Democratic Party: President / Vice-President Slate

[sun rise]

I did not watch it so my opinion is second hand. But based on what I read about the CNN Climate Change in depth discussion my choice is narrowing.

Bottom line? I remain unwilling to make a final decision because things change and I have lots of time left before I have to choose. But comparing any of them against Trump, the answer is obvious - he could not have lasted 30 seconds in a reasoned and rational discussion.

• Biden did Ok. No change.
• Booker backed the expensive nuclear power option. Down.
• Buttigieg was a bit idealistic thinking the country could be brought together. I wish it were true. Down a tiny bit.
• Castro did ok. No change.
• Harris said something that sounds good but is very radical - abolishing the filibuster. I can see a future right-wing Moscow Mitch using a majority to wreak all sorts of havoc. Moved down.
• Klobuchar was reasonable. Moved up.
• O'Rourke sounded OK. No change.
• Sanders' big spending plans to me ignore cheaper solutions. Down.
• Warren sounded reasonable. Up a little.
• Yang was off the wall - he moved way down for me.

 

[PureX]

What's the attraction to Yang?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

!2020 - Warren/Buttigieg - 2020!

Been my choice for months...

 

[Heyo]

Yeah, well, I never believe polls... Especially after Trump's election.

If they say 1%, I'm guessing they're off by 10% at least.

I agree that she should poll much higher - but that doesn't make it so. But then again, it's still 14 month to go.

 

[Heyo]

What's the attraction to Yang?

Universal basic income. Good idea but little substance else.

 

[PureX]

Universal basic income. Good idea but little substance else.

Ah, as an excuse for a flat tax? Explains why the republicans like him.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The real question (for you in particular — but also for many others like you) is, after you don’t get your primary pick, will you try to undermine the USA once again by voting for tRump one more time?

^ a really dumb post ...

Please expand on this.

You make a claim about intent (rather that effect) and offer no evidence simply because you have none. It's crude ad hominem made all the worse by the fact that it thinks itself clever, perhaps even righteous.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

You make a claim about intent (rather that effect) and offer no evidence simply because you have none. It's crude ad hominem made all the worse by the fact that it thinks itself clever, perhaps even righteous.

I was addressing Revoltingest in the latter portion of the post (the part you cite here).
- He has repeatedly discussed that he voted for Trump in 2016.
- Trump has greatly weakened/destabilized our country by his actions, and his pathological narcissism/lies/willful avoidance and condemnation of facts and the sciences. Therefore having supported Trump in the past, or repeating that mistake in the future is undermining the USA.

So. Evidence is present. No ad hominem. Revo can take as well as he gets.
Does being right mean that you’re “righteous”? Maybe. Don’t care.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was addressing Revoltingest in the latter portion of the post (the part you cite here).
- He has repeatedly discussed that he voted for Trump in 2016.
- Trump has greatly weakened/destabilized our country by his actions, and his pathological narcissism/lies/willful avoidance and condemnation of facts and the sciences. Therefore having supported Trump in the past, or repeating that mistake in the future is undermining the USA.

So. Evidence is present. No ad hominem. Revo can take as well as he gets.
Does being right mean that you’re “righteous”? Maybe. Don’t care.

You're right that it's not the ad hominem fallacy.
But he's right about your mischief, ie, the false presumption of intent.
It's really bad form to intentionally misrepresent another poster.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I still don’t get it. Truly.

I presumed nothing. I misrepresented no one.
I simply asked you a question, based upon your post here, as well as more historical posts of yours.
Will you vote for Trump again, if Yang is not selected?


Is this some sort of Internet thing that I have heretofore never heard of; where a poster cannot reference prior posts of another forum member; similar to how in a trial one cannot reference prior crimes that the defendant has been convicted of?

 

[Revoltingest]

I still don’t get it. Truly.

I presumed nothing. I misrepresented no one.

You asked....
"...will you try to undermine the USA once again..."
This is commonly known as a loaded question.
It's predicated upon my intent to undermine the USA,
which is false. If this is not clear, let me illustrate....
"Will you continue poisoning puppies with polonium?"


Btw, you didn't alert me to your question.
I just happened to run across it.

 

[Lyndon]

anyone that votes for Trump is attempting to undermine the USA!!

 

[Revoltingest]

anyone that votes for Trump is attempting to undermine the USA!!

You're undermining RF with that haircut.
But I personally rescued the country from Hillaryesque horror.

 

[Sunstone]

anyone that votes for Trump is attempting to undermine the USA!!

Do you feel better for spreading misinformation? Trump is undermining the country -- for sure. People who vote for him are facilitating him in undermining the country -- for sure. But they might or might not be actually attempting to undermine the country.

 

[Sunstone]

...will you try to undermine the USA...

With respect, Daemon, your language here clearly expresses the notion that voting for Trump is an intentional effort to undermine the country. If that is not what you meant, you should consider editing your post for clarity.

 

[Sunstone]

Not bad.
Warren is a winner all around. However, I have yet to look at Buttigieg thoroughly.

The real question (for you in particular — but also for many others like you) is, after you don’t get your primary pick, will you try to undermine the USA once again by voting for tRump one more time?

While I don't like the implication that people who vote for Trump are intentionally undermining the country, I'm giving you a "winner" rating for pointing out the absurdity of preferring Trump over anyone -- nearly anyone at all.

 

[Sunstone]

Try a peacenik this time....not another corrupt same old same old.

Are you still saying that Trump is a "peacnik"? And do you believe him not to be corrupt? Genuinely just curious what your thinking is. I have no intention of debating your views.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are you still saying that Trump is a "peacnik"?

No.
All hope that he'd be one has evaporated.
I hope the Dems (the only other party with
a chance of winning) offer one.
I'd like to vote for someone else in 2020.

And do you believe him not to be corrupt?

No.

I have no intention of debating your views.

Same here.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

While I don't like the implication that people who vote for Trump are intentionally undermining the country, I'm giving you a "winner" rating for pointing out the absurdity of preferring Trump over anyone -- nearly anyone at all.

Oooohhhh. OKay.

I get it now. Thank you. Unfortunately I cannot edit my original post, but this is how it should have looked.
“.....
The real question (for you in particular — but also for many others like you) is, after you don’t get your primary pick, will you undermine the USA once again by voting for tRump one more time? “

Yes. Sorry. I did not mean to imply that @Revoltingest and (most) other people who voted for tRump were trying to undermine the power, stability, and authority of the USA. Just that they did. Often unknowingly.

My bad. Sorry @Revoltingest , I apologize. Its a fair cop @Jayhawker Soule .
Bonus points for @Sunstone , for grammatical sense and clarity of explanation.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oooohhhh. OKay.

I get it now. Thank you. Unfortunately I cannot edit my original post, but this is how it should have looked.
“.....
The real question (for you in particular — but also for many others like you) is, after you don’t get your primary pick, will you undermine the USA once again by voting for tRump one more time? “

Yes. Sorry. I did not mean to imply that @Revoltingest and (most) other people who voted for tRump were trying to undermine the power, stability, and authority of the USA. Just that they did. Often unknowingly.

My bad. Sorry @Revoltingest , I apologize. Its a fair cop @Jayhawker Soule .
Bonus points for @Sunstone , for grammatical sense and clarity of explanation.

I plan to undermine (to the extent I can) Ameristan's
record of abusing other countries, & efforts by some
to steer the country towards theocracy, over-regulation,
bigger government, higher taxes, & curbing civil
liberties in pursuit of security.
It's OK with me if you oppose this agenda.
Just be civil about it.