No, you didn’t badmouth *Kerry’*s ideas, you badmouthed mine. :rolleyes:
It so damn easy to say “hey your idea/plan stinks” but much harder to come up with ones own plan or idea and defend that.
I came up with an excellent choice for the Democratic candidate. You have not. (“You” in this case being the second person plural pronoun, which includes you, personally, Excalibreas well as others)
However, my posts are not addressed soley to you- personally. Sure, some of them are replies to your posts, but other dudes have been in this discussion, also. So the “you” ("You is the second person plural pronoun in English. In standard English, it serves as the second person singular pronoun as well. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You " Note that the first definition of “you” is PLURAL pronoun, so it’s not always about “you” singular.
was indeed directed to “you” but *also * ScoobyTX, Lemur866 , etc. who have also critizied the idea of Kerry II without a better suggestion of their own. Sometimes, Excalibre, every word I post isn’t about just you.
And, indeed, it seems that is exactly what “we” are arguing about. If it’s *stupid, * then we have company.
What in God’s name are you talking about? I didn’t “badmouth your ideas”. I disagreed, and came up with an argument supported by fact for doing so. Did you miss the name of the forum? It’s called “Great Debates.” News flash: sometimes people disagree with each other here!
I argued that Kerry was not a good candidate for 2008. You have not come up with any response to my argument. Therefore, by any reasonable standard, I win. You seem to think that if I disagree with your mistaken assertion that Kerry is a good candidate, that I’m somehow required to come up with another candidate. That’s a bizarre train of thought and there is nothing in the rules of debate or rhetoric that requires that.
What you’re trying to do is back out of an argument by making up your own new set of rules under which I lose the argument. I don’t know why you think you get to do that. I’m noticing a pattern of you deciding to evade arguments by attacking others personally. I thought this thread was a conversation about politics but you decided to invent some stupid personal argument with me. I’m not sure why. You have not successfully argued that Kerry campaigned well in 2004. You have advanced no argument for why he would make a good candidate in 2008. You’ve invented imaginary debate rules under which you don’t have to actually, you know, make an argument to support your point. And now you expect me to follow them? Sorry, kid. Nope. If you can’t handle what was a fairly low-key discussion of politics, then go off and hang out somewhere else. The rest of us would like to talk about the original topic.
So are you now blaming me for your incompetence at expressing yourself? If your posts were confusing, it’s your fault. It’s not my responsibility to write them for you.
Again with the new forms of logic. You advance a stupid argument, I respond to it, therefore I’m stupid? That doesn’t make any sense at all.
So if I dismiss Kerry as an imcompetant who couldn’t beat George Bush, I’m required to come up with a better candidate?
Now, full disclosure that I’m a libertarian conservative, and usually choose to pull the lever for Republicans, although I voted Kerry over Bush, on the theory that how could Kerry screw up Iraq worse?
So, who’s my pick for Democratic nominee? First, no Senators. They all either voted for the war, or voted against the war, or voted for the patriot act, or voted against the patriot act, or voted for Alito or voted against Alito. All these Senators are going to be crushed during the primary as being either Bush-enablers or Osama-lovers. Wait, not either, both. Lose-lose, no matter what your voting record.
So we need a Governor. Southern/Mid-Western. Moderate. Goes to church. One who won’t base his whole campaign on the fact that he served in Vietnam, but his Vietnam-era record isn’t going to have any skeletons either.
Janet Napolitano Arizona
Rod R. Blagojevich Illinois
Kathleen Sebelius Kansas
Kathleen Babineaux Blanco Louisiana
Jennifer M. Granholm Michigan
Brian Schweitzer Montana
William B. Richardson New Mexico
Michael F. Easley North Carolina
Brad Henry Oklahoma
Edward G. Rendell Pennsylvania
Philip N. Bredesen Tennessee
Tim Kaine Virginia
Joe Manchin West Virginia
James E. Doyle Wisconsin
David D. Freudenthal Wyoming
And Mark Warner, and Evan Bayh, former governors to the list.
I don’t know enough about some of these people to definately scratch any of them off the list. Probably Tim Kaine is off, since he was just elected governor as Warner’s protogee. Others familiar with particular governors could chime in and scratch others.
But my bold, bold, bold prediction is that the next Democratic presidential nominee will be someone on the list above.
I think it’s safe to say that Kathleen Blanco is not running. And our own Jennifer Granholm is originally Canadian, so she’s constitutionally ineligible.
Man, if the Pubs want you Dems to run Hillary, they are probably wetting themselves in hopeful anticipation over the prospect of you guys running Kerry again! The only thing better (from their perspective) is if you have a Hillary/Kerry (or Kerry/Hillary) ticket…that would be two, two! TWO!! mints in one!
Seriously, get a grip…run someone who can WIN this time, ehe? I’m thinking we may need to have a Dem in the WH for a time…but it ain’t gona happen if you keep serving up the same ole same ole.
Oh, and I scratched Tom Vilsack off the list, for the obvious reason of the mockability of the name “Vilsack”. YMMV, he was on Kerry’s VP shortlist, but I just don’t think we’re ready for a Vilsack in the White House.
None of those have run for President before. Thus, none have been thust into the Presidential campaign super limelight. Thereby, if the Dems select one of those likely very fine candidates, one of two things will happen- an “Eagleton” or a “Swiftboat”. The Dem’s can only prevent this with running someone who has run on a Presidential ticket before.
So you’re saying that the Republican spin machine is so powerful that the Democrats might as well not even bother to run a candidate.
An unknown national candidate can potentially be smeared, but a candidate who has already lost is indelibly smeared as a loser. Loser! Loser! American loves a winner and cannot stand a loser! The only person in the modern era to come back from this disgrace is Nixon. You want to put another Nixon in the White House?
I’m fed up with the talk about how no Democrat can possibly win against Karl Rove’s evil genius. Are Democrats really that pathetic?
Thank you. This is exactly what I’ve been saying. I hate this defeatist notion that Democrats lose because of Republican trickery. That means the only hope we have of winning an election is for the Republicans to run a clean campaign. We might as well give up entirely if that’s what we’re waiting for.
Yes, exactly, it’s is called "Great Debates’, and a debate usually consists of both sides stating their arguments, not just one side stating his and the other rebutting it. And, you are right, we do disagree with others around here, and just because I disagree- even if I personally disagree with your posts- that doesn’t make it a “personal attack”. A “personal attack” is where I attack *you, * personally, as opposed to attacking your posts/arguments.
Indeed I have come up with at least two good reasons as to why Kerry would be the best. Read my posts. You ignored those, and that’s not against the rules, but you can’t come back with “You have not come up with any response to my argument. Therefore, by any reasonable standard, I win.”
You are not “required to” come up with a good name. I asked you (and others) to do so. Coming up with a better alternative is not required, of course, but not *being able to * seems to weaken anyones argument- at least IMHO.
Again “just because I disagree- even if I personally disagree with your posts- that doesn’t make it a “personal attack”. A “personal attack” is where I attack *you, * personally, as opposed to attacking your posts/arguments.”
Again, I did- I said he almost beat Bush, and that his closted has been completly checked for “skeletons” and that he is IMHO now immune to “swifboating”. Those are excellent reasons why he is a better choice now than in the last election. Nor have I “invented imaginary rules”- if you choose not to respond with your better alternative is not required by me or anyone else. I - however- have every right to repeatedly point out that you have failed to do so.
As to my expressing myself- well, I posted a cite and link which supports my use of the English language.
Oh, you’ve spouted the “moderate southern governor” meme many times, I believe even before then.
I’ll go ahead and take Rod R. Blagojevich, Illinois, off the list. Illinois is midwestern, but is pretty solidly blue because of Chicago and a self-destruction of the Republican party here. He wouldn’t change any red states blue except maybe Iowa.
Have you ever even seen a formal debate? Because that’s not even remotely how a formal debate works. If you want to argue that way, then what you’re doing is taking the affirmative side. “Resolved: John Kerry should be the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate in 2008.” Your responsibility is to prove that it’s true - you carry the burden of proof under formal debate, and you have to find evidence to support your point. As the negative side, I don’t carry the burden of proving my side. If you fail to prove your point, I win.
That’s if you want a formal debate. Either way, what you’ve done here is claimed victory because I haven’t come up with another candidate. Well, like I said, you don’t get to change the rules like that. That doesn’t even make sense. The question under discussion was whether Kerry is a viable candidate in 2008. As I’ve pointed out before, I argued that he was not, and you have not managed to refute my argument. Therefore, I win. At least if this were an actual debate.
If I missed something in your flurry of posts falsely claiming victory, my apologies. We would be having a much more interesting conversation now if you were willing to discuss the issues in question instead of launching completely nonsensical arguments about the burden of proof in debate.
And yes, you’ve been personally attacking me. Instead of responding to my actual points - the arguments I gave above regarding Kerry’s poor performance in 2004 - you decided to throw this ridiculous tantrum bitching at me for not having come up with another candidate. Even though I already pointed out - and, once again, you were unable to argue the point - that it’s incredibly premature for me to back a particular candidate.
You seem to have decided to secretly change the goalposts all of a sudden: rather than discussing the potential candidacy of Hillary Clinton or John Kerry, you want to start some sort of fantasy primary election or something whereby each of us backs one candidate. At least, that’s the best sense I can make out of your inane ramblings.
You don’t have even the most rudimentary understanding of the rules of formal debate, so I suggest you not appeal to them again. This weird little principle that you invented here - namely, that if I disagree with you on something, it’s somehow my responsibility to offer a completely different idea to counter it - does not exist anywhere outside of your own head. And there is certainly nothing resembling it whatsoever in actual debate.
Your little opinion is wrong. Sorry. That’s simply not how debate works. It doesn’t even make sense, as the idea of debate is to discuss one idea; conflating two at the same time (like, say, propositions that two different politicians should be the next Democratic presidential candidate) makes no sense whatsoever. Since there’s no prominent Democrats who’ve even publicly discussed running yet, it would be idle speculation anyway.
Ignoring my points entirely in order to throw this little temper tantrum about my style of argument is assuredly a personal attack. You claimed victory in this debate not because you successfully made or defended any arguments (since you haven’t even tried to defend your ridiculous point in the first place) but because you think I lack credibility for not having brought up some unrelated matter to talk about.
May I point out that you’re the one who construed disagreement as a “personal attack”? When I disagreed with your very poor argument that Kerry is the Democrats’ best hope in 2008, you characterized it as “badmouthing other people’s [i.e. yours] ideas.” You don’t seem to be able to deal with people disagreeing with you at all. I suggest, once again, that given your problem, you stay away from Great Debates.
Except there is no reason for me to name an alternate Democratic candidate yet. The idea that I need to come up with an alternative idea just because I argued some point you made is ridiculous. That is an imaginary rule. That’s not how debate works. Feel free to try to prove me wrong, but you will fail, because this is a factual question about the workings of debate, and I am right.
What the hell are you even talking about? You appeared to be addressing me. Apparently you weren’t. You appeared to be doing so because you spoke badly. Once again, your failings are not my fault. Obviously the second person pronoun doesn’t change for singular and plural in English. Congratulations. You have thus demonstrated that you have the linguistic skills of a five-year-old. That’s why, when you use it, it is incumbent upon you to make it clear who you’re referring to. Actually, that applies to third person pronouns and the first person plural as well. Those things come naturally to most of us. Perhaps you need a remedial composition class.
Oh, hell. What the hell is wrong with me that I’m even bothering to discuss this? DrDeth, you have failed to support your argument that Kerry would be a good candidate in 2008. You have failed to support your argument that Kerry campaigned well in 2004. You attempted to distract the rest of us from your failures by inventing a new rule of rhetoric, one that does not exist elsewhere.
It is clearly impossible to discuss this issue with you. I will not waste any further time on you.
The contention that since Kerry has already been smeared he’s threfore unsmearable is false.
I just did it above. Loooooooser! Loooooooser! Kerry’s a Lah-hooo-saaaa-herrrrrr!
See? Kerry’s voted on issues since 2004, he’s made public statements, Teresa will make public statements, he’ll make gaffes, he’ll have people take pictures of him while his mouth is open or his hair is uncombed.
He’s just as smearable as any other candidate. And the 2004 smears don’t just go away because now it’s 2008. You think many people who voted against Kerry because of his Vietnam record are going to change their mind in 2008? It wasn’t all just lies, you know.
Fact is, everyone has an unlimited amount of dirt that can be dug up against them. Everyone has an unlimited ability to be lied about and smeared. There’s no such thing as a smear-proof candidate. Remember how Kerry kept emphasizing his Vietnam record, because he was sure that it would immunize him against Republican smears? How did that work out? It HELPED the Republicans because it shifted the debate to what Kerry did or didn’t do in Vietnam, rather than Bush’s less than stellar presidential record.
Looking for a smear-proof candidate is futile and stupid. The Republicans surely don’t adopt that strategy. And the answer isn’t that Democrats are so virtuous that they would never stoop to smearing their opponents, see, Democrats are just too nice! That’s foolishness.
