CDZ False Premises in Debate Questions

[Andylusion]

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

Proportional representation or coalition govts are NOT required for 3rd and 4th parties. You just need to win the electoral college. So if any state the vote splits 40 35 25 -- the electors go to the party that won 40%.. Still works. Even with FOUR parties in the race. Not all four are gonna be competitive, and you can't tell me that having 4 way debates would be worse than what we just witnessed. Just need to LIMIT the topics and have MORE debates. That's NOT a bad thing.,.

I would never argue it is a "bad thing". Not bad.

I just am skeptical that it is good.

I don't see that having limited topics, or having more debates is good either.

Not saying it's bad. Just saying I'm skeptical of it being good.

In order to claim that it is good, you would have to argue that anyone anywhere, is watching the debates to learn something, or to be informed, or to even make a decision.

I've never met anyone, anywhere, that said they changed their mind on any given topic, because of a political debate with a politicians.

Keep in mind, that is very different from political debates with other people. I know people who listened to those knowledgeable, like say Ben Shapiro, that changed their minds on some issues.

But a political debate run by the political parties? Who anywhere has watched a debate, and changed their mind? Which person on this forum, or anywhere else was saying "I was going to vote for Hillary, but then the debate, and I decided I'll vote Trump." Where is such a person? I've never met anyone like that. Have you?

And if you need more proof of that, just go back and look at debate highlights. Everyone remembers the "gotcha" moments. The "Bazzinga" moments, where they nailed the other person. Ask anyone about the Hillary Trump debate, what do they remember?

"It's good someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country" "Because you'd be in jail".

Everyone remembers that. Do they remember that brilliant point made about economic policy? No. No one does. Do they remember that point about foreign policy? No, not at all. They remember the zingers, the jabs, the come backs.

So... I'm not against it. By all means push for it if you want. Just not convinced it will be all that helpful.

 

[Andylusion]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

Since you've admitted that you did not watch -- I think YOU missed it.. As to Wallace's question about denouncing them -- he said "Sure" and then "Sure, I'd be willing to do that"...



Not required to GROVEL and go full "virtue signaling"... He's already done this on at least 4 other occasions..

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He didn't do it.
It isn't groveling to do the decent thing. He's just not used to doing the decent thing.

As I've said, he has already denounced them openly in the past. He doesn't need to continue to do anything to appease stupid people, that won't vote for him no matter what he does, and will constantly call everyone they don't like 'racist' regardless of truth.... you on here, being proof of my point.

 

[Andylusion]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

Do you think it's false that white supremacists support him?

I don't care. Racists support Biden, so what difference does that make?

 

[Andylusion]

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

I don't think the business plan that has worked extremely well for 230 years, is the problem.

Name for me one country on the face of this planet, where party bosses do not look for loopholes and exploit them?

Ironically, I somewhat agree with your conclusion. That even term limits won't clearly fix anything.

I wager the difference is, we disagree on the cause.

When one side is willing to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists, you can't have an honest debate.

When one side is willing to allow entire sections of the city to burn, and willfully chooses to not enforce the law, how can you have an honest debate?

When one side is openly and overtly corrupt, and the public doesn't care, what system in the world is going to fix that?

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't see that having limited topics, or having more debates is good either.

Life and Governing is just TOO complicated to limit answers to 2 minutes and try to fit in more than 3 or 4 topics in one debate. It's just a fact.. If you want POSITIONS on issues from the candidates, and NOT a free-for-all -- it's the only way to get anything better than soundbites and dodging.

The list of topics should determine the number of debates.. Not the number of debates limiting the time and the topics.. And all THAT should be one of first things decided..

Right NOW -- we have more than TWICE the normal number of topics than has ever existed in my lifetime..

 

[flacaltenn]

In order to claim that it is good, you would have to argue that anyone anywhere, is watching the debates to learn something, or to be informed, or to even make a decision.

I've never met anyone, anywhere, that said they changed their mind on any given topic, because of a political debate with a politicians.

Not my experience. If a candidate gets a 5 or 10 pt bump -- Then folks changed their minds. It happens.. Don't think you realize that INDEPENDENT voters determine elections right now. Not the ones stuck with Hannity vs Maddow for their opinions and talking points. And YES -- these Indie \ folks will and DO change their votes..

But a political debate run by the political parties? Who anywhere has watched a debate, and changed their mind? Which person on this forum, or anywhere else was saying "I was going to vote for Hillary, but then the debate, and I decided I'll vote Trump." Where is such a person? I've never met anyone like that. Have you?

Shouldn't BE run by political parties. We have a Debate Commission.. We PAY for it. The PARTIES have abused it and turned it INTO a party benefit. Like they've done with other policies and agencies of our govt.. Parties should be restricted from DESIGNING the formats and only able to appeal...

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Why are you a racist?

OR

How long have you been a racist?

^^^ False premises ^^^

*****SMILE*****

 

[flacaltenn]

Should be illegal to pack the Debate Commission with party loyalists.. Now that Independents are the same size or BIGGER than the sum of both party's bases...

 

[candycorn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

Since you've admitted that you did not watch -- I think YOU missed it.. As to Wallace's question about denouncing them -- he said "Sure" and then "Sure, I'd be willing to do that"...



Not required to GROVEL and go full "virtue signaling"... He's already done this on at least 4 other occasions..

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He didn't do it.
It isn't groveling to do the decent thing. He's just not used to doing the decent thing.

As I've said, he has already denounced them openly in the past. He doesn't need to continue to do anything to appease stupid people, that won't vote for him no matter what he does, and will constantly call everyone they don't like 'racist' regardless of truth.... you on here, being proof of my point.

And on Tuesday he didn't denounce them, he told them to "stand by".
Those are the facts and that is no in dispute. Except from Trump worshipers like yourself.

 

[candycorn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

Do you think it's false that white supremacists support him?

I don't care. Racists support Biden, so what difference does that make?

Ahh, situational ethics...its all you have.

I for one don't like that some racists support Biden. You say you don't care. All to pity you more.

 

[candycorn]

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

I don't think the business plan that has worked extremely well for 230 years, is the problem.

In that case, the rest of the post is a moot point.

We literally have nothing written into the document that describes the Senate Majority Leader who essentially vetoes bills for the President. There is nothing in the document that prevents the Senate from just letting every justice on the supreme court die and never replacing them.

I know, I know, you'll say that it will never happen...right? Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

I can't.

Name for me one country on the face of this planet, where party bosses do not look for loopholes and exploit them?

There probably are none. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to close as many of those loopholes as possible?

Ironically, I somewhat agree with your conclusion. That even term limits won't clearly fix anything.

I wager the difference is, we disagree on the cause.

When one side is willing to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists, you can't have an honest debate.

When one side is willing to allow entire sections of the city to burn, and willfully chooses to not enforce the law, how can you have an honest debate?

When one side is openly and overtly corrupt, and the public doesn't care, what system in the world is going to fix that?

Yeah, none of that listed above "caused" the legislative chaos bloodhogs was talking about. But since you brought it up, Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

 

[Andylusion]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

Since you've admitted that you did not watch -- I think YOU missed it.. As to Wallace's question about denouncing them -- he said "Sure" and then "Sure, I'd be willing to do that"...



Not required to GROVEL and go full "virtue signaling"... He's already done this on at least 4 other occasions..

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He didn't do it.
It isn't groveling to do the decent thing. He's just not used to doing the decent thing.

As I've said, he has already denounced them openly in the past. He doesn't need to continue to do anything to appease stupid people, that won't vote for him no matter what he does, and will constantly call everyone they don't like 'racist' regardless of truth.... you on here, being proof of my point.

And on Tuesday he didn't denounce them, he told them to "stand by".
Those are the facts and that is no in dispute. Except from Trump worshipers like yourself.

And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

Honestly, if he had repeated what he said before, would you be a Trump supporter right now? No. Of course not. So I don't care, you don't care, and he doesn't care.

So what you think doesn't matter to me, or him, and you can keep saying that over and over, and I'll keep replying over and over, for however long you wish to keep repeating something false.

 

[candycorn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

Since you've admitted that you did not watch -- I think YOU missed it.. As to Wallace's question about denouncing them -- he said "Sure" and then "Sure, I'd be willing to do that"...



Not required to GROVEL and go full "virtue signaling"... He's already done this on at least 4 other occasions..

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He didn't do it.
It isn't groveling to do the decent thing. He's just not used to doing the decent thing.

As I've said, he has already denounced them openly in the past. He doesn't need to continue to do anything to appease stupid people, that won't vote for him no matter what he does, and will constantly call everyone they don't like 'racist' regardless of truth.... you on here, being proof of my point.

And on Tuesday he didn't denounce them, he told them to "stand by".
Those are the facts and that is no in dispute. Except from Trump worshipers like yourself.

And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

Honestly, if he had repeated what he said before, would you be a Trump supporter right now? No. Of course not. So I don't care, you don't care, and he doesn't care.

So what you think doesn't matter to me, or him, and you can keep saying that over and over, and I'll keep replying over and over, for however long you wish to keep repeating something false.

As we saw on Tuesday, he was asked to denounce a hate group. And he chose not to.

It was the case on Tuesday, it is the case today and it will be the case next week....no matter how many times you deny it.

 

[Andylusion]

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

I don't think the business plan that has worked extremely well for 230 years, is the problem.

In that case, the rest of the post is a moot point.

We literally have nothing written into the document that describes the Senate Majority Leader who essentially vetoes bills for the President. There is nothing in the document that prevents the Senate from just letting every justice on the supreme court die and never replacing them.

I know, I know, you'll say that it will never happen...right? Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

I can't.

Name for me one country on the face of this planet, where party bosses do not look for loopholes and exploit them?

There probably are none. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to close as many of those loopholes as possible?

Ironically, I somewhat agree with your conclusion. That even term limits won't clearly fix anything.

I wager the difference is, we disagree on the cause.

When one side is willing to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists, you can't have an honest debate.

When one side is willing to allow entire sections of the city to burn, and willfully chooses to not enforce the law, how can you have an honest debate?

When one side is openly and overtly corrupt, and the public doesn't care, what system in the world is going to fix that?

Yeah, none of that listed above "caused" the legislative chaos bloodhogs was talking about. But since you brought it up, Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

That depends. It's not like the GOP is going to make up completely fabricated charges, like I don't know... Kavanough, or Bork, or Thomas.

There is clearly a consistent track record of lying and fabricating charges to stop judges they don't like... when I don't see the GOP engaging in such activities.

Besides that, judges should be stripped of the power to change law anyway. Appointing judges shouldn't be any more controversial than hiring a security guard. Meaning as long as they have served time enforcing the law (very different from rewriting law), they should be confirmed.

Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Sure. Name one example of this 'overt corruption'. Is it anything like funneling campaign money through a front company, to AOC's boyfriend?

On February 20, GOP political consultant Luke Thompson unveiled screenshots of FEC records via his Medium page showing the congresswoman's campaign paid $6,191.32 to Brand New Congress LLC, a progressive PAC and consulting firm that hired Cortez's boyfriend, Riley Roberts, as a marketing consultant during the fall of 2017 not long after Cortez's campaign began.​

FEC complaint filed against Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Cortez's campaign team on Wednesday over funds her election team paid to a political group that employed her boyfriend

www.dailymail.co.uk

Brand New Congress PAC payments to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's boyfriend Riley Roberts scrutinized

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not immune to the taint of money in politics. During her long-shot run for Congress, a political action committee backing her campaign was putting cash in...

apnews.com

About as clear as it gets. Intentionally creating an LLC, and having a boyfriend hired as a 'marketing consultant' has has never worked as a consultant, or in marketing.

Nothing overtly corrupt about that. Nope. Not a thing.

 

[Andylusion]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

Since you've admitted that you did not watch -- I think YOU missed it.. As to Wallace's question about denouncing them -- he said "Sure" and then "Sure, I'd be willing to do that"...



Not required to GROVEL and go full "virtue signaling"... He's already done this on at least 4 other occasions..

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He didn't do it.
It isn't groveling to do the decent thing. He's just not used to doing the decent thing.

As I've said, he has already denounced them openly in the past. He doesn't need to continue to do anything to appease stupid people, that won't vote for him no matter what he does, and will constantly call everyone they don't like 'racist' regardless of truth.... you on here, being proof of my point.

And on Tuesday he didn't denounce them, he told them to "stand by".
Those are the facts and that is no in dispute. Except from Trump worshipers like yourself.

And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

Honestly, if he had repeated what he said before, would you be a Trump supporter right now? No. Of course not. So I don't care, you don't care, and he doesn't care.

So what you think doesn't matter to me, or him, and you can keep saying that over and over, and I'll keep replying over and over, for however long you wish to keep repeating something false.

As we saw on Tuesday, he was asked to denounce a hate group. And he chose not to.

It was the case on Tuesday, it is the case today and it will be the case next week....no matter how many times you deny it.

And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

Honestly, if he had repeated what he said before, would you be a Trump supporter right now? No. Of course not. So I don't care, you don't care, and he doesn't care.

So what you think doesn't matter to me, or him, and you can keep saying that over and over, and I'll keep replying over and over, for however long you wish to keep repeating something false.

Keep going as much as you like. I'll be happy to repeat the truth the next time I'm on.

 

[candycorn]

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

I don't think the business plan that has worked extremely well for 230 years, is the problem.

In that case, the rest of the post is a moot point.

We literally have nothing written into the document that describes the Senate Majority Leader who essentially vetoes bills for the President. There is nothing in the document that prevents the Senate from just letting every justice on the supreme court die and never replacing them.

I know, I know, you'll say that it will never happen...right? Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

I can't.

Name for me one country on the face of this planet, where party bosses do not look for loopholes and exploit them?

There probably are none. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to close as many of those loopholes as possible?

Ironically, I somewhat agree with your conclusion. That even term limits won't clearly fix anything.

I wager the difference is, we disagree on the cause.

When one side is willing to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists, you can't have an honest debate.

When one side is willing to allow entire sections of the city to burn, and willfully chooses to not enforce the law, how can you have an honest debate?

When one side is openly and overtly corrupt, and the public doesn't care, what system in the world is going to fix that?

Yeah, none of that listed above "caused" the legislative chaos bloodhogs was talking about. But since you brought it up, Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

That depends. It's not like the GOP is going to make up completely fabricated charges, like I don't know... Kavanough, or Bork, or Thomas.

There is clearly a consistent track record of lying and fabricating charges to stop judges they don't like... when I don't see the GOP engaging in such activities.

Besides that, judges should be stripped of the power to change law anyway. Appointing judges shouldn't be any more controversial than hiring a security guard. Meaning as long as they have served time enforcing the law (very different from rewriting law), they should be confirmed.

Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Sure. Name one example of this 'overt corruption'. Is it anything like funneling campaign money through a front company, to AOC's boyfriend?

On February 20, GOP political consultant Luke Thompson unveiled screenshots of FEC records via his Medium page showing the congresswoman's campaign paid $6,191.32 to Brand New Congress LLC, a progressive PAC and consulting firm that hired Cortez's boyfriend, Riley Roberts, as a marketing consultant during the fall of 2017 not long after Cortez's campaign began.​

FEC complaint filed against Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Cortez's campaign team on Wednesday over funds her election team paid to a political group that employed her boyfriend

www.dailymail.co.uk

Brand New Congress PAC payments to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's boyfriend Riley Roberts scrutinized

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not immune to the taint of money in politics. During her long-shot run for Congress, a political action committee backing her campaign was putting cash in...

apnews.com

About as clear as it gets. Intentionally creating an LLC, and having a boyfriend hired as a 'marketing consultant' has has never worked as a consultant, or in marketing.

Nothing overtly corrupt about that. Nope. Not a thing.

Yeah, he just happened to hire 7 felons.
No corruption there.

 

[candycorn]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

Since you've admitted that you did not watch -- I think YOU missed it.. As to Wallace's question about denouncing them -- he said "Sure" and then "Sure, I'd be willing to do that"...



Not required to GROVEL and go full "virtue signaling"... He's already done this on at least 4 other occasions..

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He didn't do it.
It isn't groveling to do the decent thing. He's just not used to doing the decent thing.

As I've said, he has already denounced them openly in the past. He doesn't need to continue to do anything to appease stupid people, that won't vote for him no matter what he does, and will constantly call everyone they don't like 'racist' regardless of truth.... you on here, being proof of my point.

And on Tuesday he didn't denounce them, he told them to "stand by".
Those are the facts and that is no in dispute. Except from Trump worshipers like yourself.

And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

Honestly, if he had repeated what he said before, would you be a Trump supporter right now? No. Of course not. So I don't care, you don't care, and he doesn't care.

So what you think doesn't matter to me, or him, and you can keep saying that over and over, and I'll keep replying over and over, for however long you wish to keep repeating something false.

As we saw on Tuesday, he was asked to denounce a hate group. And he chose not to.

It was the case on Tuesday, it is the case today and it will be the case next week....no matter how many times you deny it.

And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

Honestly, if he had repeated what he said before, would you be a Trump supporter right now? No. Of course not. So I don't care, you don't care, and he doesn't care.

So what you think doesn't matter to me, or him, and you can keep saying that over and over, and I'll keep replying over and over, for however long you wish to keep repeating something false.

Keep going as much as you like. I'll be happy to repeat the truth the next time I'm on.

On Tuesday he embraced hate groups. He didn't denounce them.

 

[Andylusion]

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

I don't think the business plan that has worked extremely well for 230 years, is the problem.

In that case, the rest of the post is a moot point.

We literally have nothing written into the document that describes the Senate Majority Leader who essentially vetoes bills for the President. There is nothing in the document that prevents the Senate from just letting every justice on the supreme court die and never replacing them.

I know, I know, you'll say that it will never happen...right? Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

I can't.

Name for me one country on the face of this planet, where party bosses do not look for loopholes and exploit them?

There probably are none. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to close as many of those loopholes as possible?

Ironically, I somewhat agree with your conclusion. That even term limits won't clearly fix anything.

I wager the difference is, we disagree on the cause.

When one side is willing to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists, you can't have an honest debate.

When one side is willing to allow entire sections of the city to burn, and willfully chooses to not enforce the law, how can you have an honest debate?

When one side is openly and overtly corrupt, and the public doesn't care, what system in the world is going to fix that?

Yeah, none of that listed above "caused" the legislative chaos bloodhogs was talking about. But since you brought it up, Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

That depends. It's not like the GOP is going to make up completely fabricated charges, like I don't know... Kavanough, or Bork, or Thomas.

There is clearly a consistent track record of lying and fabricating charges to stop judges they don't like... when I don't see the GOP engaging in such activities.

Besides that, judges should be stripped of the power to change law anyway. Appointing judges shouldn't be any more controversial than hiring a security guard. Meaning as long as they have served time enforcing the law (very different from rewriting law), they should be confirmed.

Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Sure. Name one example of this 'overt corruption'. Is it anything like funneling campaign money through a front company, to AOC's boyfriend?

On February 20, GOP political consultant Luke Thompson unveiled screenshots of FEC records via his Medium page showing the congresswoman's campaign paid $6,191.32 to Brand New Congress LLC, a progressive PAC and consulting firm that hired Cortez's boyfriend, Riley Roberts, as a marketing consultant during the fall of 2017 not long after Cortez's campaign began.​

FEC complaint filed against Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Cortez's campaign team on Wednesday over funds her election team paid to a political group that employed her boyfriend

www.dailymail.co.uk

Brand New Congress PAC payments to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's boyfriend Riley Roberts scrutinized

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not immune to the taint of money in politics. During her long-shot run for Congress, a political action committee backing her campaign was putting cash in...

apnews.com

About as clear as it gets. Intentionally creating an LLC, and having a boyfriend hired as a 'marketing consultant' has has never worked as a consultant, or in marketing.

Nothing overtly corrupt about that. Nope. Not a thing.

Yeah, he just happened to hire 7 felons.
No corruption there.

Did they engage in criminal action in office? You know... like AOC funneling money through a front company, to her boyfriend who magically turned into a marketing consultant?

Are you saying that ex-convicts should be assumed to be engaging in crime after they are released from prison? If so, why do Democrats want to reduce the prison population when you assume they will engage in crime, before they do anything?

 

[Andylusion]

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

Global warming is a fact.
Independent meant independent of either campaign.

Yeah, everyone know the climate is changing. Has since the last ice age, and before it.

No campaign has ever certified an election. There is no "independent" system, other than the one we have.

1. "Do you believe in Climate Science?" The false implication is that there is scientific proof that climate change is not a naturally occurring phenomenon and that human activities are responsible for it.

2. "Will you wait until the election is independently certified?" There is no mechanism for independent certification of a national election. The Secretaries of State for each state certify elections results, and most are elected or appointed based on political party affiliation.

Any others?

The false notion that Trump supports white supremacists.

He just doesn't denounce them when asked point blank to do so. And those organizations celebrate it the next day.

No, that's just flat out a lie.

Let us both read Trump's full statement after Charlottesville.

"You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. ... I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name. ... So you know what, it's fine. You're changing history. You're changing culture. And you had people — and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally — but you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and White nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."

Do you need help here? Or are you capable of reading and comprehending that on your own without political bias?

Let me repeat the statement he made, that completely destroys your lies about him not condemning white supremacists.

and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the White nationalists, because they should be condemned totally

What part of that is "Not condemning white supremacists" in your world?

That's from 2017. Clearly documented everywhere.

Stop lying. Facts contradict your opinion.

Please read the title of the thread. He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them.

As I said....
Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

No, but do post facts.... facts like....

Again, he already did it in 2017. And he's right. Most of the violence is coming from the left.

So he did it already. The problem now is on the left wing. Why can't any of you left-wingers denounce the violence from all these left-wingers looting and burn, and murdering?

Honestly, we already have 2 or 3 clips of reporters in front of cities on fire, saying they are peaceful, and you want to claim Trump won't denounce white supremacist when he already has?

Hypocrite much?

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He embraced them. Deaf much?

Since you've admitted that you did not watch -- I think YOU missed it.. As to Wallace's question about denouncing them -- he said "Sure" and then "Sure, I'd be willing to do that"...



Not required to GROVEL and go full "virtue signaling"... He's already done this on at least 4 other occasions..

He was asked to denounce them at the debate. He didn't do it.
It isn't groveling to do the decent thing. He's just not used to doing the decent thing.

As I've said, he has already denounced them openly in the past. He doesn't need to continue to do anything to appease stupid people, that won't vote for him no matter what he does, and will constantly call everyone they don't like 'racist' regardless of truth.... you on here, being proof of my point.

And on Tuesday he didn't denounce them, he told them to "stand by".
Those are the facts and that is no in dispute. Except from Trump worshipers like yourself.

And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

Honestly, if he had repeated what he said before, would you be a Trump supporter right now? No. Of course not. So I don't care, you don't care, and he doesn't care.

So what you think doesn't matter to me, or him, and you can keep saying that over and over, and I'll keep replying over and over, for however long you wish to keep repeating something false.

As we saw on Tuesday, he was asked to denounce a hate group. And he chose not to.

It was the case on Tuesday, it is the case today and it will be the case next week....no matter how many times you deny it.

And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

Honestly, if he had repeated what he said before, would you be a Trump supporter right now? No. Of course not. So I don't care, you don't care, and he doesn't care.

So what you think doesn't matter to me, or him, and you can keep saying that over and over, and I'll keep replying over and over, for however long you wish to keep repeating something false.

Keep going as much as you like. I'll be happy to repeat the truth the next time I'm on.

On Tuesday he embraced hate groups. He didn't denounce them.

And as I said, he already denounced them in 2017. He doesn't need to do it again, because someone who wouldn't vote for him anyway, got their panties all bunched up over it.

Honestly, if he had repeated what he said before, would you be a Trump supporter right now? No. Of course not. So I don't care, you don't care, and he doesn't care.

So what you think doesn't matter to me, or him, and you can keep saying that over and over, and I'll keep replying over and over, for however long you wish to keep repeating something false.

Keep going as much as you like. I'll be happy to repeat the truth the next time I'm on.

 

[candycorn]

I would love to see a third party to get a chance. Unfortunately, I think the Democrats and Republicans make it hard. In the last election 2016, I thought for sure a third party could get 5% and get federal funding. I think for sure they are Making it hard for them. Republicans and Democrats get almost $100 million dollars to run for office. Third parties get nothing.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

If you really want a 3rd party, you'll have to completely change how voting is done. Instead of winner takes all, we would have to have a system of proportional voting, where you vote for the party.

Then if the 3rd party gets 25% of the vote, they would get 25% of the seats in congress, or something to that effect.

This is like what they do in the UK.

Here's my problem. I've watched UK elections for years and years now. I was watching the vote live, with the 2016 Brexit vote.

And after all these years, what I learned from the UK is.... 3rd parties will solve nothing. There is zero evidence that having a 3rd party, or 4th party, or 25th party, has any positive effects whatsoever.

I was listening to a commentator from the UK, talking about how 3rd parties only provide unbelievable grid lock, and high chances of corruption.

So here's how it works in the UK.... The big parties make huge promises to voters. Then the election comes around, and you end up with 40%/40% for the two major parties, and 20% for the 3rd party.

Then in order to form a government, one of the two parties will form a coalition with the third party.

Now that you have two parties, in coalition, both parties tell the voters "Sorry can't do all those things you voted us in here to do, because our Coalition partner isn't on board."

Or!.... the other thing that can happen, is that usually it's the larger party, will engage in borderline bribery, to give favors or special projects in the 3rd parties district, to get them to vote for the legislation the larger party wants.

Back room deals, and under the table hand shakes.

Either way, you end up with the exact same problems we have in our system with two parties. No matter how many times people say the grass is greener in with more parties, I simply haven't found any evidence they work better.

I'm not opposed to 3rd parties, but I just don't see the value. I just don't. No evidence that they will improve anything. Jesse Ventura ran as a 3rd party candidate, and won, and the result was he had no pull with either party. It was just even more grid lock, than when a Republican or Democrat was in office.

There is very little value nationally. If the argument is for down ballot races, then a third party can have some impact.

If the Green Party had a senatorial majority, they'd be doing exactly what Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell did/are doing. The problem is that we have a 230+ y/o business plan that isn't built for the politics we have today. The first thing that the party bosses do is look for a loophole and exploit it. Green, Red, Blue, Libertarian...it makes no difference.

And no, term limits are not the solution either. All Term limits do is change the actors but the script remains the same. Meanwhile the lack of experience in dealing with adversaries who know how to play the game hurts the nation.

I don't think the business plan that has worked extremely well for 230 years, is the problem.

In that case, the rest of the post is a moot point.

We literally have nothing written into the document that describes the Senate Majority Leader who essentially vetoes bills for the President. There is nothing in the document that prevents the Senate from just letting every justice on the supreme court die and never replacing them.

I know, I know, you'll say that it will never happen...right? Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

I can't.

Name for me one country on the face of this planet, where party bosses do not look for loopholes and exploit them?

There probably are none. Does that mean that we shouldn't try to close as many of those loopholes as possible?

Ironically, I somewhat agree with your conclusion. That even term limits won't clearly fix anything.

I wager the difference is, we disagree on the cause.

When one side is willing to label everyone who disagrees with them as racists, you can't have an honest debate.

When one side is willing to allow entire sections of the city to burn, and willfully chooses to not enforce the law, how can you have an honest debate?

When one side is openly and overtly corrupt, and the public doesn't care, what system in the world is going to fix that?

Yeah, none of that listed above "caused" the legislative chaos bloodhogs was talking about. But since you brought it up, Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Never is a long time and if Biden wins, can you picture any scenario where a GOP senate gives his nominees a hearing, much less approves any of them?

That depends. It's not like the GOP is going to make up completely fabricated charges, like I don't know... Kavanough, or Bork, or Thomas.

There is clearly a consistent track record of lying and fabricating charges to stop judges they don't like... when I don't see the GOP engaging in such activities.

Besides that, judges should be stripped of the power to change law anyway. Appointing judges shouldn't be any more controversial than hiring a security guard. Meaning as long as they have served time enforcing the law (very different from rewriting law), they should be confirmed.

Trump's overt corruption is something we all should care about.

Sure. Name one example of this 'overt corruption'. Is it anything like funneling campaign money through a front company, to AOC's boyfriend?

On February 20, GOP political consultant Luke Thompson unveiled screenshots of FEC records via his Medium page showing the congresswoman's campaign paid $6,191.32 to Brand New Congress LLC, a progressive PAC and consulting firm that hired Cortez's boyfriend, Riley Roberts, as a marketing consultant during the fall of 2017 not long after Cortez's campaign began.​

FEC complaint filed against Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez

The Coolidge Reagan Foundation filed an FEC complaint against Cortez's campaign team on Wednesday over funds her election team paid to a political group that employed her boyfriend

www.dailymail.co.uk

Brand New Congress PAC payments to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's boyfriend Riley Roberts scrutinized

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is not immune to the taint of money in politics. During her long-shot run for Congress, a political action committee backing her campaign was putting cash in...

apnews.com

About as clear as it gets. Intentionally creating an LLC, and having a boyfriend hired as a 'marketing consultant' has has never worked as a consultant, or in marketing.

Nothing overtly corrupt about that. Nope. Not a thing.

Yeah, he just happened to hire 7 felons.
No corruption there.

Did they engage in criminal action in office? You know... like AOC funneling money through a front company, to her boyfriend who magically turned into a marketing consultant?

Are you saying that ex-convicts should be assumed to be engaging in crime after they are released from prison? If so, why do Democrats want to reduce the prison population when you assume they will engage in crime, before they do anything?

Was AOC convicted of anything? Nope
Were Trump's "best people" convicted? Yes.

Trump's campaign was a criminal enterprise by any measure.