The moderators of this forum are dave and WaterBomb.
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
The debate last night had very little credibility due to the absence of fact checking, despite it being more credible than the presidential debate. The problem is you are basing this entire argument on points made by Pence that are mostly lies, lies of omission, or misleading claims. So yeah, I can see how a conservative voter can think Pence made “winning” arguments.
Just in reading your responses, I could dissect point by point all the “wins” you citedby Pence as being grade A bullshit (“Republicans has better judgement on COVID where as Biden/Harris have no plan”.. really??) but that would be a huge waste of time.
What I've said is pretty darn relevant, at least in the long run. When I say "Republicans are winning on the issues", I am making the case that Republicans in a debate are able to convince the nation that they are on the right side, not that they are correct. We partisans will obviously say that our side is right, but who will the few people in the middle think was correct? In the vice presidential debate, which is probably the closest thing we'll have to a normal presidential debate until 2024, I've shown that Republicans have spoken more persuasively. (Which is why I originally said that Pence won last night, for whatever that is worth.) I don't think this is enough for Republicans, because only the Presidential debates really matter and Trump has shot and likely will shoot himself in the foot in the debates. But will the next batch of Democrats be ready for 2024 when they show up expecting another Trump and get another Pence?
Just in reading your responses, I could dissect point by point all the “wins” you cited by Pence as being grade A bullshit (“Republicans have better judgement on COVID where as Biden/Harris have no plan”.. really??) but that would be a huge waste of time.
Why would you call out conservatives and then not dissect their points when one shows up? While we aren't always civil here when dealing with sometimes literal fascists and white supremacists, this sort of copout really isn't generally allowed.
If Aizaik's post breaks the new rules, report it. If it contains wild stuff, meme on it. But do not start arguments with people and then loudly proclaim that you won't actually talk to them. It's a whole post in the rules.
Aizaik has been very careful in how he structures his posts to indicate that he wishes to be seen as a conservative, not a Conservative, and similarly not to commit his personal stances on the policies he is analyzing. The way he is structuring his posts is to give insight into the mentality of the Conservative base mindset rather than his own.
Personally I've found his analysis of the debate to be respectably impartial beyond the natural partisan bias/focus that would be present from either ideology and thoroughly informative.
As of yet the only topic to actually point-counterpoint about is the debate given the framing of the situation, ergo not really possible for a personal attack to be meaningful or warranted. There's plenty of people for whom a personal attack would be a valid response but Aizaik to this point is clearly not one of them.
What I've said is pretty darn relevant, at least in the long run. When I say "Republicans are winning on the issues", I am making the case that Republicans in a debate are able to convince the nation that they are on the right side, not that they are correct. We partisans will obviously say that our side is right, but who will the few people in the middle think was correct? In the vice presidential debate, which is probably the closest thing we'll have to a normal presidential debate until 2024, I've shown that Republicans have spoken more persuasively. (Which is why I originally said that Pence won last night, for whatever that is worth.) I don't think this is enough for Republicans, because only the Presidential debates really matter and Trump has shot and likely will shoot himself in the foot in the debates. But will the next batch of Democrats be ready for 2024 when they show up expecting another Trump and get another Pence?
1) Republicans have not convinced the nation that they are correct. They are at a disadvantage in voter registration and consistently lose national popular elections. The only way they’ve held relevance is due to flawed counter majoritarian institutions they have been able to exploit. If the polls are correct this cycle, this will be four straight years of a 7 to 10 percentage point deficit.
2) This is not a “liberal” problem; this is a flaw in democracy itself. The absence of neutral fact checking causes one side to inevitably be put into the position of fact checking the lies (thus playing into their opponents frame) or ignoring them and trusting the audience to do so themselves. The entire conservative media ecosystem exists to exploit this. Unfortunately for the mainstream press, they have an incentive not to fact check out of fear of seeming partisan; hence the situation democracy finds itself in.
Fortunately, the American people are mostly smart; and are able to sense something is nefarious with the Trump/Pence ticket which is evidenced by both debate opinion polls.
let's review class, cause it seems the last few posters are losing the plot itt. while i could barely care less abt electoral politics, in the last series of exchanges Aizak asserts that republicans are winning debates on issues which is followed by RL saying they are not and listing issues where they aren't winning. Aizak's response is to delve into the minutia of the debate to point to specific instances where he claims Mike Pence/Trump got it over on Biden/Harris in the eyes of republican voters and undecideds. Now the first problem is most of the points used by Trump/Pence are patently false or else twists of logic, with the exception being the supreme court, questions about which have exposed the Biden ticket as being either milquetoast, incompetent, or conspiratorial, take your pick. The problem is that all polling results following the debates have shown the opposite of what Aizak desperately attempts to assert: the people viewing both debates have been more convinced by dems than repubs (sorry but 'made up statistics' about tax cuts, i.e, flagrant lies turns out to not be better than not lying or a 'lack of statistics' as you called it, you can't fool ppl abt what they paid in taxes lol).
as for you von, is aizak making points about issues or is he just 'analyzing the debate', can't have it both ways srry.
to be fair i think it's true that dems are screwed if theres even an election in 2024 with the way they're going all soft about Merrick Garland and 'court packing'. enjoy your thread liberals.
let's review class, cause it seems the last few posters are losing the plot itt. while i could barely care less abt electoral politics, in the last series of exchanges Aizak asserts that republicans are winning debates on issues which is followed by RL saying they are not and listing issues where they aren't winning. Aizak's response is to delve into the minutia of the debate to point to specific instances where he claims Mike Pence/Trump got it over on Biden/Harris in the eyes of republican voters and undecideds. Now the first problem is most of the points used by Trump/Pence are patently false or else twists of logic, with the exception being the supreme court, questions about which have exposed the Biden ticket as being either milquetoast, incompetent, or conspiratorial, take your pick. The problem is that all polling results following the debates have shown the opposite of what Aizak desperately attempts to assert: the people viewing both debates have been more convinced by dems than repubs (sorry but 'made up statistics' about tax cuts, i.e, flagrant lies turns out to not be better than not lying or a 'lack of statistics' as you called it, you can't fool ppl abt what they paid in taxes lol).
as for you von, is aizak making points about issues or is he just 'analyzing the debate', can't have it both ways srry.
to be fair i think it's true that dems are screwed if theres even an election in 2024 with the way they're going all soft about Merrick Garland and 'court packing'. enjoy your thread liberals.
I’m making points about (I.e. analyzing) the debate. It is obviously tinted by my opinions about the issues, but if I wanted to make points about the issues I would do so instead of talking about the debate.
Whew, I think I can finally be done posting today.
The thing with polling about who won a debate though is it's not even necessarily about who did objectively better etc. Almost no one is ever an objective arbiter of something like that. It takes a pretty large failure on one candidate's part or a truly stunning knockout punch like "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" for people to admit that their preferred candidate lost the debate, and the number of undecideds is pretty low.
People will always be tinted by their own personal opinions and right now Kamala Harris generally speaking polls ahead of Mike Pence in favorability polls. The result of debate polling between the two of them was therefore somewhat baked in. Moreover, among undecideds, Kamala Harris is actually quite popular (probably more so than she is among certain pockets of the left), while Mike Pence has to deal with the baggage of being the coronavirus task force lead...
The debates have been pretty much a farce in the first place with how ineffective the moderation is. These debates can hardly even be called that anyways though, as they're pretty much a shit flinging competition where trying to make your opponent look bad takes precedence above all else.
Answer: Both points are true and they aren’t mutually exclusive. Progressives, liberals, and Democrats go through this circular firing squad cycle every time. The Democrats are in for quite a rough midterm in 2022. Biden will be lucky to get one major piece of legislation in before that midterm. Hopefully they address H.R.1 (voting rights, election security, and government ethics) first.
I frankly disagree that 2022 will be a bad midterm. While there is obviously historical support for this being the case, the senate map is very favorable and I don't see it as particularly likely that the GOP will put up credible candidates in enough house districts to flip people back either. Their candidates still have to win primaries to get the nomination and their base will continue to nominate plenty of nutjobs.
I don't even get that logic. Who's settling? Bernie wouldn't have won nor would his policies get him far in Congress, even one controlled by the Democrats. So we get Biden who, unlike Bernie or Hillary, has a solid shot at winning the presidency entirely and who is willing to negotiate with his own party + the GOP.
Biden supports 15 an hour minimum wage, college debt relief including 2 free years of community college, expanded access to medical care, supports proven science regarding COVID, non-draconian immigration policies, LGBTQ equality (Biden supported gay marriage at a time when even Obama opposed it), and whole-hearted support for national action against climate change. While not as extreme as Bernie a president Biden would be, by far, the most left leaning liberal president the US has ever had.
Also it appears Trump's chances of defeat have risen to about 86% and it seems to rise more every day. On one hand that's very reassuring but on the other hand this is Smogon and everyone reading this has missed a Fire Blast so...
Biden supports 15 an hour minimum wage, college debt relief including 2 free years of community college, expanded access to medical care, supports proven science regarding COVID, non-draconian immigration policies, LGBTQ equality (Biden supported gay marriage at a time when even Obama opposed it), and whole-hearted support for national action against climate change. While not as extreme as Bernie a president Biden would be, by far, the most left leaning liberal president the US has ever had.
The last time there was a trifecta of Democrats in the federal government they still thought people cared about bipartisanship and respecting the filibuster. 2008 was light years ago politically. They also had to balance anything that they wanted to do against the need to immediately address the collapse of the financial sector.
I don't really see too much of a reason to believe that if democrats gain control of all of the house, senate, and white house that this time at least something will be done with respect to basically every topic on the to do list. Admittedly, some of those will be trickier depending on the margins in the senate, especially considering one of the caucus members is still Joe Manchin. And I fully agree that the something that gets done will more often than not be more of a Biden type of something, not a Sanders type of something. But I don't think it's all that likely that they get a trifecta and then slow walk things? It's as good of a mandate as you can get in federal electoral politics and no one seems to be eager to let a replay of 2008-2010 happen where nothing gets done because of the filibuster. Democrats will definitely kill it.
Never underestimate politicians' ability to refuse to act. Doing things might upset some people, not doing things can be blamed on other people. Or at the very least you can argue that the GOP would be even less likely to do the thing that you arent doing.
The Democratic party is clearly a massive bureaucratic trashheap. Getting all of the politicians in the party to all agree on a particular action is next to impossible.
Biden is gonna be happy if he can get a couple of trivial wins under his belt (which, dont get me wrong, will probably drastically improve the lives of an extraordinary number of people) and appoint some Judges.
But! When their supporters are rioting, the Democrats will give in. Here in New Zealand, as soon as the left gets in, the teachers, nurses, police will all suddenly go on strike, and they will generally get most of what they asked for.
So yeah, I agree on the theory that you can push Biden left. But you push him left by protesting, and the harder you protest the harder you can push him. And if you arent gonna do that, he isnt gonna do shit.
Bernie wouldn't have won nor would his policies get him far in Congress, even one controlled by the Democrats. So we get Biden who, unlike Bernie or Hillary, has a solid shot at winning the presidency entirely and who is willing to negotiate with his own party + the GOP.
I'm not sure how much Biden will get done in terms of progressive policy. I think it is dependent on him getting 52 seats in the Senate in order to gut the filibuster. Sinema / Manchin / Feinstein all seem like roadblocks. Biden will probably be pretty good at negotiating with them, but who knows.
Part of the reason why Obama didn't get much done was, ironically, he had too many seats (59, and they had 60 for a few months before Ted Kennedy's death) to the point where dems thought the filibuster was worth preserving. I believe that if dems get between 52-57 Senate seats, they will not try to preserve the filibuster and instead pass a lot of legislation.
But do dems get 52 seats in the Senate? Really not sure. I see anywhere between 48 Senate seats and 57 Senate seats as a possibility. Biden seems like a clear winner at this point, but the Senate races are very up in the air because many of them are in pretty red states.
Also it appears Trump's chances of defeat have risen to about 86% and it seems to rise more every day. On one hand that's very reassuring but on the other hand this is Smogon and everyone reading this has missed a Fire Blast so...
Quite a bit. Most notably, 2016 had a lot of undecided voters and a viable third party candidate that polled higher than he finished. Gary Johnson defectors and undecideds both heavily broke for Trump. Hillary’s lead was also, on average smaller than Bidens current lead.
I expect Biden to implement about as many progressive policies as Obama did when the Democrats had full control of Congress in 2009
Obama didn't do shit and protected the banks from failing, despite running on a very progressive platform including things like universal healthcare. It's called lying, and politicians do it all the time. They will say anything to get elected.
If you actually care about these policies and think Biden is the best way to get them implemented, I really suggest you go look at what the Dems have actually done in the past 40+ years. How they vote. What they do when they have the power to make change. Where their money comes from. It makes it quite clear where their loyalties lie and what they really care about.
I expect Biden to implement about as many progressive policies as Obama did when the Democrats had full control of Congress in 2009
Obama didn't do shit and protected the banks from failing, despite running on a very progressive platform including things like universal healthcare. It's called lying, and politicians do it all the time. They will say anything to get elected.
If you actually care about these policies and think Biden is the best way to get them implemented, I really suggest you go look at what the Dems have actually done in the past 40+ years. How they vote. What they do when they have the power to make change. Where their money comes from. It makes it quite clear where their loyalties lie and what they really care about.
At the core I want Trump gone. Biden could literally spend 4 years twiddling his thumbs and I would be content. But that said Biden does have a progressive campaign. If he was as influential as Obama I would be very happy. You say Obama didn't do shit yet he...
Overrode a rule that capped Federal funding for stem cell research.
Signed the stimulus deal that bailed out multiple companies and banks which eventually helped bring the US out of the recession. Worth mentioning is that the government actually required that money to be paid back, and has since made a profit on much of it.
Lifted an HIV travel ban on those sick with the disease from entering the US.
Obamacare. While not perfect and butchered a bit from the original purpose, it led to tens of millions of Americans gaining access to medical care.
Increased NASA's budget by 6 billion.
Repealed "don't ask don't tell".
Signed a nuclear treaty with Russia, limited the number of nuclear weapons each nation was able to have. Since then the nuclear weapons controlled by both countries have been reduced by several thousand.
Killed Osama Bin Laden. Obviously Obama didn't personally pull the trigger but if Trump gets credit for ISIS I figure this is valid.
Brought the US budget deficit from 9.8% of GDP in 2009 to 3.1% in 2016.
Legalized gay marriage. Notably Biden had been in support of legalization at a time when Obama supported "civil unions".
Increased minimum wage to $7.25.
Proposed making community college free depending on GPA. Around this time Republicans gained control of Congress and I think we know where the "free college" idea went.
Supported the Paris agreement and in general attempted to encourage greener technology in the US.
First US president in nearly 100 years to visit Cuba.
There's a LOT more that I didn't list. Obama wasn't perfect by any means but saying he "didn't do shit" is ridiculous.
