CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president
What would be any benefits of Hillary Cliton being president and what would be the negatives. I knowthis is a contraversial topic so no profanity please.
Hillary is a conservative Democrat who is popular among liberals. That's why she is polling so high: she represents the center. (source) Positives and negatives at this point is matter of perspective. None of the Republican candidates thus far (except Chris Christie) have declared global warming to be a threat while 97% of climatologists are alarmist. (source) Global Warming is the biggest threat by far, and Hillary sands with the overwhelming scientific consensus. If it wasn't for this fact I would be more open to voting for someone like Rand Paul who has many sensible views that outweigh Hillary, but unfortunately all of the republicans are funded by the oil industry.
On some issues, sure, but by the standards of the Democratic Party, she is closer to a Blue Dog than mainstream. She is considered Conservative by the standards of a Democratic.
Edit: And enough of this absurd down voting tirade you are on. The comment you down voted was factually correct.
I disagree. Hillary is a liberal, not a centrist. She is a member of a liberal political party.
Being a member of the Left-Wing Party does not mean someone is necessarily that Liberal. Are you familiar with the term Blue Dog Democrat, for example?
Edit: And seriously, why are you down voting every single comment you disagree with?
He didn't say she was a conservative, he said she was a "conservative Democrat." He does affiliate with the liberal party, but has some views that lean a little conservative.
This is a perfect example of why people accuse you of not reading what is presented. There are lines and lines of text in the argument you responded to and your objection was with the fourth word that he used.
Hillary has been working very hard on a green campaign, she is planning on reusing both of Bushs' campaign signs. What they are doing is painting over the parts she doesn't need. They will read......
Hmm, that's a pretty poor reason. I too am a liberal, but you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs. What if a 4 year old was a liberal and wanted to run for president? Would you elect them? What about a person who was a serial killer? Or one of your liberal enemies on this site xD…
I am a liberal and you don't always support me in debates. I am heartbroken. ;)
but you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs
That is the only criteria anyone ever uses.
What if a 4 year old was a liberal and wanted to run for president? Would you elect them? What about a person who was a serial killer?
What would you rather have her say? "Hillary is a liberal, and is old enough to run and not a criminal"? Hillary is the only candidate that has Dana's beliefs. She can't make a determination to who would be a better liberal candidate.
That's not true. People do address candidate's ability to make decisions, their age, emotional influence, the kind of person they, their capabilities, etc. etc.. It's definitely the primary one, but since there is more than one person a party, it can't be the only one.
What would you rather have her say? "Hillary is a liberal, and is old enough to run and not a criminal"? Hillary is the only candidate that has Dana's beliefs. She can't make a determination to who would be a better liberal candidate.
Hillary is not the only person to announce her candidacy. It wasn't a major criticism either, merely the fact that your reasons for supporting a candidate should be more than the fact that they are in the same political party as you.
And, to answer the question of the debate, just because someone is in the same political party as you, it doesn't mean they should be president.
Wasn't meant to be a major criticism, merely pointing out the flaw in her logic here.
That's not true. People do address candidate's ability to make decisions, their age, emotional influence, the kind of person they, their capabilities, etc. etc.. It's definitely the primary one, but since there is more than one person a party, it can't be the only one.
They discuss it, but it only ever comes down to the policies/beliefs.
Hillary is not the only person to announce her candidacy.
Of the people you listed, she is. Plus, no other candidate has been discussed at all.
And, to answer the question of the debate, just because someone is in the same political party as you, it doesn't mean they should be president.
Who in their right mind supports ideas they don't think should be in the president? If you don't think your own beliefs are the correct ones to have for president, why would you have those beliefs? Everyone thinks they have the correct answer.
Wasn't meant to be a major criticism, merely pointing out the flaw in her logic here.
It wasn't a major criticism of your argument, but you are the one with the flaw, not her. I am all for pointing out her flaws, but this time it is only you.
Who in their right mind supports ideas they don't think should be in the president?
I supported Gary Johnson, despite being close to the opposite of a libertarian. I believed that, even if he was in opposition to my beliefs, he was a better candidate than the Democratic or Republican options.
Your objection is only valid if you can demonstrate you are in your right mind. ;)
But, that is the opposite of what I was saying any way. If you had picked someone who had your beliefs it would be valid. If you supported Gary Johnson because the Democrat or Republican didn't hold your beliefs either than you have proved my point since none of the three candidates fit the criteria I mentioned. If you chose someone who had views opposite yourself while a candidate with your views existed I think it would be fair to call you insane.
They discuss it, but it only ever comes down to the policies/beliefs.
So? The question of the debate was should. Just because the general public usually only focuses on things like beliefs that doesn't mean that other things, like ability to be president, aren't important.
Of the people you listed, she is. Plus, no other candidate has been discussed at all.
Um, that doesn't mean that other candidates don't exist…
Who in their right mind supports ideas they don't think should be in the president? If you don't think your own beliefs are the correct ones to have for president, why would you have those beliefs? Everyone thinks they have the correct answer.
There is variation among liberals. For example, Dana is a liberal but is pro life. If she was running for president, it would be illogical for me to say "She is liberal, so I support her" because I fundamentally disagree with her on several things.
It wasn't a major criticism of your argument, but you are the one with the flaw, not her. I am all for pointing out her flaws, but this time it is only you.
I think I've just shown that's not true. Don't say you've won a debate before someone has responded to your arguments.
So? The question of the debate was should. Just because the general public usually only focuses on things like beliefs that doesn't mean that other things, like ability to be president, aren't important.
You are giving her grief over doing what everyone else does.
There is variation among liberals. For example, Dana is a liberal but is pro life. If she was running for president, it would be illogical for me to say "She is liberal, so I support her" because I fundamentally disagree with her on several things.
I find it strange to criticize someone for picking someone to be president based on what they believe, but picking them to not be president because you don't like their beliefs.
I think I've just shown that's not true. Don't say you've won a debate before someone has responded to your arguments.
You said something was bad to do then did it. I count that as a win either way.
You are giving her grief over doing what everyone else does.
That says nothing about the logic of my argument. Just because everyone does something doesn't mean that what they do is correct...
I find it strange to criticize someone for picking someone to be president based on what they believe, but picking them to not be president because you don't like their beliefs.
I am not criticizing someone for picking a president based on what they believe. I am criticizing making that the only factor. All I am saying is the what someone believes doesn't necessarily make them a good leader, so that shouldn't be the only factor in if you vote for them.
You said something was bad to do then did it. I count that as a win either way.
What did I do that was bad and then do it? I never said I won't this debate...
If everyone does it it is the standard making it not a poor reason since poor is below standard.
You said that only using beliefs is not good for determining if the candidate is good then only used beliefs to determine she was bad, a double standard, I win.
If everyone does it it is the standard making it not a poor reason since poor is below standard.
So are you arguing that if everyone does something, it is the right thing to do?
I claimed it was a poor reason because I had a better alternative. And honestly, not everyone only uses someone's beliefs as the criteria in deciding if they would vote for them. My family, many of my friends, and many other people I have talked to often talk about the kind of a person a candidate is, and their ability to lead. It's something that I find important, and I am not alone in this.
By her logic, how do you differentiate between two candidates who are both liberal?
You said that only using beliefs is not good for determining if the candidate is good then only used beliefs to determine she was bad, a double standard, I win.
You are trying to twist my words (or you do not have a grasp of what I am arguing.)
I said that in trying to determine whether or not you should vote for a candidate, you should consider more than just which political party the person belongs to. I pointed out that someone having political views you believe with is not the same thing as someone being qualified to be president. I did not say that Dana was a bad person for this belief, I just pointed out the flaw in her argument.
On a debate site, when you raise a point, others can respond to that point with opposing viewpoints. Dana made the point that she supported Hillary because she was a liberal. I pointed out that I believed that she should have more criteria in supporting a candidate than that. I did not attack her personally, I merely addressed her argument.
You then attacked me. You claimed that I was 'giving her grief' and are now arguing that I am in the wrong for raising the point, which you have not disputed in any other way than saying that more people than Dana are guilty of this.
Can you explain further how I am falling into a double standard here? Do you mean to say because I argued that in choosing a president you should value all the factors that go into being a president I am hypocritical for not considering all the factors that go into choosing a president when responding to a comment on a debate?
Well, I was asking for clarification. Was my interpretation that 'if everyone does something, it's the right thing to do' correct?
You said 'If everyone does it it is the standard making it not a poor reason since poor is below standard.' I'm just going to repeat my counter to your argument because you did not respond to it.
Well, to respond to that, a) not everyone does this. As I said before, not everyone only uses someone's beliefs as the criteria in deciding if they would vote for them. My family, many of my friends, and many other people I have talked to often talk about the kind of a person a candidate is, and their ability to lead. It's something that I find important, and I am not alone in this.
b) By her logic, how do you differentiate between two candidates who are both liberal?
So you could feel at home see above.
I was unclear of your argument, which is why I asked a question on if what I was saying was correct.
You claimed that I made an argument that I had not made by using the term 'belief' vaguely. I responded in detail why your interpretation of what I said was false (which again, you did not respond to).
Well, I was asking for clarification. Was my interpretation that 'if everyone does something, it's the right thing to do' correct?
NO!!!!!!!!!
You claimed that I made an argument that I had not made by using the term 'belief' vaguely. I responded in detail why your interpretation of what I said was false (which again, you did not respond to).
You claimed that your only criteria for believing that LibProlifer shouldn't be president is because of her beliefs which is in direct contradiction to your stance that only using beliefs is a bad thing.
Ok, care to elaborate more? Clearly your point was not made clearly, which is why i asked for clarification.
You claimed that your only criteria for believing that LibProlifer shouldn't be president is because of her beliefs which is in direct contradiction to your stance that only using beliefs is a bad thing.
I never made any argument about LibProlifer being president, and that is exactly not my argument. Please, when did I say anything like that? Please identify.
My original argument is "you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs." You are correct in saying that my stance is that you should consider more than just someone's stance/political views. I went on to elaborate, saying that things such as the "candidate's ability to make decisions, their age, emotional influence, the kind of person they, their capabilities, etc. etc.." I argue that more factors than whether someone is liberal or conservative should be considered.
Ok, care to elaborate more? Clearly your point was not made clearly, which is why i asked for clarification.
I would rather have you just read the argument, but ok. Poor means below what is expected. See the word below? The word below is important. Doing what everyone else does is the expected. Therefore, it can't be poor since it is the expected.
I never made any argument about LibProlifer being president, and that is exactly not my argument. Please, when did I say anything like that? Please identify.
"There is variation among liberals. For example, Dana is a liberal but is pro life. If she was running for president, it would be illogical for me to say "She is liberal, so I support her" because I fundamentally disagree with her on several things."
You disagree with her beliefs so she is not presidential material.
My original argument is "you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs."
I would rather have you just read the argument, but ok. Poor means below what is expected. See the word below? The word below is important. Doing what everyone else does is the expected. Therefore, it can't be poor since it is the expected.
Another definition of the word poor is "less than is desirable." That is more along the lines of my meaning. Just because something is expected doesn't mean it is the desirable or, in my opinion, the right thing to do. Just because something is what is expected of society doesn't mean that it must be a good thing.
"There is variation among liberals. For example, Dana is a liberal but is pro life. If she was running for president, it would be illogical for me to say "She is liberal, so I support her" because I fundamentally disagree with her on several things."
You disagree with her beliefs so she is not presidential material.
Yes, that statement was not a good argument on my part as it wasn't a good response on my part, but it in no way makes me a hypocrite, as it does not counter my original claim that "you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs."
LibProlifer's original argument was "She is a liberal, so I support her. ." The quote you pulled from me counters her argument as I identified that there is variation among liberals. This in no way invalidates the other points I have made about the other factors that go into picking a president.
I agree that you only became hypocritical later.
Something that I disagree with, as I just explained why.
But to get back to the point, do you still disagree with my original claim that you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs?
Remember, the key word here is should, as that is the original question posed by the debate (Should Hillary Clinton be elected for president).
Hey Mr. Word Twister. You can stop calling the standard a good thing just because it is standard.
but it in no way makes me a hypocrite
Saying that making a decision about president based solely on their beliefs is bad then making a decision about someone based on their beliefs is hypocritical. If you don't rephrase what you meant by the statement and just sick to you not being wrong doesn't make you less hypocritical.
But to get back to the point, do you still disagree with my original claim that you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs?
Is it hyphenated? Are you Mr. Word-Twister? I didn't actually say that being above standard was a bad thing. I thought my NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! would have helped clear that up earlier.
Hey Mr. Word Twister. You can stop calling the standard a good thing just because it is standard.
How am I twisting your words? You're the one whose cherry picking specific sentences from long arguments, and claiming that because I made one example that was poor I am wrong.
I never called the standard a good thing because it's standard. The question of this debate is what is good, not what is standard. I argued what I think is good, and you countered me by saying that it's wrong because it's not what everyone else does.
Saying that making a decision about president based solely on their beliefs is bad then making a decision about someone based on their beliefs is hypocritical. If you don't rephrase what you meant by the statement and just sick to you not being wrong doesn't make you less hypocritical.
The example I made was poor, and I am very aware of that and apologize. The example I made ware more of a counter to the idea that "because I am liberal I should vote for a liberal," as there is variation among liberals. However, stating that there is variation among liberals does not go against my original argument.
What I meant by that statement was that just because someone is a liberal and you are a liberal it doesn't mean you should vote for them. It was a poor response to the question you posed, so I will give a better response below. But it was not hypocritical.
If you want a more effective argument: Person A and I share the same beliefs, but Person A does not have the ability to stand up against adversity. As such, I will not vote for Person A to be president because I think the ability to stand up against adversity is important for a president.
Is it hyphenated? Are you Mr. Word-Twister? I didn't actually say that being above standard was a bad thing. I thought my NO!!!!!!!!!!!!! would have helped clear that up earlier.
Well, then why did you counter my original argument? The question of the debate was should Hillary Clinton be elected. I gave my response to LibProlifer saying that what she suggested was not what I believed should happen. You now agree with me that that is what should happen. You clearly have some problem with my argument, as you said "you are the one with the flaw."
You have since moved away from the original counter to my argument, instead trying to catch me on technicalities such as one flawed argument or by quoting the middle of one of my sentences in a paragraph. This is no way invalidates any of the arguments I originally made, nor does it weaken my stance or make my arguments incorrect.
By saying that I claimed the standard is good. Try reading what you quote.
You're the one whose cherry picking specific sentences from long arguments
The length of the argument is worthless if the premise it is based on is faulty.
and claiming that because I made one example that was poor I am wrong.
I explained how you were wrong.
I never called the standard a good thing because it's standard.
You are claiming that I think that as long as everyone does it I am claiming it is good.
The question of this debate is what is good, not what is standard.
False, the word poor is about what is standard.
I argued what I think is good, and you countered me by saying that it's wrong because it's not what everyone else does.
False, you argued what you think is substandard.
The example I made was poor, and I am very aware of that and apologize.
Thanks.
The example I made ware more of a counter to the idea that "because I am liberal I should vote for a liberal," as there is variation among liberals. However, stating that there is variation among liberals does not go against my original argument.
Just move on dude. You apologized, move on.
What I meant by that statement was that just because someone is a liberal and you are a liberal it doesn't mean you should vote for them. It was a poor response to the question you posed, so I will give a better response below. But it was not hypocritical.
The way you said it was hypocritical. Deal with it and move on. Reword your hypocritical statement, stop calling it not hypocritical.
Well, then why did you counter my original argument?
If you can't tell why I countered your argument then you can't read and telling you again won't help.
I gave my response to LibProlifer saying that what she suggested was not what I believed should happen.
No, you said that what she suggested was not how it works.
You have since moved away from the original counter to my argument,
False. You think I have because you twisted my words.
instead trying to catch me on technicalities such as one flawed argument or by quoting the middle of one of my sentences in a paragraph.
You made one argument and I said it was flawed. What do you want from me? Create fake arguments that you didn't make and point out how they are flawed? Oh, you do like that approach. I was referring to a full sentence by the way.
This is no way invalidates any of the arguments I originally made, nor does it weaken my stance or make my arguments incorrect.
Note: I didn't respond to everything you said only because my responses would be a to of the same stuff repeated over and over.
By saying that I claimed the standard is good. Try reading what you quote.
The reason it appeared that you claimed the standard was good was because when I raised my argument about what I thought was good, you disputed it by saying that it was not the standard.
The length of the argument is worthless if the premise it is based on is faulty.
Except my central argument wasn't based on fallacy. I made one example that was poor, which only renders that example 'worthless.' My central argument is unaffected.
I explained how you were wrong.
Which I countered, leading you to attack the one example I made that you see as hypocrisy, which I then explained in detail.
You are claiming that I think that as long as everyone does it I am claiming it is good.
See my first response.
False, the word poor is about what is standard.
As I pointed out in a previous argument (which you did not respond to) the word poor also means "worse than is desirable." Dealing with the standard is one meaning, but it is not the only.
False, you argued what you think is substandard.
I never stated that my central argument was the standard. Merely that I think more than someone's views should be the criteria for electing a president.
Just move on dude. You apologized, move on.
What I did not apologize for was hypocrisy, which my argument was not. It was a bad response, but not hypocrisy.
The way you said it was hypocritical. Deal with it and move on. Reword your hypocritical statement, stop calling it not hypocritical.
Ok, let's move on. Why did you dispute my original claim? You agree that my argument is what it should be, which is the topic of the debate. So do you still stand by your counters of my argument?
If you can't tell why I countered your argument then you can't read and telling you again won't help.
Well, it seems that you countered my original argument for reasons not relating to the debate at hand. I said: you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs.
You responded by saying: That is the only criteria anyone ever uses.
That was your full response to my claim. This implies that you see the fact what I suggested is not the standard, it is invalid, and should not be used.
However, you now argue that just because something is the standard it isn't necessarily good. So how does your original argument stand? That is why I am confused.
False. You think I have because you twisted my words.
Ok, so correct me instead of simply accusing me. Reaffirm your position in a different way. I think I made it pretty clear why I think that you have moved away from your original argument.
You made one argument and I said it was flawed. What do you want from me? Create fake arguments that you didn't make and point out how they are flawed? Oh, you do like that approach. I was referring to a full sentence by the way.
Well a) throughout a debate, new arguments can be presented. b) You said my argument was flawed, I disagree. So we debate it. It's how a debate works. I would like to know why you think my argument is flawed, because it seems to me that we are in agreement.
Your original response of why my original response is flawed contradicts with the arguments you are making now. You claimed my argument was flawed because the opposite of what I say should be is "That is the only criteria anyone ever uses." Now, you argue that just because something is the standard doesn't mean it's good. Which is it? If you still find flaw in my original argument, what is it?
Your word choice is incorrect.
Um… ok… how so? You can't just say "you're wrong" in a debate or "you made one bad argument." That doesn't invalidate any points being made.
Which word are you discussing? "Poor"? As I explained above, poor does not necessarily imply 'below what is standard,' it can imply 'below what is desirable.'
Or is this a pun? I did use the word 'incorrect.' So I guess my word choice is incorrect.
The reason it appeared that you claimed the standard was good was because when I raised my argument about what I thought was good, you disputed it by saying that it was not the standard.
The reason why it appeared that way to you is because you are twisting my words. The best thing you could have done was directly ask if I believed it was good. Oh wait, you did. You directly asked me "Well, I was asking for clarification. Was my interpretation that 'if everyone does something, it's the right thing to do' correct?"" and I said NO!!!!!!!!. You have no excuse for continuing the line of thinking that I called it good.
Except my central argument wasn't based on fallacy. I made one example that was poor, which only renders that example 'worthless.'
You argued against me claiming that what she did was good. There is no need to respond to the entire argument.
My central argument is unaffected.
Good for you. When did I say otherwise. You complained that I skipped long side arguments.
Which I countered, leading you to attack the one example I made that you see as hypocrisy, which I then explained in detail.
And I countered showing how it is still hypocrisy.
See my first response.
Why? You don't see my responses.
As I pointed out in a previous argument (which you did not respond to) the word poor also means "worse than is desirable." Dealing with the standard is one meaning, but it is not the only.
You don't get to choose what is desirable. The majority of people seem to think that it is the desirable way to do it. So, you are still wrong. Sorry I didn't tell you you were wrong earlier.]
I never stated that my central argument was the standard. Merely that I think more than someone's views should be the criteria for electing a president.
I don't know what you consider your central argument. Your use of the word poor is flawed. Thinking we should strive to be better than we are does not mean that what everyone else does is poor. Your central argument is flawed because you didn't use the word should.
What I did not apologize for was hypocrisy, which my argument was not. It was a bad response, but not hypocrisy.
The statement doesn't represent how you actually think. That is enough for me.
Why did you dispute my original claim?
BECAUSE.
So do you still stand by your counters of my argument?
YES.
Well, it seems that you countered my original argument for reasons not relating to the debate at hand.
Your words did not deal with the debate at hand. That was my objection.
I said: you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs.
Now who is picking and choosing your statements?
That is why I am confused.
No, you are confused because you don't listen.
Ok, so correct me instead of simply accusing me. Reaffirm your position in a different way. I think I made it pretty clear why I think that you have moved away from your original argument.
Just stop twisting my words.
Well a) throughout a debate, new arguments can be presented.
Why should I listen to your new argument when we haven't gotten any closure on your first argument?
b) You said my argument was flawed, I disagree. So we debate it. It's how a debate works. I would like to know why you think my argument is flawed, because it seems to me that we are in agreement.
If you want to know, try reading what I wrote.
Your original response of why my original response is flawed contradicts with the arguments you are making now.
False, go read my arguments.
You claimed my argument was flawed because the opposite of what I say should be is "That is the only criteria anyone ever uses."
I said other things. Try reading those.
Now, you argue that just because something is the standard doesn't mean it's good. Which is it? If you still find flaw in my original argument, what is it?
Your first argument wasn't describing what was good.
Um… ok… how so?
Jesus Christ man, read what I wrote.
You can't just say "you're wrong" in a debate or "you made one bad argument." That doesn't invalidate any points being made.
True. I explained, go back and read.
Which word are you discussing? "Poor"? As I explained above, poor does not necessarily imply 'below what is standard,' it can imply 'below what is desirable.'
Nobody denied it was your right. That said, something being your right does not make it a good decision. It is my right to smoke; this doesn't mean it's a logical thing to do.
Considering how "good" is subjective, that means that he does indeed get to decide what he believes to be good or bad when it comes to your vote. As previous posters have mentioned, your only stated reason for voting Hillary is not, as many of us have said, "good". You might think it is a good reason, but, we have a "right to our opinion", as you have said.
Then explain how your response was relevant. Your responses are entirely disconnected from what you are responding to, so I see no proof that you are reading my posts.
1. Nobody said you don't have the right to vote for whoever you want.
2. He didn't tell you who to vote for, he stated his opinions on your reasons for voting the way you were going to.
3. Everyone has the right to their opinions, as you say over and over on this website. Why is it that when someone says an opinion that you disagree with, suddenly they don't have a right to their opinion?
It seems, yet again, like you didn't actually read what he said.
3. People have the right to their opinions, but they do not have the right to force them on others. How to vote is a personal choice thas that everyone has the right to make on their own.
1. You did not read my comment, so why should I read yours? 2. He was telling me how to vote when he said that me voting for a liberal is not a good idea.
What basis do you have for saying that I did not read your comment, particularly when I replied to it directly and in its entirety?
Edit: Additionally, he was saying your justification was not a good idea, which 1. Wasn't telling you how to vote, and 2. Wasn't forcing you to do anything.
1. You did not read my comment, so why should I read yours? 2. He was telling me how to vote when he said that me voting for a liberal is not a good idea.
I addressed your claim that he was telling you how to vote multiple times, and not once did you respond to my explanation of it. That seems rather hypocritical, considering how you just accused me of not reading your comment. If I responded to that claim of yours, how can you claim I did not read it?
Again, he was telling you that your reasons for voting for Hillary were not good opinions. That is not telling you how to vote, and it is not telling you that voting for a liberal is a good idea. It also isn't forcing his opinions on you, like you have claimed.
1) He very clearly did read your comment, as he addressed every point you made, something you have (consistantly) failed to do.
2) I never told you how to vote. I never said that you voting for a liberal is not a good idea. This is a perfect example of you appearing to not read what we people are saying to you. My exact words were: "you should support someone for more than just the fact that they share some of your beliefs." That means that you should not vote for someone just because they are a liberal. You should vote for them because they are a liberal and you think they would make a good president.
I predict your response: "Fact: I read your entire post. ." If you truly read the entire thing, then respond to everything I said. Because otherwise I have no reason to believe you.
Just because it's your right do do that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. And of course you should vote for someone who shares your beliefs. But by your logic, there is no way to choose Hillary from all the other liberal candidates.
I already addressed this point. (This is why we think you don't read what we say. Or least, why we accuse you of not responding to what we say, which is how a debate should work.)
I'm not telling you how to vote. All I was saying was that picking a good president isn't just picking the beliefs you agree with. Other factors, like how good or inept a president they would be, are important.
If you don't want anyone telling you how to vote, stay out of politics.
Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean what you are doing is correct.
Also, if you want to keep things your personal business, don't post about things that are your "personal business" to a debate site.
Why do you keep bringing up non existent candidates? If Dana is forced to choose between a liberal or conservative she will pick a liberal. Since the only candidates right now are the liberal Hillary and conservatives her logic is fine.
Bernie Sanders is so far off the radar that even with you telling me that he is a candidate it took me an hour to find when he actually made the announcement. This debate makes no mention of other liberal candidates, so it isn't really fair to hold that against her.
Yeah, that's fine. I was merely pointing out that someone's beliefs is not the only factor that goes into whether or not you should support someone. Wasn't meant to be a major attack, was just pointing out that it was an oversimplification.
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
"(We) .....can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
"We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground."
"I certainly think the free-market has failed."
"I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
Absolutely not. Hillary has already promised to increase the federal government's giveaway programs by giving free community collage tuition everyone. She is committed to actions that will continue to put us further into debt. She has a history of repeated lying to cover her mistakes and her power hungry schemes. Liberal ideology is at the core of her political beliefs. As such she is not the leader we need.
There is zero difference between the Ds and Rs. The cabal that controls America already knows who their next president is. The vote thang is only a tool they use to keep the flocks of dreeple mutant American people docile and pacified and distracted.
Why do over 300 million people allow just a few hundred to enslave them and steal from them?
There is zero difference between the Ds and Rs. The cabal that controls America already knows who their next president is. The vote thang is only a tool they use to keep the flocks of dreeple mutant American people docile and pacified and distracted.
Why do over 300 million people allow just a few hundred to enslave them and steal from them?
its the programming. the dreeple can't be bothered thinking for themselves. voting doesn't work,voting does nothing but keep an illusion of participation in the selection process. no one seems to note or care that once the scum get into office they do waht they choose and ignore the will of the people.
Yes, I know what socialism is. You, however, do not. Neither Hillary, nor any liberal (hint: if they are liberal then they are not socialist) believe in the key aspects of socialism.
Liberal and socialist are just labels, she may call herself a liberal, but shares many ideas with socialism, maybe not all, but many. She can implement socialist ideas and still call herself a liberal.
No, they are ideologies, and they are mutually exclusive.
she may call herself a liberal, but shares many ideas with socialism
Then list which ones specifically.
She can implement socialist ideas and still call herself a liberal.
If she believes in socialist ideas, she isn't a liberal. Regardless, you haven't yet provided evidence, you have just made claims. List which ideas specific to socialism that she believes in.
Because she says or is labelled as a liberal doesn't make her one. It's what her ideology is, not what she or others label her as. I only have a whole arsenal of socialist quotes by Hillary Clinton, but here are only a few.
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
"(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
You should research quotes before you start throwing them around.
""Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Strike one.
"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society.
Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed."
Strike two.
"We can set the vision. We can even work to articulate the goal. But the pathway is extraordinarily complicated because of how we live today and how we think of ourselves in relation to our fellow citizens.
Take health care. I think we could get almost unanimous agreement that having more than 45 million uninsured people, nine million of whom are children, is a moral wrong in America. And I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact.
So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground.
The same with energy — you know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on.
And that means something has to be taken away from some people."
Strike three, yoooooooooou're outta here!
Edit: Oh, and if I were you, I wouldn't ever trust the source you got those from again. If you want legitimate, honest information, that is.
Ummmm... you just helped me establish that Hillary supports socialist perspectives. I only took parts of the quotes, but even in the entire context, they still maintain my previous assertion.
Don't worry, I did all of the research I could on these, I knew their context ;)
Saying "We are going to take away tax cuts for the sake of society" is not socialist in any way, shape, or form.
Saying "there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets" is the exact OPPOSITE of socialism.
And saying "We need to use taxpayer money for social programs" is not socialist. In fact, it is a concept the originated with Classical Conservatism. In none of those quotes did she espouse any of the fundamental concepts of Socialism.
First of all, doing ANYTHING for the sake of society, that takes from someone is a form of some type of socialism. And taking tax cuts is one of the most basic things a socialist would do, being if it was "for the people".
Next, she says she promotes the free market, but she also says it needs to have restrictions and needs to be watched, so that everyone would get an equal chance. That usually takes the form of promoting some people at the expense of handicapping others.
And lastly, doing anything at the expense of someone "for the people", like I already said, is socialism.
First of all, doing ANYTHING for the sake of society, that takes from someone is a form of some type of socialism.
That makes absolutely no sense. You have created your own definition of socialism so reduced and vague that it applies to absolutely every single economic system and society in the history of humanity.
And taking tax cuts is one of the most basic things a socialist would do, being if it was "for the people".
Complete nonsense! Just because someone does something "for the people" does not make it socialist. By that logic, every ideology that believes it is best for society is socialist. That would make every Republican a Socialist as well.
Next, she says she promotes the free market, but she also says it needs to have restrictions and needs to be watched, so that everyone would get an equal chance. That usually takes the form of promoting some people at the expense of handicapping others.
The fact that she believes the market exists proves that she isn't a socialist, as Socialism is antithetical to capitalism and therefore markets, be they free or regulated.
And lastly, doing anything at the expense of someone "for the people", like I already said, is socialism.
Again, not it isn't, unless you believe everything is socialism.
Do you even have a working definition of socialism that you are basing this on? Or is it more of a "gut feeling" kind of thing?
Obviously, you seem to have no idea what socialism is, as my family comes from socialist countries, I know what it is quite well. But since you know, please enlighten me.
I have already given you numerous sources defining and outlining socialism, and you have clearly brushed them aside. So I will ask you again: Do you have any definition of socialism that you are basing your comments off of, or no?
"There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[6] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism."
I analyze what my opponent says carefully, I don't just blindly spew out my feeelings
Socialism can't be clearly defined, as I've said Hillary has many socialist stances, although maybe not a pure form, but at least some form. I'm not familiar with all of the hundreds of political terms for socialism and its variants, degrees and blends, but I can at least call it where I do see some of it. There is basically no government on earth without at least some degree of socialism. I don't agree with it, I don't think that things should be taken from someone and given to another, but I do believe it's the responsibility of everyone to help each other out.
Socialism can't be clearly defined, as I've said Hillary has many socialist stances,
Without a definition that you are referring to, that statement really has no value, as it can mean anyhting.
although maybe not a pure form, but at least some form.
Yes, in the same way that every politician in this country has some socialist stances in "some form".
I'm not familiar with all of the hundreds of political terms for socialism and its variants, degrees and blends, but I can at least call it where I do see some of it.
Which, again, means nothing if you do not have a definition that you are basing said observations on.
There is basically no government on earth without at least some degree of socialism.
Then what value is there in pointing out that Hillary has some "socialist stances" if, in essence, everyone does?
I don't think that things should be taken from someone and given to another, but I do believe it's the responsibility of everyone to help each other out.
Where do you stand on Social Contract Theory, then?
When I say can't be clearly defined, I mean it's just a very broad idea, that can be further specified into more ideas, like communism and nazism. And everyone has socialist stances, which aren't good but Hillary has many, and many that are in a purer form that, let's say, a more right-wing person would have.
Can a liberal, while not believing in the key aspects of socialism, still adopt similar means, worldviews, or goals? If so, what key aspects make the modern liberal ideology mutually exclusive from socialism? If not, which ideology fits best with socialized X?
A liberal can indeed believe in some ideas that come from socialism, but not the main tenants of socialism itself. For example, if one believes in the public ownership of the means of production, then that person is not liberal.
That is nonsense. I do not support Obama, nor do I support Hillary, but one does not devote their life to politics and public service if they have no interest in America.
Please, look at Obama's history and the amount of time he has devoted to public service, and how little money he has to show for it.
Again, I loathe Obama as a politician, I really, really do. But it is ridiculous to let political disagreements lead one to make such ridiculous claims.
Now Hillary I'm willing to concede is just a career politician. I am 100% positive she has "interest in America", but she is definitely a career politician.
Obama's interest in America is centered on dragging down our power in the world. He is an anti-colonialist like his father. He is completely driven by his ideology.
-
Clinton is not driven by an ideology. She is motivated by simple greed. She wants for herself, to be rich, powerful and respected. Her interests for America are there, but they are secondary.
Obama's interest in America is centered on dragging down our power in the world. He is an anti-colonialist like his father. He is completely driven by his ideology.
Then how do you justify all of the actions he makes that have absolutely no impact on our global power?
Clinton is not driven by an ideology. She is motivated by simple greed. She wants for herself, to be rich, powerful and respected. Her interests for America are there, but they are secondary.
"Absolutely. It's called a career. And it's about oneself. Power➝Money➝Power"
Then I disagree, and you respond with:
"Hillary and Obama of course "have an interest" in America. As a source of their income."
That is repeating yourself and ignoring the response that was made to you. And before you try to claim some "nuanced" excuse, the desire to make money from one's country is a form of power, which means in your second post, you were indeed saying that their interest in the United States was money and power, just like you did in the former post.
She has show no desire to stop the out of control spending that is quickly sinking this country. that being said. It would all be pointless if republicans would just get out and vote. we still lead this country 2 to 1 over dems. and if we all got off our butts and voted, republicans would never lose an election.
That isn't even remotely true. Of the three affiliations (Democrat, Republican and Independent), Republicans are the smallest at 25% (with Democrats at 31%).
No, she only wanted to carry around one device at a time - having a series of devices, or having an ipad that she didn't carry around doesn't make what she said a lie.
