody else. I believe the topic was related to liberals so I gave my input on the topic regarding what liberals have said whether you accept it or reject it .




#72
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,222
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Mall
So you do believe liberals believe this so it shouldn't even be hard to accept that I heard them
Your statement was that liberalism is " just about accepting anything new that comes along like same sex marriage, abortion, permitting illegal aliens, allowing transgenderism, pushing it on children, allowing transgender restrooms, transgender locker rooms and in military and sports."

You then said that liberals support a couple of those things. I agreed that many liberals support a couple of those things. You then say "well why don't you believe I heard people say this much longer list of stuff". How am I supposed to take you seriously?

You're double talking here. You ought to be in line with just being neutral instead of saying it's my interpretation just flat out.
I don't know how this keeps going over your head. It is not even debatable that it is your interpretation. That is an objective fact. You are repeating back to me what you think they said in your own words. That is, by definition, your interpretation. What are you even arguing about?

Well being that I have 0 evidence that you  know
we agree on something. You have provided 0 evidence. I therefore have very good reason to question you about your lack of supporting evidence. 

you don't have evidence for the counter either, so why reject ?
because Im not the one making claims. You say X,Y, and Z are true. I say "prove it". It's your job to prove that what you are asserting is true. It's not my job to try to find evidence for you.

Are you asking for my answer or are you just going to say what you think on everything?
you keep repeating that you didn't use the word "all". I was explaining why your sentence didn't need to use the word "all" to imply you were referring to all liberals. I wasn't really asking you a question, I was trying to help you understand.

I keep saying it as I been consistent the whole time not turning loose from it. I go by their exact words.
All I've seen you do is say "liberals said this". And when I ask what liberals? What exactly did they say? You can't or wont answer. You want to paint all liberals with one brush based solely on people you won't name and quotes you won't provide. What If i started saying "conservatives are evil because they said gay people should be killed. I won't tell you which ones said it. But all conservatives must be like that though". 

So I can be open to something while not being for it.  What would be the point for me to be open for something I'm not for?
is that a real question? Do you really not understand what being open to something, but not for it is? If my wife said "we should but another car" and I'm like "I don't know if we need another car". I'm not for it. I'm willing to hear her out to see why would we need one. Once she makes her case I might agree, I might not. 

I didn't say tiny or a lot or any of that. I don't know why you're scared to just leave it non specific.
because this is what intellectually dishonest people do. You have no idea how many people believe what you think "liberals" believe. It could be 100 million, it could be 0. You have no clue. But you want to argue like it's a sizeable group even though you have nothing to support it. Crap like that is how people fall down the conspiracy theory hole. 

Also I can say what I have applicable to the topic like everybody else.
of course you can. But what you "have" is nothing. It is your own personal opinion backed up by nothing at all. Oh i'm sorry, there's all those "liberals" you heard, but don't know who they are and can't quote. 

Topic's author
#73
Mall
Mall's avatar
Debates: 396
Posts: 1,806
4
4
4
Mall's avatar
Mall
4
4
4
-->
@HistoryBuff
"You then said that liberals support a couple of those things. I agreed that many liberals support a couple of those things. You then say "well why don't you believe I heard people say this much longer list of stuff". How am I supposed to take you seriously?"

Makes no difference whether you do or not. You believe what you believe.

"I don't know how this keeps going over your head. It is not even debatable that it is your interpretation. That is an objective fact. You are repeating back to me what you think they said in your own words. That is, by definition, your interpretation. What are you even arguing about?"

I'm telling you. I don't have to argue. I'm telling you it is not my interpretation. You're arguing with me that it is when you have no proof of what I heard. You're seriously going to presume what somebody heard wasn't what was heard without you even hearing it for yourself. You can't dictate somebody else's experience.

It's like saying somebody told me what that person saw and I say "no you didn't see that". "You didn't see it that way". "Let me tell you what your perception was of what you saw." "This is how you perceived it......".

How am I going to be able to declare that and I'm not even a witness myself there to see it?

Your arrogance is blinding you to the point of unbeknownst foolishness . Don't ever dictate somebody else's experience. Making a fool out yourself. Your experience and what you agree with or accept or align with does not supercede or dictate the experiences of others to make it align with yours.

"we agree on something. You have provided 0 evidence. I therefore have very good reason to question you about your lack of supporting evidence. "

You go passed questioning. You reject without evidence.

"because Im not the one making claims. You say X,Y, and Z are true. I say "prove it". It's your job to prove that what you are asserting is true. It's not my job to try to find evidence for you."

You are to be neutral like I said. You neither accept nor reject. You say "I don't believe or disbelieve, it could be or may not be your interpretation ". It's not THAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION. See, because I'll make you prove it. You haven't proved one iota. You can want it to be all you want. Wanting and wishing is not proving. Wishful thinking.

"All I've seen you do is say "liberals said this". And when I ask what liberals? What exactly did they say? You can't or wont answer."

I've heard liberals say they support same sex marriage and transgender rights. I heard what I heard. Trying to impose on what I heard like you know all things is foolish.

"You want to paint all liberals with one brush based solely on people you won't name and quotes you won't provide."

You don't know me. You don't know what I want.
I'll suggest you look up Jesse Lee Peterson liberal interviews on the fallen state . Start there if you're really that interested.

"What If i started saying "conservatives are evil because they said gay people should be killed. I won't tell you which ones said it. But all conservatives must be like that though".

I'm not assuming all. You didn't say it. You're projecting on me what you think I'm doing with liberals. You go by implications with me so you assume I go by implications with liberals shaping my own interpretation.

I can't dictate what liberals mean by the words they use. So you don't dictate what my own words mean.

"is that a real question? Do you really not understand what being open to something, but not for it is? If my wife said "we should but another car" and I'm like "I don't know if we need another car". I'm not for it. I'm willing to hear her out to see why would we need one. Once she makes her case I might agree, I might not."

Ok I don't know about your example. Sounds like you're just undecided, don't know what stance to take with all the consulting, whatever. First it's " I don't know" then " not for it", then " I hear you out", then "I might agree, I might not ". You made shipwreck of an example. Just wishy washy .

Just because you don't need something, it doesn't mean you're not for it necessarily.

A clearcut example. I don't need any more food in my refrigerator. But I'm for eating. I got to eat to live. I'm not for animal cruelty, I'm not open to being a carnivore.

There is no basis to be open to something I'm not for or never be for. Maybe you can understand in that frame of reference. I'll never be for it. Why would I be open to it?

Liberals open to and for change. Whatever way you want to flip it.

"because this is what intellectually dishonest people do. You have no idea how many people believe what you think "liberals" believe. It could be 100 million, it could be 0. You have no clue. But you want to argue like it's a sizeable group even though you have nothing to support it. Crap like that is how people fall down the conspiracy theory hole. "


Don't worry about the numbers or size. Make it light on yourself.

"of course you can. But what you "have" is nothing. It is your own personal opinion backed up by nothing at all. Oh i'm sorry, there's all those "liberals" you heard, but don't know who they are and can't quote. "

Whatever you say, chief.