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.
Will Trump be reelected november 3rd?
This debate is not about your personal opinions on Trump, whether you will or would vote for him or not. Do you believe he will be elected, and why/why not?
I think we live in a time where people respond to radical ideas. I don't think moderate profiles like Biden will be elected again in the foreseeable futures. Bernie was radical, Elizabeth was radical, but the democratic party went the moderate way - which is fine, but it's also boring, and it's not revolutionary. Biden will in my opinion not be able to create a momentum around him that got Trump elected, and got Obama elected.
I think we live in a time where people respond to radical ideas. I don't think moderate profiles like Biden will be elected again in the foreseeable futures. Bernie was radical, Elizabeth was radical, but the democratic party went the moderate way - which is fine, but it's also boring, and it's not revolutionary. Biden will in my opinion not be able to create a momentum around him that got Trump elected, and got Obama elected.
I hope and pray you are wrong but it is difficult to fault your logic. Fascism usually occurs after periods of economic hardship and it has been no different this time. It's just a pity Americans were too stupid to read the history of this disease before embracing it with open arms.
I think we live in a time where people respond to radical ideas. I don't think moderate profiles like Biden will be elected again in the foreseeable futures. Bernie was radical, Elizabeth was radical, but the democratic party went the moderate way
Except that's not really true, if that was the case Bernie would have won the nomination. Instead he did even worse than he did in 2016. If anything we live in a time where people respond negatively to the idea of Hillary as president.
Except that's not really true, if that was the case Bernie would have won the nomination.
What you are saying isn't true. It is not true that Bernie not winning the nomination evidences that people do not respond to radical ideas. The very fact that a progressive socialist won so many votes in the first place debunks you. Ten years ago nobody could even have imagined a progressive socialist being on a mainstream ticket.
And the very fact that a progressive socialist did so much worse in the 2020 primary compared to the 2016 one rebunks it.
No it doesn't you utterly laughable fraud. The US political system began in 1776, and to date the ONLY primary in which socialists have done better than 2020 is 2016. You are literally ignoring 200 years of politics and pretending the US political system began in 2016.
Piss off Bronto. You couldn't lie straight in bed you fraud.
Yet they don't bother to show up and vote for the radicals.
They voted a fascist in as president and almost voted a socialist in as the Democratic nominee both in 2016 and in 2020. I'd say that constitutes showing up and voting for the radicals. I'd also say you're an idiot.
In 2016 maybe. Nowhere close to voting in a socialist in 2020.
I've already explained your fallacy, troll. The American political system did not begin in 2016, so pretending that nobody has radical views simply because socialists performed better in 2016 than in 2020 is stupid to the point that it is actually retarded.
How come? If the general publics perspective is becoming more radical then why wouldn't those same radicals show up in the primary to ensure their radical candidate gets nominated?
With those elections you only see how a very small percentage of the population votes. The people that actually vote in these elections most likely have the common interest, which is politics. On top of that we see an overrepresentation of elderly votes in primary elections, compared with the presidential election. These two factors make them a more homogenous group than the general public. If that group is more homogenous than the rest of the public, then it is not an adequate generalization.
I would say that I definitely agree with burritolunch when he says, that the fact that the democratic socialistic ideology is having a moment right now is a sign of people wanting to see radical change, and demanding more radical candidates.
Socieities don't change overnight, they don't even change from presidency to presidency that much. You could argue, that the political roots that have contributed to the socialist welfare system in Denmark we know today started all the way back in the early 1700s. So just because the democratic party doesn't have a radical nominee doesn't the radical movement of todays society isn't real.
That's not what my claim was. I said people respond to radical ideas. That doesn't mean that people actually WANT radical policies, it means that's what grabs their attention, and is therefore what they vote for. Because many voters have not done much research prior to voting, and their decision therefore depends on gut feelings or influences from other people.
That's not what my claim was. I said people respond to radical ideas.
Yup. This is ultimately why Bronto doesn't belong here. He won't argue with what you wrote. He'll change it to something of his choosing, and then he'll attack it while pretending that was your argument. The classic straw man fallacy.
How come? If the general publics perspective is becoming more radical then why wouldn't those same radicals show up in the primary to ensure their radical candidate gets nominated?
Are you stupid or something? In 1906 there was no socialism anywhere in the United States. In the last four years it has attracted millions of votes.
In a poll on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, more than 40% of likely Democratic caucus attendees said they were socialists. In a Boston Globe poll on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, 31% of New Hampshire Democratic voters called themselves socialists; among voters under 35, just over half did. And in late February, a Bloomberg poll of likely voters in the Democratic primary in South Carolina – South Carolina! – showed that 39�scribed themselves as socialists.
He'll be "installed" by his cronies, by "rigging the election", (voter suppression, post office mail interference, supporting propaganda from his Russian friend, armed or intimidating ""voting security" at the polls, "disappearing" votes or "disqualified" votes by his simpathizers). In other words an authoritarian election like those "meaner and nastier" guys he gets along with so well.
It's your choice people, I'll vote against this rape of democracy. If Trump wins, it's YOUR fault. Live with it .... if you can. (But you WILL lose your guns. Authoritarians don't like people who may shoot at them because they demand ... well .... authority).
Sure hope not but then I didn't think he would be elected to begin with so hell if I know. I wish I could find it amusing in how many people still worship him when they would have been climbing the White House walls to get to Obama if he'd done half the things Trump has done.
Doubtful, he doesn't have the not Hillary vote like he did in 2016 while Biden is going to have a strong not Trump vote. Well, at least that would likely be the case assuming no voting interference happens.
I mean, it's not like we didn't realize he was a disaster beforehand :p
You'd be surprised at the stupidity of some people. No doubt many people voted for Trump for plenty of dumb reasons such as "He's not a politician so he'll be different".
ANTIFA's political wing, The Democrats, are promoting the spectre of the inevitability of the violent reaction by the loony leftists and the terrorist organization, O.B.L.M., should President Trump be re-elected for a 2nd term.
Through their refusal to accept the democratic result of the 2016 election and their support for, and indeed orchestration of, violent and deadly demonstrations the Democrats and their loony leftist accomplices have successfully erased democracy from the American political scene.
DEMOCRAT MOB RULE AND THEIR WELL ORGANIZED VIOLENT COUNTER-DEMONSTRATIONS BY ANTIFA AND THE HEAVILY ARMED TERRORIST GROUP, O.B.L.M., HAVE REPLACED THE ''OLD FASHIONED'' ELECTIONEERING CAMPAIGNS OF YESTERYEAR.
A VOTE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A VOTE FOR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY AND A REFUSAL TO BE INTIMIDATED BY THE DEMOCRAT'S THREAT OF DEATH, VIOLENCE AND DESTRUCTION BY THEIR SPONSPORED TERRORIST MOBS.
A VOTE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP IS A VOTE FOR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY
No, it's a vote for a prolific liar who openly admits he won't accept the result of the election if he loses. In which universe does the word "democracy" mean attempting to retain power after losing an election?
Oh, that's right. Your universe. The universe of the imbecile.
