| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
Diluting the pool of debaters with candidates who are extremely unlikely to win the nomination means that there is less focus put on the relevant candidates. It's not a slam-dunk argument by any means but I think it's a legitimate direction for argument. EDIT: Think about it this way... do you think they'll be putting Clinton and Sanders in a head-to-head debate without any of the other distractions any time soon? | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
Nope, ludicrous idea. Clearly a conspiracy theory. On November 03 2015 09:44 KwarK wrote: I falsified that claim Can you explain it again? I'm very dense. All I heard you talking about was the logistical difficulties involved with podiums and then saying over and over again about how you falsified me. Cuz, Karl Popper. Were you a high school debater by any chance? Because that would explain a lot. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
| ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
On November 03 2015 09:57 Aquanim wrote: I don't really care for your attitude here, Notes. You might at least try to discuss other people's opinions respectfully instead of sarcastically dismissing them. Do people really think that Kwark is not the person engaged in sarcastic dismissal here? Maybe we are just having different experiences of this conversation. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
There are objectives to debates beyond the specific few you have espoused. On November 03 2015 09:58 notesfromunderground wrote: Do people really think that Kwark is not the person engaged in sarcastic dismissal here? Maybe we are just having different experiences of this conversation. Forget Kwark for a second, reread the answer you gave to my painstakingly polite post and then answer this question for yourself. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On November 03 2015 09:57 Aquanim wrote: I don't really care for your attitude here, Notes. You might at least try to discuss other people's opinions respectfully instead of sarcastically dismissing them. Seconded. Notes, I personally think the DNC is trying to limit the debates and the number of people participating in them to support Hillary, but 1. there could have been other reasons involved in the decision regarding the participation rules, like Kwark pointed out, and 2. your sneering is annoying. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22577 Posts
On November 03 2015 09:58 notesfromunderground wrote: Do people really think that Kwark is not the person engaged in sarcastic dismissal here? Maybe we are just having different experiences of this conversation. Yes I am sure the Democratic leadership is terrified of a man who cannot muster 1% worth of support and needed to change the rules to exclude him and save their Master Plan (tm) /sarcasm Your making mountains out of not even a mole hill and your surprised no one is taking you seriously? | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
And they are also terrified of giving the impression that we have some kind of real choice in who we pick for our nominee. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22577 Posts
On November 03 2015 10:04 notesfromunderground wrote: They are not terrified of Lawrence Lessig. They are terrified of campaign finance being emphasized more heavily in the debates. and Bernie with his biggest grass root financing ever isn't already able to do that? Come on man. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
On November 03 2015 10:05 Gorsameth wrote: and Bernie with his biggest grass root financing ever isn't already able to do that? Come on man. Lawrence Lessig in the debates would help Bernie. I mean, maybe y'all are happy with this sham of a nomination process. You are certainly going to great lengths to defend it. Fuck democracy, anyway. Look, I've had a chance to calm down and I'm really sure that the DNC had a really good, pragmatic, non political reason for realizing at this stage in the game that they needed to change the rules. Heaven forbid that they publish the rules ahead of time and stick with them, allowing the candidates to compete on something resembling a level playing field. The DNC is full of reasonable, well-meaning people. They care about America. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22577 Posts
On November 03 2015 10:06 notesfromunderground wrote: Lawrence Lessig in the debates would help Bernie. I mean, maybe y'all are happy with this sham of a nomination process. You are certainly going to great lengths to defend it. Fuck democracy, anyway. I see no point in putting sub 1% candidates on a stage to clutter things up. Do you think the Republicans standing on stage with 12 people yelling at each other is "Democracy"? | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
On November 03 2015 10:11 Gorsameth wrote: I see no point in putting sub 1% candidates on a stage to clutter things up. Do you think the Republicans standing on stage with 12 people yelling at each other is "Democracy"? More democratic than this farce of an attempted coronation that we have, you bet. The democratic party should be ashamed of itself. It's pathetic. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
That being said, I don't think this particular hill (EDIT: the Lessig one) is the one you want to die on. | ||
|
notesfromunderground
188 Posts
All I know is, my mother, who is a totally mainstream center-left Democrat who cares mostly about the environment, was getting really excited about Lessig and is now hopping mad at the DNC and has been pushed that much more out of the mainstream. She has deep pockets, she votes, she gives money to candidates, and she is PISSED. She, like Kwark, has a sort of obstinate attachment to common sense which makes it difficult for her to see how corrupt things are - but that ideological edifice now has a big, Lawrence Lessig shaped crack in it. I figure she's not that weird and so there have to be other people like her. So I count this as a victory  I bet Bernie Sanders is going to get a least one fat check out of all this... so suck it h8ers!!User was banned for this post. | ||
KwarK
United States44288 Posts
On November 03 2015 10:03 notesfromunderground wrote: Kwark is not painstakingly polite, he's been insulting me from the get-go. On November 03 2015 07:52 notesfromunderground wrote: (while we are trading snarky barbs)? You are talking out of your ass. I don't understand how you can be such a pig-headed apologist; it's mindblowing. You're wrong (as usual). On November 03 2015 08:10 notesfromunderground wrote: Whatever. I have better things to do than argue with you. It's pointless.. On November 03 2015 08:14 notesfromunderground wrote: (okay. seriously, self. Don't argue with fools. It's not worth it. On November 03 2015 09:31 notesfromunderground wrote: But I really don't think you actually believe this. You just don't like me and are trying to get me angry so you can have an excuse to ban me. On November 03 2015 09:53 notesfromunderground wrote: Were you a high school debater by any chance? Because that would explain a lot. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On November 03 2015 10:18 notesfromunderground wrote: I don't intend to die on any hills, unless it's Golgotha and then I don't have to worry about US Presidential Politics because I'm like the messiah and stuff Are you unfamiliar with the idiom or clogging up discussion with irrelevancies? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22577 Posts
On November 03 2015 10:24 Aquanim wrote: Are you unfamiliar with the idiom or clogging up discussion with irrelevancies? He cant win a debate on relevancy so what other choice does he have? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22577 Posts
Where were you Notes when Fox was declining to mention what polls would be used for the Republican debate so they could influence who would and would not be on stage? That was a whole lot more blatant and relevant then what is happening here. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On November 03 2015 10:18 notesfromunderground wrote: I don't intend to die on any hills, unless it's Golgotha and then I don't have to worry about US Presidential Politics because I'm like the messiah and stuff All I know is, my mother, who is a totally mainstream center-left Democrat who cares mostly about the environment, was getting really excited about Lessig and is now hopping mad at the DNC and has been pushed that much more out of the mainstream. She has deep pockets, she votes, she gives money to candidates, and she is PISSED. She, like Kwark, has a sort of obstinate attachment to common sense which makes it difficult for her to see how corrupt things are - but that ideological edifice now has a big, Lawrence Lessig shaped crack in it. I figure she's not that weird and so there have to be other people like her. So I count this as a victory I bet Bernie Sanders is going to get a least one fat check out of all this... so suck it h8ers!!User was banned for this post. Oh the irony. + Show Spoiler + I can go into my temp ban in peace now (I'll be requesting a ban at the end of today for personal reasons, but I want to browse until I go to bed). Yo KwarK, who was notes actually? It says he was a PBU in the ban list. | ||
| ||
|
|
OSC
Replay Cast
IntoTheTV X SOOP
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
GSL
Replay Cast
GSL
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
