• 180 Proof
    1.5k
    Unfortunately, that day-glo Dead Twat Tweeting won't debate Bernie (or Bloomberg or ???).
  • Pfhorrest
    2.8k
    Has he said that publicly somewhere?

    If so, there’s an easy strategy to make him do it anyway. Schedule a debate anyway, show up, and them call Trump a coward for not showing up, and use the rest of the allotted time to treat it like a rally. If Trump supporters show up, they get treated to a one-sided argument, and all Trump supporters everywhere hear him called a coward, undermining his strong man image, and you just know that that’s going to get under Trump’s thin skin all by itself, motivating him to show up next time.
  • Maw
    2k
    Honestly can't think of anyone Trump would rather debate than Bloomberg, who's another corrupt racist self-interested billionaire (who also hung out with Jeffery Epstein) and whose wealth, like Trump's, enables him to switch political parties at will, without consequence or care, but simply for expedient public perception. There's a treasure trove of ammunition that Trump has against Bloomberg to depress voter turnout, and if he somehow becomes the nominee (possibly/probably through DNC treachery), I'm sitting out of the General (albeit, a fairly empty threat since I live in NY); not voting for oligarch
  • Pfhorrest
    2.8k
    Don’t sit out, vote third party.
  • creativesoul
    8.4k


    A national election without debate between the candidates in order to inform the public about what they stand for?

    Given recent events, that would not surprise me. However, it would only fuel Bernie to point it out.
  • creativesoul
    8.4k
    A travesty of justice performed on the American people, and the world...

    That is precisely what a presidential election without nationally broadcasted debates between the two candidates would be. All Americans need to be watching the same channel, tuning into the same set of events, observing the same facts - as they happen.

    A free and fair election must include a well informed electorate.
  • creativesoul
    8.4k
    Put all the facts on the table. Let the people decide for themselves based upon careful considerations of those facts. Allowing one candidate to knowingly state falsehoods about the other candidate is to engage in fraud against the American people. Not allowing that to be called out for exactly what it is is to knowingly, deliberately, and intentionally mislead the public.

    An election based upon that is anything but a free and fair election, because it quite simply does not include a well informed electorate.
  • 180 Proof
    1.5k
    Just a prediction. Past is prologue and he's a fucking coward. He has the RNC pressuring state GOP officials around the country cancelling GOP primaries so he doesn't have to compete with Bill Weld. No debates either when Mark Sanford & Joe Walsh were still running. The p.o.s. doesn't have to say it - why would he submit himself to a debate (no matter who it is) when the election is already a referendum on his failed presidency? I don't care, mostly because I'm confident - have been confident since SDNY raid on Michael Cohen in 2018 - that tRUMP cannot be reelected. Cannot, therefore will not. (Traveling and on my phone or I would lay out the basis of my prediction in detail.)

    3rd party. Join us, comrade!
  • creativesoul
    8.4k


    Seems to be 'privileged' information you're passing along.

    Weird.
  • creativesoul
    8.4k
    We have an American president who is proud of himself when he proves that he's the best name caller.

    Juvenile minds.
  • Benkei
    3.3k
    please take the time as I would be interested in it. So far I have not sensed a definitive win one way or the other. I had it early on with Obama when he was still running against Hillary. Never felt it with Hillary though but then I thought she was a dirty candidate from the beginning.

    It's also pretty clear that Trump voters are voting against their interests, yes. Democrats have done the same in years past-- but this is in a league of its own.Xtrix

    I don't think it matters which party is voted in, they will act against the interest of a majority of voters. So whether you vote Democrat or Republican, you are voting against your interest because the system is rigged in favour of monied interests. I refer to the paper I shared before. There's a correlation between what rich people want and don't want and the laws that get passed. There's no such correlation between what a majority wants and what laws get passed.

    You said that only one vote mattered, which was a reference to the one vote the people make at the ballot box. That's how that works.Hanover

    Whoosh. That was the sarcasm flying past your head.

    I didn't say any such thing, it was implied in your comment to which I reacted by first summarising your position distilling the stupidity of it in a single sentence.

    I'm sure they do, but I'd expect they're more interested in what those who voted them want than their opponents.Hanover

    Uh no... That would still be stupid. If you want more votes you better deliver on what your opponent's voters want when they also want what your voters want. You seem to be under the false impression only Democrats want to legalise weed for instance. When I talk about a majority of americans wanting something I'm taking about a majority in total but also per subgroup of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

    Finally, I would like to think Americans as a people are as heterogeneous as Europeans and that political ideas from communism to despotism are represented among them. But in the US political arena only a very small fraction of that is represented (typical right of centre to right wing, with more difference on a cultural axis). It leads to a very impoverished political debate and a lot of ideological grand standing over perceived differences which are in fact minimal from any country with a pluralistic democratic system. Democrat or Republican you're screwed either way but you'll thank them for the privilege depending on what party you vote for. Bernie has a chance of changing this.
  • ssu
    3k
    Simple, because he hasn't been the Democratic presidential candidate. The GOP hasn't really put the crosshairs on him.

    Last election the mudslinging was basically done by other Democrats, Hillary etc. It was convenient for GOP to portray Bernie positively or simple to back off, because he wasn't the "official" candidate. Trump has been quite cordial, yet backtracked from a debate with Bernie last election.

    That Bernie Sanders will be painted to a like Corbyn is evident for examples like this article from Tom Rogan's piece in the Washington Examiner last month:

    The most notable example here is Sanders's long-standing support for the Nicaraguan Sandinista movement. During his 1980s tenure as mayor of Burlington, Vermont, Sanders even directly supported the Marxist Sandinistas. This included his 1986 delivery of 500 tons in aid to a Sandinista-controlled town. It is worth noting here that 1986 was at the height of Sandinista tyranny in Nicaragua, a time when they had shut down media publications and were actively using an emergency declaration to detain civilians without trial. Apparently unconcerned, Sanders had been the July 1985 guest of honor at Sandinista festivities to celebrate its sixth year in power.

    By the end of the 1980s, Sanders wasn't exactly disabused of his admiration for the Sandinistas, whom he saw as a socialist example to replicate and a lesson even to be transplanted into American schools.

    Interviewed for a 1989 master's thesis, he declared that "when you go into the schools, that is where you start. It's important for young people to understand the history of Nicaragua and what's going on there. But do you know what is even more important? For them to understand that they're suppose to understand, that is what is important for them to understand. That is the first thing."

    This inadvertently Orwellian language speaks to the ideological devotion with which Sanders serves his socialist cause.

    Sanders expanded on that education theme in the same interview, noting that "we're in the process of organizing an observation in remembrance of the destruction of democracy in Chile and the death of Salvador Allende ... obviously as part of that we're going to be showing films, having a panel discussion, getting some stuff on television. That's something I think a mayor, and a governor as well, should be doing."

    History shows that Sanders's adoration for Latin American socialism runs particularly deep. In August 2011, Sanders's website featured an opinion piece suggesting that "the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela, and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today [than in the U.S]."

    The current state of Venezuela, Earth's oil-richest nation and home to a shocking number of children starving to death, might be considered a rebuke to these words.

    The last comment reminds me of how Ron Paul was painted to be a racist because of some opinion by another person posted on his webpage. That Bernie has referred Chavez to a (dead) dictator hardly matters as you can see.

    Of course, he may not be portrayed as an anti-semite like Corbyn, but who knows in this post-truth World of ours...
  • frank
    5.1k
    Simple, because he hasn't been the Democratic presidential candidatessu

    Chomsky says Republicans will become subtly anti-Semitic regarding Sanders. I would expect that. Plus he says a win for Sanders will mean nothing without continued activism.
  • Hanover
    5.7k
    Whoosh. That was the sarcasm flying past your head.Benkei

    I will for now on spend more time unpacking the nuance impregnated in your posts.
    You seem to be under the false impression only Democrats want to legalise weed for instance.Benkei
    You don't know what I'm under the false impression about. Only I know that, but that might not make any sense, but it sounds ridiculous enough for me to say, so I'll say it.

    At any rate, I'm in favor of weed legalization. That's consistent with the Libertarian sentiment within conservatism and its ideology of limited government interference in personal decisions. The appeasement of the religious wing of the Republican party is what led to the war on drugs, but that had its heyday many years ago. The point is that there are plenty of drug legalization advocates who would classify as conservative, but probably a lesser number of actual pot smokers are conservatives, mostly because, well, someone has to go to work and pay the bills.

    Finally, I would like to think Americans as a people are as heterogeneous as Europeans and that political ideas from communism to despotism are represented among them. But in the US political arena only a very small fraction of that is represented (typical right of centre to right wing, with more difference on a cultural axis). It leads to a very impoverished political debate and a lot of ideological grand standing over perceived differences which are in fact minimal from any country with a pluralistic democratic system. Democrat or Republican you're screwed either way but you'll thank them for the privilege depending on what party you vote for. Bernie has a chance of changing this.Benkei

    Actually Americans are more ethnically diverse than Europeans but less ideologically diverse. That's because being American is different from being Dutch. America, quoting Lincoln, was conceived in liberty, making it distinct among other nations in that it was created under certain ideals. It did not spring forth from the settlement of one tribe after the other and arise from a common people sharing a common ethnic and genetic background. Assimilation is part of the American fabric and we do see certain ideals as creating a bond between our citizens. It's why the rift between these ideals is so polarizing because each side sees the other as unAmerican, which does remain a meaningful claim. I just don't think it matters quite so much for a Dutch person to claim himself a communist because being communist doesn't mean the person can't be Dutch as well. However, I would say that being communist keeps you from being American, largely because I see being an American as requiring an allegiance to a certain ideology, thus the term "unAmerican ideals" holds meaning.
  • Benkei
    3.3k
    You don't know what I'm under the false impression about. Only I know that, but that might not make any sense, but it sounds ridiculous enough for me to say, so I'll say it.

    At any rate, I'm in favor of weed legalization. That's consistent with the Libertarian sentiment within conservatism and its ideology of limited government interference in personal decisions. The appeasement of the religious wing of the Republican party is what led to the war on drugs, but that had its heyday many years ago. The point is that there are plenty of drug legalization advocates who would classify as conservative, but probably a lesser number of actual pot smokers are conservatives, mostly because, well, someone has to go to work and pay the bills.
    Hanover

    And yet, despite bipartisan support, it's not being tabled by Republican politicians because the political establishment is more conservative than even conservative people and has been for quite some time (this would be true if Democrats were in power as well). The point of all this back and forth is that you agree on a lot of things with Democrats and Independents alike to the point where you are part of a majority that is entirely ignored. Unless, of course, you're part of the 1% in which case your politicians are only too happy to take your money and "get some shit done" for you.

    Actually Americans are more ethnically diverse than Europeans but less ideologically diverse. ... However, I would say that being communist keeps you from being American, largely because I see being an American as requiring an allegiance to a certain ideology, thus the term "unAmerican ideals" holds meaning.Hanover

    Americans are less ideologically diverse because being American means you don't hold certain ideologies. :rofl:
  • ssu
    3k
    I would say that being communist keeps you from being American, largely because I see being an American as requiring an allegiance to a certain ideology, thus the term "unAmerican ideals" holds meaning.Hanover
    Awesome. We have gotten to "unAmerican ideals"!

    images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSFH87mXxKOKKiQGMBakUYv8Xr_mv_P7zPBb3hJv-WbIR_AYi7e

    It will come to this in the election hype. 9 months to go.
  • Benkei
    3.3k
    We'll see. The MSM is now channeling centrist Democrats: Bernie is too left for voters, too left for my taste, he cost Hillary the election (no you dumb fucknuts, your despotic forwarding of that cunt cost you the election) etc. etc., he's not a real Democrat because he sits as an Independent. As if Donald is a true Republican or Mike Bloomberg a real Democrat.

    Greatest democracy!
  • ssu
    3k
    Who or what is a true Republican? Or A Democrat?

    Remember that the two American parties are both a hodgepodge of different groups and wings, which typically wouldn't be in the same political party in other countries.
  • Benkei
    3.3k
    They're not my arguments but those of Hillary and other "true" Democrats. Or corporate sell-outs as I'd like to call them.
  • Son of a Bitch
    2.6k
    “UnAmerican ideals”. You mean like fascism? Oh, wait.
  • Hanover
    5.7k
    Americans are less ideologically diverse because being American means you don't hold certain ideologies. :rofl:Benkei

    That's not what I said. I said that there are American ideals, so I'm not sure how you got what you said from what I said.

    I also have to call bullshit on your emoji. No way you laughed so hard you cried. Maybe you made a muffled "hmm" or something at what you saw to be contradictory, but you're just not that animated.
  • Son of a Bitch
    2.6k
    You are a funny dude, but I still don’t like you.
  • Hanover
    5.7k
    Awesome. We have gotten to "unAmerican ideals"!ssu

    Whether it's awesome or not, I don't know. But that there is an ideology associated with America is obvious, easily decipherable from the Constitution, the Declaration, writings by the founders, and even as noted in writings by others (as I referenced Lincoln). Whether one considers being called unAmerican an insult or point of pride is another matter, but it is a meaningful statement.
  • Hanover
    5.7k
    You are a funny dude, but I still don’t like you.Noah Te Stroete

    I'm sure you would. I have universal appeal.
  • Benkei
    3.3k
    That doesn't make sense. The Constitution can still be amended so can be subject to change even if it were incompatible with Communism (which it isn't necessarily). So, for realz, a person born in the USA is by definition an American. If this person is also a convinced communist, is he still an American according to you?
  • StreetlightX
    5.9k
    Can't wait till the destruction of Americanism. America - and the rest of the world - will be better off without it.
  • Maw
    2k
    . The GOP hasn't really put the crosshairs on him.

    Last election the mudslinging was basically done by other Democrats, Hillary etc. It was convenient for GOP to portray Bernie positively or simple to back off, because he wasn't the "official" candidate.
    ssu

    Simply untrue. You're a non-American, so I don't expect you to have a strong pulse on American political discourse, but it's simply not true that Bernie has thus far escaped criticism and scrutiny from the GOP.

    That Bernie Sanders will be painted to a like Corbyn is evident for examples like this article from Tom Rogan's piece in the Washington Examiner last month:ssu

    Anyone who is an avid reader of the Washington Examiner is unlikely to consider voting for Sanders in the first place. However, the GOP (and the Democrats) have leveraged the state of contemporary Venezuela against Sanders and other Left politicians for the last year, which doesn't stick given that the simple solution, which has in fact been effective, is to ignore it and point to other developed countries or Norwegian models instead, some of which have Governments with larger wealth ownership in their countries than the Venezuela government has over their own.

    Sanders has, cynically, been accused of some odd but new strain of anti-Semitism in which criticism of Israel is considered criticism of Jews, but this also won't be effective given that 1) Sanders is obviously Jewish and had relatives killed in the Holocaust, 2) the GOP has their own problems with anti-semitism and 3) Jewish Americans, unlike British Jews, overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

    None of these slanders are particularly novel or potent.
  • ssu
    3k
    Simply untrue. You're a non-American, so I don't expect you to have a strong pulse on American political discourseMaw
    Maw on the pulse! And again you simply don't get my point, which is totally typical of you.

    Anyone who is an avid reader of the Washington Examiner is unlikely to consider voting for Sanders in the first place. However, the GOP (and the Democrats) have leveraged the state of contemporary Venezuela against Sanders and other Left politicians for the last year, which doesn't stick given that the simple solution, which has in fact been effective, is to ignore it and point to other developed countries or Norwegian models instead, some of which have Governments with larger wealth ownership in their countries than the Venezuela government has over their own.Maw
    I'm just making the point HOW the GOP will attack Bernie. Now it seems you think I'm think so about Bernie Sanders. :roll:

    Bernie isn't actually very socialist, but when has things like facts had an impact on election rhetoric?

    None of these slanders are particularly novel or potent.Maw
    Are the slanders particularly novel or potent?

    Just look at the nonsense put towards ALL Democrat candidates! Bill Clinton, Obama, Hillary Clinton. The vast majority of the accusations were quite outrageous. But that's the way US politics goes.
  • Maw
    2k
    I'm just making the point HOW the GOP will attack Berniessu

    You originally said that "the real mudslinging hasnt yet started", and I explained how that's not true given the examples you provided. If you want to expand, feel free to do so.
  • ssu
    3k
    Whether it's awesome or not, I don't know. But that there is an ideology associated with America is obvious, easily decipherable from the Constitution, the Declaration, writings by the founders, and even as noted in writings by others (as I referenced Lincoln). Whether one considers being called unAmerican an insult or point of pride is another matter, but it is a meaningful statement.Hanover
    Oh, the awesome was for how much people would get angry on the forum for that...

    Coming from a right leaning member that unAmerican (Un-American?) sounds a bit bad. Reminds of House Un-American Activities Committee. It's the classic thing: ask a liberal, a right-leaning libertarian, a Trumpist, a progressive what is good in America and what is Un-American, I assume you won't get the same answer.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.