Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died

Author: Vader

Posts

Total: 192
#151
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
joe was polling good in future states beyond the first few states. joe fared better with conservatives too. just because he wasn't doing good in the polls early on doesn't prove anything... a poll based on plurality voting and an approval rating are completely different, and i think joe had better approval ratings across all demographics. 
It actually does. Joe like Hillary had his base of support in the South which is going to go to the GOP. Bernie Sanders had a wider coalition. Joe only did well with black voters which are mainly in the South. Coincidentally that’s the populace that is the most Democratic. The Bernie coalition was wide. Joe’s wasn’t. Trump won because he was a better candidate and the GOP establishment didn’t rig it. Joe won even though he was a garbage candidate because the DNC rigged it.
#152
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@ILikePie5
when joe and bernie were head to head, joe got two thirds of vote and bernie got only a third. how does this translate into a rigged election? how does this fit your theory that bernie was more popular? 
#153
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@ILikePie5
#154
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,986
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Death23
People are downright afraid to believe auuthority could be capable of lying. Personally, I don't like how Barr is handling the whole FBI mess. He should settle and make peace with the FBI behind closed doors and reform it without making all the corruption public knowledge through the Flynn court proceedings. There is an unintended price to be paid by undermining the credibility of once trusted institutions.
#155
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
when joe and bernie were head to head, joe got two thirds of vote and bernie got only a third. how does this translate into a rigged election? how does this fit your theory that bernie was more popular? 
See that’s the thing. If it happened naturally I’d support you. But the DNC purposefully interfered making it undemocratic.

I never said Bernie would’ve won in a head to head be Joe. I just said his coalition is broader than Joe. Plus, Joe’s voter base comes from the South which is technically irrelevant cause Trump was gonna win there anyways. Bernie does better with Hispanics. Better with young voters. Better with white voters. Moderately well with African Americans. 1:2 margin.

The problem here is that the DNC interfered making the process undemocratic because they threw their support to one person early on. Kinda anti-thetical to the name of the party.
#156
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@ILikePie5
if you concede that joe would win against bernie head to head, how exactly is it rigged? you mention vague notions of the DNC supporting joe, but so what? even if they should be neutral but aren't, it's still joe getting the votes himself. voters dont care much for what the DNC thinks. at least not enough voters care tot make a difference, especially when joe has twice as many votes as bernie.  you also act like bernie may have been better for the general election.... based on what? joe gets moderate conservatives, who would jump at the chance to vote for trump over bernie. you have some points that bernie has advantages, but you make no valid point that he'd be better off in a general election... if twice as many liberals in the primary voted for joe over bernie, do you really think bernie is going to peal off more conservatives than joe? you're not even being rational at this point.... u r just using fuzzy thinking, the fuzzy thinking that is always present when peeps start talking about how the election is rigged. u know when u hear that, that all thinking has stopped in that individual, cause they r brainwashed. 
#157
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,986
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
The problem here is that the DNC interfered making the process undemocratic because they threw their support to one person early on. Kinda anti-thetical to the name of the party.

Right, they didn't just manipulate the outcome to defeat Bernie, they essentially took the voice away from a very large coalition.

Instead of having a normal race where we might have seen Biden win 60% to 40% head to head with Bernie, The DNC basically said "Nah, people don't need to see that there is a split in the DNC, let's just skip to the end where we can just say Biden represents all Democrats"
#158
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
if you concede that joe would win against bernie head to head, how exactly is it rigged? you mention vague notions of the DNC supporting joe, but so what? even if they should be neutral but aren't, it's still joe getting the votes himself. voters dont care much for what the DNC thinks. at least not enough voters care tot make a difference, especially when joe has twice as many votes as bernie.  you also act like bernie may have been better for the general election.... based on what? joe gets moderate conservatives, who would jump at the chance to vote for trump over bernie. you have some points that bernie has advantages, but you make no valid point that he'd be better off in a general election... if twice as many liberals in the primary voted for joe over bernie, do you really think bernie is going to peal off more conservatives than joe? you're not even being rational at this point.... u r just using fuzzy thinking, the fuzzy thinking that is always present when peeps start talking about how the election is rigged. u know when u hear that, that all thinking has stopped in that individual, cause they r brainwashed. 
Why don’t you let the people decide. Why should the Democratic establishment decide who will be better off in the general? It was widely acknowledged that Marco Rubio would do better than Trump in the general, but the RNC never intervened. You’re justifying a corrupt interference, taking away the primary process just so your preferred candidate would win. That’s literally undemocratic. The DNC should’ve been unbiased like the RNC. Otherwise you’re literally back to a secret door session where the party chooses the person like back in the 1900s.
#159
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Right, they didnt just manipulate the outcome to defeat Bernie, they essentially took the voice away from a very large coalition.
It literally takes away the ability to win if you have the entire establishment behind you. Literally just like before the primary system. Party officials had a closed door conference and selected their nominee. It’s corrupt.
#160
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,986
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Imagine the NFL officials calling the game after one quarter of play, citing the outcome would be too risky for the industry.
#161
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@ILikePie5
why is it better for someone like bernie to win if they have lower approval ratings? i dont have the stats for approval ratings, but if joe got twice the vote in a head to head, he must have higher approval ratings. you are pushing for plurality voting, where the largest faction wins. how is this better just because it's a free for all? it's a stupid system. if we dont switch to the 'approval rating' voting system like i advocate, i dont see any harm in influencing the vote so that the most popular person wins. you do realize that hillary only won four years ago because of plurality voting? she had no business winning the nomination, even if it's who the DNC wanted. 

i support the will of the people. you dont 
#162
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,986
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
Because it gives the illusion that Bernie's coalition isn't important enough to even be considered for a voice. Suppression of political rivals is not good for Democracy. It's literally a Russian thing.
#163
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
why is it better for someone like bernie to win if they have lower approval ratings? i dont have the stats for approval ratings, but if joe got twice the vote in a head to head, he must have higher approval ratings. you are pushing for plurality voting, where the largest faction wins. how is this better just because it's a free for all? it's a stupid system. if we dont switch to the 'approval rating' voting system like i advocate, i dont see any harm in influencing the vote so that the most popular person wins. you do realize that hillary only won four years ago because of plurality voting? trump and hilary both were very unpopular, they had no business winning, and neither did bernie. 
That’s not how it works dude. You give everyone an equal shot at winning and then let the people decide. You let the candidates bring up the issue of electability and approvability. The DNC nor the RNC should affect the outcome. Their job is to provide a platform for the ideas of each individual. Your solution is inherently undemocratic. Plurality voting gives candidates a chance. If they’re good candidates they can obtain the support of other individuals - besides, that’s their job: to gain support among the populace for their policies. No one likes Joe or his policies. They’re only voting for him cause they don’t like Trump. You can see that in every poll. Allowing people to run is a fundamental part of democracy. The DNC saying oh you can’t win cause you’re unelectable is immoral and outright wrong in some cases as we saw with Trump

#164
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
i support the will of the people. you dont 
You support interference based on something that isn’t set in stone. You nor I know whether Bernie could’ve won.
Topic's author
#165
Vader
Vader's avatar
Debates: 30
Posts: 14,984
5
8
11
Vader's avatar
Vader
5
8
11
-->
@n8nrgmi
Your will of the people is not providing people the freedom. You are the party that silences people for having different views, destroys local businesses for a Marxist group, develop a Healthcare program that is destroying the middle class, raising tax on the middle class. You are not for the people
#166
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@ILikePie5
the only conclusion that can be drawn, is that you think people with low approval ratings should sometimes be nominated or elected president. i think that should never happen. you care too much about process even when the process is retarded and makes no sense, and subverts the will of the people. you are stupid for thinking such a system has any value at all, and you are way out of line and immoral for subverting the will of the people. 
#167
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
bernie didn't get shafted in the process. in a head to head, bernie lost solidly. the guys that were asked to leave the race may have got shafted from the process to make their fight, but they weighed their options themselves. the only reason that even happened is because stupid people like the above posters think people with low approval ratings should become president, and they wont support changing the system. 
#168
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@ILikePie5
why do you think it's smart or okay for people with low approval ratings to be nominated or elected president, just so we can preserve your sense of process? 
#169
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,986
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
 Suppression of political rivals is not good for Democracy. It's literally a Russian thing.
#170
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@ILikePie5
so you think it's a smart process, when a third party challenges the two leading candidates, and the most popular candidate loses, because the third party skimmed votes off their top but was an unpopular person? how much sense does that make? wow, you guys are stupid. trump supporters, who would have thought otherwise. 
#171
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
electing presidents with low approval ratings is bad for democracy
#172
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@Greyparrot
you think people like hillary should have won the nomination. that is never acceptable. she had low approval ratings, but she fulfilled meeting the expectations of your stupid process that was involved, plurality voting. 
#173
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
the only conclusion that can be drawn, is that you think people with low approval ratings should sometimes be nominated or elected president. i think that should never happen. you care too much about process even when the process is retarded and makes no sense, and subverts the will of the people. you are stupid for thinking such a system has any value at all, and you are way out of line and immoral for subverting the will of the people. 
No, I’m saying they should have a fair shot at winning. It’s not your job nor the party’s job of saying so and so is unelectable, therefore we’re gonna interfere to help someone. That’s inherently undemocratic.

bernie didn't get shafted in the process. in a head to head, bernie lost solidly. the guys that were asked to leave the race may have got shafted from the process to make their fight, but they weighed their options themselves. the only reason that even happened is because stupid people like the above posters think people with low approval ratings should become president, and they wont support changing the system.
The people that were asked to leave were on the behest of the Democratic Party establishment. It’s a corrupt bargain. Drop out so we can let Joe win and we’ll give you a cabinet position. That’s the definition of a corrupt bargain. If electability mattered to people they wouldn’t have been choosing other moderates over Joe, but they did. People care about the person, not some bogus metric created by the party that isn’t even right.

so you think it's a smart process, when a third party challenges the two leading candidates, and the most popular candidate loses, because the third party skimmed votes off their top but was an unpopular person? how much sense does that make? wow, you guys are stupid. trump supporters, who would have thought otherwise.
Yes. Third parties are essential to democracy. Even if they shave off votes, it brings attention to their cause. It shows that Hillary Clinton was unliked and she was nominated anyways. By not allowing third parties, you’re inherently advocating for a two party system which is undemocratic in itself. Strom Thurmond and Lisa Murkowski both won write in campaigns and George Wallace actually got electoral votes. Why tf should you decide who can or cannot run. You’re setting arbitrary methods that’s are clearly unconstitutional.

you think people like hillary should have won the nomination. that is never acceptable. she had low approval ratings, but she fulfilled meeting the expectations of your stupid process that was involved, plurality voting.
Approval ratings don’t mean shit. And there’s nothing about them in the Constitution. Preventing third parties from running is inherently undemocratic.
#174
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
electing presidents with low approval ratings is bad for democracy
Oh ya? By your logic, Abraham Lincoln shouldn’t have won because he didn’t get a single vote in the South. Look how democracy fared under his administration. He literally freed the slaves.
#175
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@ILikePie5
why won't you just admit that you think that sometimes people with low approval ratings should be elected president?
#176
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
why won't you just admit that you think that sometimes people with low approval ratings should be elected president? 
I do. Cause they don’t mean anything. Prime example is Lincoln. He promoted democracy even though he was hated. Approval ratings don’t mean shit. 
#177
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@ILikePie5
ok here's a hypothetical. trump, kasich, and john doe are running in the general election. doe is a moderate. sixty percent of the electorate is conservative and trump has high approval ratings and john doe has low approval ratings. the final tally of the vote was trump got 35 percent of the vote, kasich got 25% of the vote, and john doe got 40% of the vote. so, even though most of the electorate is conservative and even though trump has high approval ratings.... you think john doe should win because he has the highest plurality, and the conservative vote being split doesn't matter, and his low approval rating doesn't matter? you think all this is the superior outcome, given your beloved plurality voting process was adhered to? 

you think trump should lose in this case even though he's the most liked and only lost due to a split vote?
#178
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
ok here's a hypothetical. trump, kasich, and john doe are running in the general election. doe is a moderate. sixty percent of the electorate is conservative and trump has high approval ratings and john doe has low approval ratings. the final tally of the vote was trump got 35 percent of the vote, kasich got 25% of the vote, and john doe got 40% of the vote. so, even though most of the electorate is conservative and even though trump has high approval ratings.... you think john doe should win because he has the highest plurality, and the conservative vote being split doesn't matter, and his low approval rating doesn't matter? you think all this is the superior outcome, given your beloved plurality voting process was adhered to? 

you think trump should lose in this case even though he's the most liked and only lost due to a split vote?
Yes, that’s how democracy works. I don’t have to like it, but that’s how democracy is supposed to work. If he wins  with the plurality, he wins. It’s how it’s worked since the inception of the country.

In fact this is pretty much the scenario that happened in 1860. Lincoln won a plurality against a split pro-slavery ticket. And Lincoln’s approval was abysmal to say the very least. How did he turn out?
#179
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,986
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@n8nrgmi
RNC never told Kasich to drop out.

RNC doesn't believe in the undemocratic and Russian style elimination of political opposition by any means necessary.
#180
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,986
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
DNC wholly believes in the elimination of political competition and threats to their power. The playbook of Saul Alinsky.

Cancel Culture is not democratic.

Even if it's the Bernie Marxists getting canceled by the DNC elites, the loss of Democracy is a far more disastrous thing, and it shows with the violence and the riots.