Ramshutu's Debates: [clear]
All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
Winning Position: Sock puppet troll accounts damage debate and discussion sites
15
Sock puppet troll accounts damage debate and discussion sites
It's clear that we have one person controlling at least 4 different accounts.While having sock puppet accounts is somewhat dishonest, it is the trolling aspect: the inability to engage or defend their argument that presents an issue.Having someone right wing to spa with would be excellent; however trolls that simply spam debates and messages without defending or debating undermine the credibility of debate sites, and the continual dishonest spam erodes the possibility of new membership.The problem is the inevitable issue of free speech: should you give people the ability to undermine free speech with their own speech in this way? Where is the line? How do you enforce this?As most importantly, is this type of speech so new that the concept of free speech hasn't had time to catch up and be updated with this propagandizing in mind?This is a discussion: and the troll accounts know who they are and will be instantly banned if they don't act like adults, or post with more the one of their accounts.
Winning Position: Is there something physically wrong with Trump?
21
Is there something physically wrong with Trump?
In light of the sad news about John McCain, I wanted to look back a few months to a senate hearing in which McCain asked the question:"I think that the American people have a whole lot of questions out
there, particularly since you just emphasized the role that Russia
played. And obviously, [Clinton] was a candidate for president at the
time. So she was clearly involved in this whole situation where fake
news, as you just described it, "big deal," took place. You're going to
have to help me out here. In other words, we're complete—the
investigation of anything that former Secretary Clinton had to do with a
campaign is over and we don't have to worry about it anymore?"At the time, everyone mocked McCain a little for making no sense, and asking a non-nonsensical question. Now, it raises the question of whether this was a symptom of an underlying health condition.It has been shown previously that the speech patterns of Reagan (who later died of Alzheimer's) had deteriorated over his presidency (showing indications of dementia before diagnosis) :http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11506047/Ronald-Reagans-speeches-showed-the-beginnings-of-Alzheimers-before-diagnosis.htmlIt's also clear to anyone who has seen Trump speak on any of the talk shows he appeared on in the 90's and 2000's (and those that have performed studies) that Trump used to speak with a much larger vocabularly, and eloquently (obviously with similar speech patterns):Lets not forget: "You know what uranium is, right? This thing called nuclear weapons like
lots of things are done with uranium including some bad things."http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-speaking-style-brain-health-questions-mental-research-a7756946.htmlCould there be something physically wrong with Trump? Should the President be taking mental acuity tests? Just in case? After all, how dangerous would it be if Trump was in the throws of some mental deterioration; especially with few people around him that can tell him to stop?
Winning Position: Soon! It will happen!
6
It was never going to happen
Trump assumed the Presidency on the back of innumerable claims of what he would do, when he would do it. Not least of which was that people would get "tired of winning".Trump's legislative agenda has involved neither setting tone, nor policy detail and letting the same Republicans he railed against during the campaign set their own agenda and write their own laws with little of his involvement, culminating in a thus far spectacular failure of a healthcare bill; which is wildly unpopularHe has reversed on several key positions, and has ceased significantly pushing on others: seeming to simply be driven by achieving a "victory" where a victory is not doing what he said, but doing anything of note, which is odd considering he billed himself as the ultimate dealmaker.He is taking credit for the economy left to him by Obama and remains unchanged due to no substantive economic policy or law changes; and has shirked responsibility when things go wrong, in military actions, legislative agenda, government and now absolved himself of responsibility of blame for any collapse to the US healthcare system under his watch.So, given that he's had 6 months, for which he has nothing substantial to show other than a supreme court nominee, and a half implemented executive order that runs out in a few months. He's emboldening US enemies, and appears to be reducing the willingness of European allies to work with the U.S. On top of this; many of his actions have been naive or even stupid; including actions that any one could tell would end up undermining his own position such as the firing of James Comey.So the question is:When will the U.S. "start winning" as boasted by Trump during the campaign?
Winning Position: Unresolved
In his confirmation hearing, Jeff Session said, under oath that he hadn't any communication with the Russians.This turned out not to be correctHe corrected his testimony, and said, again under oath, that he was talking about as a member of his campaign, not as a senator.Ignoring that no other members of the committee had these sort of meetings, and that he didn't use senate funds; this through enough doubt on perjury to let it lie.Now, it seems that there is evidence that he did talk about the Campaign; based on intercepts of the ambassador referring to things he talked about in the meeting. This basically blows his primary defense out of the water. And, like so many other examples; he appears to have been caught lying, and then caughing lying in his defense about his lying.However, referring to his senate testimony in June he said:"Let me state this clearly: I have never met with or had any
conversations with any Russians or any foreign officials concerning **any
type of interference with any campaign or election**"Even though the context and nature of what and how he was talking about made it clear he was misleading the committee, do you think that the language bolded will give Sessions an "out" :IE: will he say "I talked about the campaign, but not INTERFERENCE"?