DEADPRESIDENTS can't win a true debate
womenequality said 05/14, 09:19 PM
I decided for once I should put out a debate without debating myself. DEADPRESIDENTS, who is numerous other accounts too(see my other debates), can't win a true debate. Another user named Donkeydude had a debate with him, and he was winning, deadpresidents did not continue because he was "uninterested", the reason is this. Not only does he risk losing, since even he might not have enough accounts to get more votes than donkeydude, I say he should debate someone challenging and prove us all that he is good. Can I hear some concurrance?
MorgMcA said 05/14, 11:17 PM
Sorry i took this. I'm just tired of seeing these kind of debates started. I've read your discussion's with DD and accept that you intend well, however i'm tired of seeing this kind of argument tear this site apart. Whether or not DP is a cheat, i don't know, i don't care to know and although i think it is a shame that he won't finish with DD, i also don't see how that sets him apart from hundreds of other people who don't finish their debates.
Really to tell you the truth i just want to forget this whole cheating thing. the accusations of cheating have done more damage to this site than the actual cheating itself. I think most of us would rather accept that there are cheaters, and ignore them, rather than continue down this path. I think alot of people have left more because of the fact that people continue this trend of accusation and suspicion than because they've been cheated against.
If you would like, we can switch the topic to something different (ie any topic not related to cheating in any way, shape or form) and i'd be more than happy to oblige.
womenequality said 05/15, 07:25 PM
Very well, I suppose I could fancy a go, at this whole debating thing. Well what is your view on Super Delegates? Why should they have such more power than regular delegates? Why should they have more power than say 1000 people who vote?
Seems a tad misconceptual towards democracy, does it not? Say I live in beautiful Idaho, and say in my state we prefer Obama over Hillary, but the superdelegates here all go for HIllary? Well...I'd be quite mad at that, to have Hillary come out with an advantage when we all Clearly support Obama, this ofcourse is all Hypothetical, I'm an independent and don't prefer any of the candidates, it's a shame we don't have any good candidates.
But here's the topic my dear sir, I believe the democratic party is flawed for having superdelegates, for it would simply caused an uproar if they go against the will of the popular vote, and if they do go with the popular vote/delegate count, then what is the point of having them at all, and simply not making them pledged delegates?
It would be unfortunated if you agree with me and have no counter argument, but politics is a dirty game, and it bores me. I don't have many topics
MorgMcA said 05/15, 10:03 PM
Alright now we have something. SUPERDELEGATES.
Ok well, for starters I'm a Republican, but i'll try to explain the process as best i can
The SDs were never intended to be as pivotal as they are now. Their main intent was to act as a moderating force to counter the extremities of masses. Much in the same way that the Senate takes the most extreme bills from the House and brings them into moderation. The SDs are successful dem politicians who know what it takes to win an election and other party officers with similar expierence in campaigning. They are to bring the dem party back into the center of the political spectrum. Mostly by showing official, meaningful support for a canidate and it is hoped that the most extreme canidates will lose popular support as they lack support from the party leaders
For ex. Ned Lamont in Conn. ran for Senate a few years back, running a single issue campaign, immediate and total evacuation of Iraq. Had there been SDs in that election he probably would not have taken (SD moderation) the Conn Dem primary against Joe Liebermann and furthermore would not have lost to Joe who then ran as an Ind and the dems would've kept Joe's senate seat
womenequality said 05/16, 06:07 PM
Very interesting my well informed friend. However I admit I am a tad confused on your view on this topic. Are you implying that this system of containing superdelegates is logical and should be kept? Or are you perhaps implying within those lines of concrete statements, that you think it is flawed?
Though I respect those major people glowing in the beauty of the media, and burning in the malicious politics, but why should they have more power than the will of thousands of people. That is my question, does it not seem logical and flawed? My word...a thousand people in one county all vote for a candidate...but the opposition recieves just as many delegates from that district because of superdelegates. That is complete utter nonsense.
I believe the people should have a stronger say that just a few individuals, my republican chap, do you not? I don't see why not to be honest.
MorgMcA said 05/16, 11:03 PM
Well, there is a good reason for the SDs By moderating the extremities of Dem canidates it makes the canidate who represents the party more electable in the general election
Also I thank God we live in a Republic and not a true democracy. Have you ever heard of President Buchanan and the Mormon War? Well the story goes that these mormons in utah were rising in rebellion after they dismissed a federal official because of the scandal he was invovled in. the official told the press that the mormons wanted to suceed from the union. the press seized on this sensational story and incited popular opion against the mormons and pushed for Pres Buchanan (who was a very weak president) to send in the troops, by the time they got there, there was no war, no rebellion and no cause to suspect the mormons. Just a very costly expedition and a disinfatuated public. In other words popular opinion is fickle and shouldn't be the sole determining factor in policy making
Modern example many Americans want an abandonment of Iraq, but John McCain has staked his presidential bid on winning it. polls also indicate that many people believe he can do it. by nov popular opinion may say we stay to win
Comments
Add Your Comment
With you Morg. If anyone saw my campaign about voting only when 6 arguments have been registered. Pls support me (and DonkeyDude, who came up with the proposal) and spread the word.
POST | 05/15/08
Report Offensive Comment
Sounds like the same proposal I had a month ago. See for yourself: http://www.elephant-donkey.com/elephantdonkey/show/7861.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/15/08
Report Offensive Comment
Ugh.. isn't that the debate that actually started a lot of the craziness on this site? So frustrating. But yeah, PB actually suggested it before I did - albeit for different reasons.
DonkeyDude | 05/15/08
Report Offensive Comment
Not everything is about you Pit Bullshit. stop this thing already. You could have just let this one pass, its giving you any leverage. You sit around here thinking that we don't know that you and your two ghost accounts are destroying this site, namely: womenequality and gainsomehonor. Dont start acting like you now can debate in an honorable way. I understand youngdems desperate need for approval and being a member of an assumed influential club, but I can't understand yours. You are such a sucker.
POST | 05/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
Nice try, POST. But facts are facts, as I posted above. Stings, doesn't it? :)
USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
f*ck facts. My point is that not the world doesn't revolve around Puppet Bullshit.
POST | 05/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
I don't blame Pit Bull, the provoking of POST is quite annoying, I believe he should immediatley cease, but then again, POST aka other accounts does not have a life :)
womenequality | 05/16/08
Report Offensive Comment
It's because it's a known fact that womenequality, gainsomehonor and Puppet Bullshit among others is one person. I do hope that your efforts MorgMcA of trying to quell this tendency will pay off, though I'm pessimistic as the real perpetrators of this culture will stop at nothing to polarise this site. I only started speaking out when Puppet Bullshit caused this paranoia among all of us. That was when he lost a debate for the 1st time. He must just know that he is not my match, I will take him on with clear determination
POST | 05/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
''f*ck facts.'' Yep, that's POST for ya. :) p.s. I never claimed that the world revolved around me. But thanks for the suggestion. :)
USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
Come on... ok POST, if it's a well known fact you don't have to bring it up again and again and again. If you're on my side, then please don't make things harder for me, just let it be. And PB you don't have to respond to everything you know, look i don't blame you for how you reacted, but it snowballed out of control once before and we don't want to start another one, agreed? Please both of you, just ignore each other, there is nothing personal about the internet, so please don't take anything personally, from me or each other. just let it be.
MorgMcA | 05/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
To be honest, i'm alittle embarrassed/frustrated that the debate in the forum has changed topics, yet the debate in the comment section hasn't.
MorgMcA | 05/17/08
Report Offensive Comment
Morg, I keep things civilized and informative. I don't take personal shots, and I don't go out of my way to antagonize anyone. If I'm provoked, or if a public service announcement is necessary, I will exercise my right to speak on something. While I appreciate your candor and tone, I won't throw gasoline on a fire just for its own sake. Therefore, thanks for the good intentions, but I'm capable of composing myself well enough, as I always have here.
USA Pit Bull 63 | 05/17/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Only Axl Rose remains in the group, but since 1987 GnR has been rocking with fury
More than 50 years of cover stories about the 35th President
Sorry.
MorgMcA | 05/14/08
Report Offensive Comment