Democratic Debates

[cots]

With politics, and even more so in the US than other places, the perception of the thing usually replaces the actual thing. If he seems like someone you can get a beer with, he must be a good guy. And good guys will fight for the normal person, because that's what makes a good guy a good guy. Right? right?

As long as the economy seems to be doing okay for you, then just vote for whoever's currently in office. As long as they speak to your ideals, then how they actually vote and act don't matter. As long as a politician says they're fiscally conservative or socially responsible, then vote for them because they can't just lie about things like that. If there are any issues, then it must be the other person's fault, certainly not the one I voted for.

As long as you think a thing is true, if you're told the thing is true by an authority figure, the facts and figures hardly matter. You can cherry pick whatever supports you, because you're obviously right so why bother looking deeper into it? Your right, they're wrong. They should be putting in the effort to understand why yours is the right way, not the other way around.

There's so much talking past each other, conceptual frameworks based on biased and incorrect information, idealogically different goals, and other things in conversations like this. But the things that get me the most is when folks support a politician who actively fight against what that person believes.

tl;dr: What does being a conservative/liberal/centrist/etc mean to you? What qualities and idealogies should they show and support? What kind of laws should they pass? Why?

This is why I usually hear the word politician and think of a snake. I rarely fall for thier broken promises and outright lies. Someone who does these things and would say anything to get elected won't get my vote, unless both candidates are doing the same thing and then I'll vote for the less crooked one or not vote at all (sometimes I'll write in my cats name as he's more qualified in some instances). When I vote I look for honest policies that will help our country and environment and look for issues that would personally effect me. I rather not vote for someone that thinks I'm too dumb to make my own decisions and should then rely on them or is handing out carrots while hiding a noose behind thier back. I'll vote for less Government power and policies that help the environment and then will participate afterwards in things that limit Government power and help the environment - like owning a car and then claiming I support the environment and make excuses why I don't take any personal responsibility to change it when driving is one of the main contributors to pollution whether it's electric or not. Any excuse for not setting an example is just an excuse and you're just full of shit.

 

[GreatCrippler]

Trump can't even form coherent sentences.

I can say this, Trump is really good at convincing idiots he's really smart.

To be fair, it's not a lack of overall intelligence that drags the man down. It's the fact that he's a narcissist with very little grip on reality that makes him scary. On paper he would potentially score well on an IQ test. That said, The Democrats are REALLY good at shooting themselves in the foot... So yea... I have no idea how this side show of an election is going to play out, but I assume it will cause me to cringe.

 

[tabzer]

Your lack of any meaningful contribution is

Pointing out how self-defeating name-calling Trump is in the context of a Democratic debate is the best contribution.

Multiple times I've stated that it shouldn't be asking too much for a president who's more intelligent than the average American.

You really aren't an authority to evaluate Trump's mental capacity when you mimick the things you say you don't like about him. It makes you a follower of Trump, not an advent of any type of reform.

Again, not the issue.

Yeah, it is. You don't like my opinion and you are territorial. I don't blame you for that.

It's clear that you've understood every nuanced and not-so-nuanced point I've made in this conversation, that means I'm a sufficiently effective communicator.

Then maybe you should consider that when I point out a fault, that there is something of accuracy there, too. You aren't good enough. It's too bad.

If I want to discuss my personal life, I'll make a blog post.

Missing my point once again. It's obvious to anybody who reads your posts that you talk a bit about yourself. It's an objective fact. I would say that it's a lot and particularly boastful as well as lacking in substance. It all hinges on Trump being bad, which everyone already knows. Your content is dull and uninspired.

 

[Lacius]

Often times, the former can lead to the latter.

Otherwise its conjecture.

"Often" is a subjective term, so you can get off your high horse.

 

[Xzi]

Pointing out how self-defeating name-calling Trump is in the context of a Democratic debate is the best contribution.

I suppose it's a good thing I wasn't the one to first bring up his name in this thread, then. I don't think I was even second. God forbid you actually do your research, though. Much easier to throw out whiny bullshit and insults with no context. That way you don't even have to pretend you have a surface-level understanding of American politics.

I think everybody gets the goddamn point that you don't like me. So either put me on ignore like the other thin-skinned conservative snowflakes here, or accept the fact that political discussions are going to involve some opinions which might offend you.

 

[Deleted-401606]

I suppose it's a good thing I wasn't the one to first bring up his name in this thread, then. I don't think I was even second. God forbid you actually do your research, though. Much easier to throw out whiny bullshit and insults with no context. That way you don't even have to pretend you have a surface-level understanding of American politics.

I think everybody gets the goddamn point that you don't like me. So either put me on ignore like the other thin-skinned conservative snowflakes here, or accept the fact that political discussions are going to involve some opinions which might offend you.

Snowflake is a term that the geezers use to refer to the young liberal population. Anyways, how many conservatives have you spoken to on this website? There are barely any conservatives here and the entire GBAtemp staff is filled with liberals. I don't think there is a single conservative moderator on this website.

 

[Xzi]

Snowflake is a term that the geezers use to refer to the young liberal population.

It's a fitting term for anyone whose emotional state is easily shattered into a thousand pieces, which means it applies to just as many conservatives. Case in point: a Gillette commercial or AOC saying absolutely anything. Or a corporation pandering to the LGBTQ community during pride month.

Anyways, how many conservatives have you spoken to on this website?

There seem to be quite a few people with conservative viewpoints who stay quite active in this subforum. You, SG854, cots, Iamapirate (given his willingness to defend the Proud Boys), tatripp, and Glyptofane just to name a few.

I don't think there is a single conservative moderator on this website.

Well there's Foxi4 and Joe88 for sure. Most of the moderators don't often chime in on these discussions either way. And they're pretty lax about allowing viewpoints from all sides of the political spectrum to stay visible, even some of the more extremist viewpoints.

 

[tabzer]

More dumb bs that is irrelevant to all points made.

I've only been able to do exactly what you do, but better.

 

[Xzi]

I've only been able to do exactly what you do, but better.

This is straight-up out of the kindergarten playbook. Next you're gonna tell me that you're rubber and I'm glue.

How about I redirect back to the thread's original purpose: since I've already made my opinions on the subject known (page 1), what did you think of the first Democratic debates, tabzer? Who were the winners and losers in your opinion? I'm sure we can all learn a lot from your expertise and in-depth analysis.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

tl;dr: What does being a conservative/liberal/centrist/etc mean to you? What qualities and idealogies should they show and support? What kind of laws should they pass? Why?

or peeps can keep hurling insults at each other because they think acting like little turds on the internet is a past time.

Quite frankly this thread has devolved into ad-hominems and gone way past topic. Can a moderator lock the thread at OP's request?

I am sure there are plenty of threads in the forum where peeps can keep beating on each other. I just wanted to get peoples opinion.

 

[Deleted-401606]

It's a fitting term for anyone whose emotional state is easily shattered into a thousand pieces, which means it applies to just as many conservatives. Case in point: a Gillette commercial or AOC saying absolutely anything. Or a corporation pandering to the LGBTQ community during pride month.


There seem to be quite a few people with conservative viewpoints who stay quite active in this subforum. You, SG854, cots, Iamapirate (given his willingness to defend the Proud Boys), tatripp, and Glyptofane just to name a few.


Well there's Foxi4 and Joe88 for sure. Most of the moderators don't often chime in on these discussions either way. And they're pretty lax about allowing viewpoints from all sides of the political spectrum to stay visible, even some of the more extremist viewpoints.

So that's less than 10 people. I don't have any facts, but I would guess that less than 10% of this forums user base is conservative. I just post on this subforum for fun as I know that I won't change anyone's opinion.

or peeps can keep hurling insults at each other because they think acting like little turds on the internet is a past time.

Quite frankly this thread has devolved into ad-hominems and gone way past topic. Can a moderator lock the thread at OP's request?

I am sure there are plenty of threads in the forum where peeps can keep beating on each other. I just wanted to get peoples opinion.

Mods really shouldn't close this thread as it would be unfair to those that aren't hurling insults. Said insults aren't really even all that bad anyways.

 

[WD_GASTER2]

Insults none the less. If you read the rules heated debate is encouraged. Attacking people with ad-hominems isnt. Also there are plenty of threads where this can keep on going.

 

[Xzi]

So that's less than 10 people. I don't have any facts, but I would guess that less than 10% of this forums user base is conservative.

Maybe, but a guess is a guess. There probably aren't more than 20 people who are regularly active on this subforum, making the conservative presence here very noticeable.

 

[Deleted-401606]

Insults none the less. If you read the rules heated debate is encouraged. Attacking people with ad-hominems isnt. Also there are plenty of threads where this can keep on going.

Yeah but I am not insulting anyone so why should I be punished by locking the thread? What other thread is even hot right now?

 

[cots]

Insults none the less. If you read the rules heated debate is encouraged. Attacking people with ad-hominems isnt. Also there are plenty of threads where this can keep on going.

Would that include insulting the current President of the United States? If you're going to go crying to the moderators because a few conservatives are making valid points then the rules should also apply to anyone speaking badly about our President.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Yeah but I am not insulting anyone so why should I be punished by locking the thread? What other thread is even hot right now?

Liberals get insulted pretty easily. Just having an opposing viewpoint to them is insulting. I rather not pander to their idiotic views. No one is blatantly cursing at one another or posting memes or talking pure trash talk. It seems having a few people with opposing views is enough to warrant calling in the mods, as it's best not to allow others with different viewpoints the ability to speak.

 

[Xzi]

Liberals get insulted pretty easily. Just having an opposing viewpoint to them is insulting.

Says the guy who put me on ignore for having an opposing viewpoint.

It seems having a few people with opposing views is enough to warrant calling in the mods, as it's best not to allow others with different viewpoints the ability to speak.

The OP has every right to request his own thread locked, regardless of his reasoning. And you're clearly misrepresenting that reasoning. Whether the mods choose to honor the request or not is a different matter.