Kamala Harris as Biden's Running Mate is Dumb - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the best online debate website. We're the only online debate website with Casual, "Persuade Me," Formalish, Traditional Formal, and Lincoln-Douglas online debate formats. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is a leading online debate website and is utilizing Artificial Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Kamala Harris as Biden's Running Mate is Dumb
in Politics

By JustAnAllMightFanJustAnAllMightFan 267 Pts edited July 30
Change my mind
SkepticalOne



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
44%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • @JustAnAllMightFan. Not when identity politics is your main goal.  Biden vowed to choose a minority woman, throwing potential merit out the window and pandering to those who mainly care about race and sex (the left).
    liberalwithmorals
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    Modern democrats, including Harris, have become supporters of very bad leftist, atheist, far ledt anti-American policies and agendas.
    liberalwithmorals
  • edited July 30
    @MichaelElpers
    Identity politics when used in the right way is helpful. Identity politics when used in the way the DNC pushes them, is aggravating.
    Their goal of "unity" which was a method to unite the liberal and progressive wings of the democratic party will pretty much be a failure if they go with a Biden Harris ticket. I disagree that they are using her to pander to the left. They're mainly using it to pander further to the establishment democrat sector which is economically and policy wise pretty right wing. In fact if you were to take Kamala's voting record and place it on an ideological scale, she'd be center right. So I doubt that they were using her to appeal to the progressive wing (which is the only sector of America that is slightly left of center) because policy-wise we are basically ideological opposites. Also let's not pretend that Democrats use identity politics anymore than the GOP. As I stated before, the GOP used an entire campaign of identity politics to switch an entire geographical region to red. The whole Trump campaign was pandering to the white working class. I'm not going to pretend that one party plays the game more than the other.
    But besides that, I agree with you. If the democrats choose to pander around black women in order to "shame" the public for not voting for them, then they are essentially digging themselves in the same hole that they did in 2016.
    liberalwithmorals
  • @marke
    Dude, I wish that the democrats were as far left as you make them out to be.
    You guys basically agree with each other on everything but the system has pretty much guided you all to fight each other as a distraction.
    liberalwithmorals
  • edited July 30
    @MichaelElpers
    Found a chart that I've been looking for for ages to explain this to you. The democrats aren't left.
    Ideologically wise they are your allies.
    PlaffelvohfenHappy_Killbotliberalwithmorals
  • Well, she's more in line with the corporate-democrats like Biden-Clinton-Obama et Al., so it does make sense from their pov...  And regardless of the VP, with Joe we'll be going back to the 90's way of thinking so just more of the same, there'll be no systemic changes, a lot of blah-blah and symbolic gestures but no real change, they don't want it.... But at least Trump will be gone and at least there'll be someone minimally competent for the next 4 years, not the ideal situation but it's better than a Trump 2nd term...
    JustAnAllMightFanliberalwithmorals
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • AlofRIAlofRI 829 Pts
    Not quite as dumb as Donald Trump as Pence's running mate. ;-)

    I would rather not have Kamala as Vice Pres. She would make a better AG ... FAR better than the current disease. She is a SENATOR! We can't afford to lose a Senator!  I want Susan Rice! She's well known and respected around the world, has been "investigated" 7 times by conservative "fact-checkers'" and found to be far more innocent than those "investigating" her! Three American's were killed in Benghazi, they were NOT authorized to be there. Still,  that's a shame. AT LEAST three American's were killed by Russian "payments", and there IS much evidence of THAT! (And nobody "investigating"). An American was butchered by one of Trump's monetary friends, and there were NO Congressional "investigations" by conservatives. The President of Turkey was given the go-ahead to slaughter American allies (and their families), who fought beside U.S. for YEARS, and nothing was done by the conservative "investigators". So, I think Susan could easily weather the storm stirred up by phony "investigators! Same with a couple of other Senators. Let's keep them and build on them. Maybe make cabinet members of them quickly and replace them with our own until we get things turned around!
    PlaffelvohfenJustAnAllMightFanliberalwithmorals
  • @JustAnAllMightFan
    I think adding Harris to the ticket might improve the chance for a Trump victory. Mainly because I think he can use the fact that she will most likely be VP to revert back to his 2016 tactic of appealing to the white working class. Basically he'll go on a rant about how the "socialist leftist" democrats care about diversity and slogans but not about YOU, and a bunch of other typical dog whistles. My largest problem when the democrats do things like this is that they enforce a bad stereotype on the actual left, incite more people to move to the far right, and hands Trump another 4 years.
    I can see the arguments for why Trump is most likely to lose. His Covid response has alienated a lot of older voters, which is who he depends on, he didn't win the popular vote last year and is even more unpopular this time around, a large section of the republicans have turned against them, and Biden for all of his faults isn't quite as hated by the progressives and conservatives as Hilary. Factually, all of the signs are pointing towards the Trump experiment being a failure. But for some reason, that I can't really explain, I still feel like there's a good chance Trump will make an upset.
  • @AlofRI
    I don't like the fact that Harris will most likely be VP because it basically shows that the democrats have learned nothing from 2016. They can't use diversity to voter shame progressives and conservatives to show up to the polls, yet they're doing exactly that. Also, for reasons more personally, Harris isn't a friend to the left at all. She laughed at the idea of legalizing marijuana, sent dozens of non violent brown drug offenders to prison, pushed for heavier criminalization,  and doesn't support any of the basic progressive platform. Yet she'll go on television and tries to act as if she has a moral compass and how "Trump needs to be banned from Twitter" when in reality in my eyes she's just as evil and represents the same believes as him. If they go with a Biden/Harris tickets I hope Progressives sit it out because if we still choose to support a party that has done everything to spite us then they'll continue to do it.
    I usually don't get emotion but the fact that the DNC most likely is aiming to get Harris on ticket who is incredibly vile but they'll hide behind the curtain of "diversity" makes my blood boil.
    Democrats only care about diversity of appearance, not diversity of ideas.
    Thank you for informing me about Susan Rice though. I'll be sure to check some of her stuff out.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 385 Pts
    edited July 30
    @JustAnAllMightFan. Just because a message identified with a certain group doesnt mean identity politics is being played.

    I just find it ironic that republicans are identified as the racist, misogynistic, bigoted crowd.  But Bidens campaign clearly thinks he can garner the most support by ensuring the VP is a minority woman, ignoring potential qualified candidates. Showing it is truly the left that places race and sex above individual ideals.
    liberalwithmorals
  • @MichaelElpers
    Biden and democrats, the same people who signed the 94 crime bill is somehow the party that is playing the majority of identity politics?
    The democrats may be slightly more obvious with their identity politics but if you look at a majority of their voting records, most of it clearly spites minorities and the working class and matches the same policies passed by the GOP.
    You may not accept it, but the truth is the republicans play identity  politics just as much as their "adversaries". There are plenty examples of this from Barry Goldwater's campaign centered on "State's rights", to Reagan's "welfare Queen's" to Nixon's appeal to the silent majority and finally to Trump's rhetoric on illegal immigrants. The only difference is the Republicans hide theirs better with dog whistles. Honestly the democrats may vocally voice their frustrations on this but when the time comes to sign a bill into law 90% of the time democrats and republicans are on the same page.
    You dislike Kamala Harris based off the narrative of what you think the Left is,I dislike her because  she goes against what the left actually is.
    Plaffelvohfenliberalwithmorals
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    You don't get any farther left than supporting violence and murder in efforts to dismantle America as we know it.


    PlaffelvohfenAlofRIliberalwithmorals
  • @marke
    Literally everything you stand against is what your profile picture did in order to get independence.
    As I said before and a constant point that you insist to maneuver around, the violence we see is a direct result of the government's incompetence in ensuring the stability of the people during a pandemic. You claim to be a man of principle yet you insist on applying such on only those who are political opposites to you. That is the most blatant form of intellectual dishonesty that I have seen.
    PlaffelvohfenAlofRIliberalwithmorals
  • @JustAnAllMightFan
    Somehow the party that is playing the majority of identity politics.

    Yes because they are the ones obsessed with splitting people into group identities.  They then use these group identities to silence others opinions.  I cant hardly think of any instances where republicans tell others they dont belong to a certain identity and therefore your opinion doesnt matter or matters less.  Even shown as they often look for equal outcome among groups rather than opportunity. 

    I mean, "if your still deciding whether to vote trump or biden, you aint black". They love mob mentalities and hate individuality.

    Ive said nothing about liking or disliking kamala.
    I dislike the idea that the #1 factor in choosing a VP is someones sex and race.  The idea that Biden willingly says that is the reason outloud, and it garners more support than criticism is frightening.
    liberalwithmorals
  • @MichaelElpers
    We agree on most of issues with the democrats. My issue with you is that you refuse to acknowledge that the Republicans do exactly the same at the same frequency.
    I can think of plenty of instances where the republicans used race in order to divide the vote. So if you want to play the quote game, I'm in.
    For instance, As I mentioned, Barry Goldwater's 64 campaign on state's rights was purposely used to win the South who was undergoing civil rights reform. Of course by state rights, Goldwater implied that the Federal government should not enforce the integration of schools. This of course resonated well with Southern whites who literally committed acts of terror to prevent integration. Or we can reference the Reagan administration supplying drug cartels to deliver a surplus of cocaine to inner city neighborhoods and then proceed to launch a fear mongering campaign which purposely was targeted to associated blacks with criminality and relying on government assistance. Or we can reference the leaked tapes of governor Kemp pushing for harder to voter suppression to prevent ex cons (who are mainly black) and minorities in general from voting. In fact, North Carolina requires it's voters to have a specific voter ID that a majority of African Americans don't have. We can also go back to Nixon's strategy of appealing to silent majority and "family values" by associating those who participated in the protests of the 60s with criminality in order to appeal to the older Christian voter base. Or we can reference Trump's recent Independence day speech which was literally scripted American mythology to appeal to mainly older white base who are on average the most patriotic. Perhaps the largest case of GOP identity politics is the Southern strategy which has been proven as factual by political scientists of all ideologies.
    Saying, deliberately pro-white rhetoric on PC media is essentially political suicide so Republicans rely on code language and dog whistles to push their identity politics.
    By ignoring this blatant fact you are essentially contributing to the infighting between between the two parties which is essentially nothing but a mere distraction from the corruption both indulge in daily in Washington.
    Plaffelvohfenliberalwithmorals
  • edited July 31
    @MichaelElpers
    Might I add that literally the only reason Pence was chosen as VP was because of identity politics.
    I'd like to debate you on why the actual left favors equal opportunity over equal outcome. This would involve me going into the problems with the right-wing version of AA, and my personal revision for the policy. I'd really like to explain to you more in depth the problems with Affirmative Action because a great deal of what I've seen you say about the policy is fallacy (no offense).
    Hit me up if you'd like.
    Plaffelvohfenliberalwithmorals
  • @JustAnAllMightFan

    Disagree that pence was chosen directly for identity politics.  Pence was chosed because he had very conservative philosophies and it helped ease fears that, trump who was unknown, would govern more conservatively.  He was chosen because for actual political philosophy, not because of his sex or race which is much different.  Choosing a prolife candidate isnt playing identity politics, otherwise you could say any political philosophy that garners support from a specific group is.

    Id like to hear your reason for supporting equal outcome, because i personally find it close to evil.
  • @JustAnAllMightFan. I dont fully agree with the imolementation southern strategy for several reasons.

    1. In 1964, which is when the supposed political switch occured more Republicans voted for the civil rights act.  Subsequently in the years later they still had a higher proportion voting for the equal housing act.

    2.  Of the 21 democrats in the south, only 1 switched over to republican.

    3. It took over 30 years after 1964 for the deep south to become majorly Republican.  Those racist dog whistles must have not been working.  Also id like to know the specific racist dog whistles nixon used.

    Also im curious, what is the id required in north carolina?

  • edited July 31
    @MichaelElpers
    His "conservative philosophies" is really just a fancy way of saying he appeals to the theoretical base of the conservative party because he in turn upholds the same beliefs, which is identity politics.
    The first thing that comes to mind when many think of Pence regardless of political affirmation is his position on Religion and homosexuality. The GOP clearly understand which is why they choose him because he appeals to the Christian base that upholds strong anti-homosexual beliefs. Other words, Identity Politics. It would take a great deal of mental gymnastics to sidestep this.
    Also you strawmaned my argument. I never said I supported equal outcome, I said that you have misconceptions with how AA works. Those are two totally different sentiments that you used your emotions to sew together. Let's not get into the habit of doing that.
    Your largest misconception is that AA gives opportunities to students who don't deserve them simply based on race. This is untrue for two reasons
    One, granting someone acceptance simply due to appearance when he doesn't meet the qualifications is illegal and punishable by law. The vast majority of time AA is only just taking two equally qualified contenders and giving the incentive to hire the one of the desired appearance. Mostly this favors white women who are factually, the largest beneficiaries of AA. Yet despite this you can't claim that undeserving contenders are given opportunities because a vast majority of the AA only goes out to those who have the resume to qualify. The few times this did not happen was meet with legal force.
    Secondly our version of AA isn't really based on race, but more so on class allow me to explain
    AA primary benefits middle to upper class African Americans. This is not really an unfair opportunity as blacks in higher income brackets have the resources to get tutors, go to better schools, and afford better equipment, putting them on equal standards as their Asian peers who on average, have these resources. 
    https://edtrust.org/the-equity-line/debunking-5-myths-affirmative-action/
    The source above shows admissions by race and class. Lower income black students still have a harder time getting into universities compared to middle and upper class black students. AA is actually failing black and hispanics as a whole because they overwhelmingly favor the minority who are well off vs the majority who are low income or under the poverty line. Which could explain why black/latin student rates are still low in comparison to the percentage of the population each make.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=affirmative+action+stats&safe=strict&client=ms-android-att-aio-us&prmd=niv&sxsrf=ALeKk02ocDtC4qaIYqaFqrFsK9zlmQUjbQ:1595189078133&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjj2-eyjtrqAhXDj3IEHUaqABsQ_AUoAnoECA0QAg&biw=360&bih=560&dpr=2#imgrc=UzPjnHutsSt7KM
    As both groups are still underrepresented in universities. Considering the practice has been around for decades you'd think that the rates would be proportional by now. Instead, the policy favors well off minority students who don't need it as much as their peers. 
    https://www.google.com/search?q=average+wealth+of+affirmative+action&safe=strict&client=ms-android-att-aio-us&prmd=nisv&sxsrf=ALeKk02odl9pVotAuh-lpiRw7anUYeV6qg:1595189384030&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRkdbEj9rqAhWCgnIEHYnqBvMQ_AUoAnoECA0QAg&biw=360&bih=560#imgrc=l82aCpjBh7oTvM
    70% of Harvard's admitted applicants came from the richest 20% of families with only 3% coming from the poorest 20% and 5.3% coming from the bottom 40%.
    To be apart of the bottom 20% your earnings have to be below 18,000 annually. For the bottom 30%, it must be below an annual earning of 30,000. The average earnings of a black family is about 40 grand. Key word, family. According to the source below the average earnings of a single black female is 25 grand and black male 33 grand
    http://faculty.tamucc.edu/sfriday/wordpress/?p=2875
    About 70% of black children grow up in single mother households so most black children are actually in households with an income around the 25,000 figure. Placing them on average, slightly above the bottom 20%.
    Yet most of Harvard's admitted students were black
    https://www.google.com/search?q=harvard+racial+admissions&safe=strict&client=ms-android-att-aio-us&prmd=nimv&sxsrf=ALeKk02Rxze0aA6KhyJoWteRj-AW2Yej_A:1595190079197&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiz5JOQktrqAhXzlnIEHSBjDk0Q_AUoAnoECAsQAg&biw=360&bih=560&dpr=2#imgrc=6ogcueGCT7tZCM
    However about only 8.3% of admissions are in the bottom 40%. So what is the problem? It is evident that a vast majority of brown
     children being admitted due to AA are those who are already wealthy and thus have the resources to put them on equal footing as asian students and  don't need the policies as much. 
    https://www.google.com/search?q=ivy+league+admissions+by+wealth&safe=strict&client=ms-android-att-aio-us&prmd=nimv&sxsrf=ALeKk002YATEjjDyEE-UQpHU_lqHO0HW8g:1595190246987&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwip85TgktrqAhU3lnIEHde_BRQQ_AUoAnoECA0QAg&biw=360&bih=560#imgrc=iPLWGYPcIUD9dM
    This isn't exclusive to Harvard as most other IVY leagues favor students in the upper income brackets. We can assume that this is the same for other top US universities such as MIT.
    So is AA a problem? Yes. But the notion that AA gives opportunities to children who did not qualify is false as a majority of recipients are those who are already middle class to wealthy. Which explains why black and Hispanic enrollment is still low. As a whole, minority students aren't seeing any benefits from AA so the narrative that they are robbing Asians of opportunities is false. The policies are clearly biased towards those not in the bottom 50% and ironically benefit white women at a higher rate.
    We should aim to make AA more focused on class and implement reform to economically disadvantaged neighborhoods so that disenfranchised demographics can actually see benefits.
    Those pesky democrats aren't ensuring equal outcome based on race, but rather equal outcome for the rich. I do agree, that is pretty unfair if you ask me. Statistically speaking, those same Asians that you claimed are being discriminated against in favor of undeserving Latinos and blacks, are actually having their opportunities stolen in favor students who have legacy (meaning their parents donated to the school) at much much higher rates. Those children who have lowered SAT scores often have better extracurriculars, got in on artistic talent, along with equal GPA's and overall more to add to their resume to make up for the SAT disparities. But in reality the SAT disparities between black, hispanic and white children isn't even high enough to factually conclude that one group is academically superior to the other.  The notion that AA discriminates based on race, is a massive fallacy when in reality it has only ensured that those in the top economic brackets stay there. Equal opportunity isn't being granted to minorities, the fact that you use AA as a justification that equal outcome is being enforced shows that at the core of it all, you haven't thoroughly researched the topic and just relied off of reactionary content.
    Which is why as I mentioned before, my plan for AA is based on economic class so that we can actually ensure that minorities see benefits and that we can more accurately account for the level of difficulty each child has achieved their results under.
    Plaffelvohfenliberalwithmorals
  • edited July 31
    @MichaelElpers
    Relatively speaking 30 years is a pretty short period of time for a whole region to switch poltical ideology. In addition, Republicans overwhelmingly voted for heavier drug policies.
    The Republican Party was still relatively mixed in ideas during the 60s, in a few years time the party was mainly conservative.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_party_switchers_in_the_United_States ;
    A quick wiki search shows the sheer amount of party switches that happened in the 60s to the 90s.
     https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lee_Atwater Here's the wiki quote from Lee Atwater who was a advisor to Reagan and Bush administration where he admits that the Southern Stragety is intetional
    Another quote from Richard Nixon's advisor saying virtually the same
     https://www.google.com/search?q=john+ehrlichman+quote&oq=jogn&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j35i39l2j46l2.2269j0j4&client=ms-android-att-aio-us&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
    Nixon constantly emphasised the dangers of weed thus associating it's users with criminality. Despite both races doing the substance and drugs in general at a similar rate blacks made up a majority of the arrests
    https://bytheirstrangefruit.blogspot.com/2013/11/war-on-drugs.html?m=1
    Heavy policing was purposely enforced in black neighborhoods because black people were in average poor, therefore could not afford bail nor lawyers, making them easier to grab and feed into the private prison system which in turn saw record profits in the 70s to 2000's. Nixon's "dog whistle" was associating African Americans with drug use and drug use with delinquency to appeal to a white voter base. And I'd say it worked because today, and the elections since the majority rural white counties flipped one by one from democrat to republican starting in the late 60s.
    This alone should be enough to prove that the Southern Strategy was a valid attempt.
    https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/en/news/block-vote-voter-suppression-2020
    This should explain what is currently happening in North Carolina.
    Here you can see how each county voted in 1960 compared to 2012. Notice how the mainly rural white southern counties flipped to republican
    Yellow is Thurman, a racist pro segregation democrat. Notice how the black belt (strip of blue that cuts through the middle of MS Al and GA thats blue) votes democrat because it's a primarily black sector where a majority of people descended from slave cotton workers (black belt was known for its quality cotton soil) while the other majority white counties vote republican. We see this same instance in other elections

    Plaffelvohfenliberalwithmorals
  • @MichaelElpers
    I do recommend you look at the Lee Atwater quote because that is probably the most obvious proof to the republican intentions behind the Southern Strategy.
    liberalwithmorals
  • @JustAnAllMightFan

    His "conservative philosophies" is really just a fancy way of saying he appeals to the theoretical base of the conservative party because he in turn upholds the same beliefs, which is identity politics.

    If that is true than every philosophy is identity politics.

    Apologies, i didnt mean to strawman, i actually just misread what you stated.

    Regarding AA though making a decision to choose a candidate based on rase or sex is wrong.  Also there is evidence that asians have SAT scores lowered while others are raised.  That is not equal.

    Basing it on class is much more fair. You wouldnt believe the amount of discussions i get into when funding is proposed to go directly to poor minority students,which is crap.  It should go to help the poor to increase opportunity period.  I have actually heard people tell me that if a white kids parents didnt use their advantage while they had it, that is their fault...like a child chooses their parents behavior



  • @MichaelElpers
    You didn't analyze my full statement.  What I was implying that Pence's specific positions towards Religion and Homosexuality is the reason why we was selected VP. The fact that the GOP used Pence's positions specifically on homosexuality to appeal to the Christian sector of the GOP is what makes it identity politics.
    Also, college admission specialist do a more in depth process of determining candidates. They don't base it solely on SAT scores. Black and brown minority applicants besides having SAT scores higher than that of 94% of the nation also do stronger in other sectors of their resume such as interview, extracurriculars, more letters of recommendation,  etc. The point difference is small enough to be made up for in other sectors. In addition we have to consider what major the applicant is applying. The stats for Harvard also indicate that black admission is going down, so we can't really claim that Asians are being harmed anymore.
    https://asamnews.com/2018/10/19/data-shows-drop-in-asian-asian-american-admissions/
    My largest problem with you mentioning  Asians having their scores lowered is that by doing stating that you are implying that that is what AA does. When in the vast majority of times, AA doesn't handout opportunities to those who haven't earned it. I will admit that sometimes they do that, but that rarely happens based on evidence. As I said before, admissions based on legacy is a way larger problem than AA.
    I believe we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We need to solve the root of the problem of poverty but also use AA as a crunch to ensure other children who have potential get opportunity while we fix the root cause. I'm glad you agree that economic AA is more fair. I also use the argument below to explain it to those who disagree.
    Consider the following: you are in charge of assembling the best swim team. There's only 10 slots for your team.
    All 10 of the children who swam the fastest time did so in a clear open lake with no rough tides. However 10 other children swam in a rushing river with rocks. The 2 children who got the fastest times in the 2nd group were only a few seconds behind those in the first group. How can we determine who is the better swimmer based off of solely the results? We can't. Why? Because everyone is under different levels of difficulty. This is what my AA would try to combat. A child who did slightly weaker but lived in a single parent household in poverty, went to a horrible school with unmotivated staff, low PTA, could not afford the latest technology or tutor isn't necessarily academically inferior to a student who had a resume that was slightly stronger but was in the top 10%. We simply cannot accurately conclude who has the most academic potential but going solely off the results. My version of AA isn't recklessly handing out opportunities, it is thoroughly examining each contender' resume along with his level of difficulty, economic status and environmental factors in order to reach a more accurate conclusion. This would basically involve taking a select group of students below or near the poverty line who may have slightly weaker credentials but only had a 10% weaker resume while doing so under a difficulty that was 3x as difficult. To go back to my hypothetical with the swimmers, if we were to take those 2 swimmers who excelled in the second group and put them in the clear lake along with the others, logic dictates that they would equal if not surpass their peers. Hence, the same logic applies to economic AA. If we take a select few who demonstrate potential and put them in the same university as their wealthier peers where they will both have access to the same resources, those children will match their peers in academic ability.
    Also it's alright that you strawmaned me, I was caught up in the heat of the moment.
    Plaffelvohfenliberalwithmorals
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    Democrats shut down the economy and blame Trump for the economic disaster they caused, while proudly supporting anti-American terrorist mobs seeking to destroy law and order in the US.



    AlofRIliberalwithmorals
  • @marke
    I'm pretty sure it as a joint democratic and gop vote that voted against proper stimulus, rent relief, and lower healthcare prices during the pandemic.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.brookings.edu/research/the-covid-19-crisis-how-do-u-s-economic-and-health-outcomes-compare-to-other-oecd-countries/amp/
    Somehow all of the other "radical leftist" nations have yielded less economic collateral damage and a lower ratio of cases yet we can't seem to provide even the most basic reform during this pandemic. You speak of democrats as if they are this alien political concept, when ideologically and based om voting records, democrats and the gop have a 90% overlap.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 829 Pts
    Trump chose Pence for one reason, and it certainly wasn't strong leadership. It was because he guaranteed the Evangelical vote. If a black or brown woman is chosen to attract voters is that any different??   Certainly, ANY of those on the list is at least a STRONGER leader than Pence, who doesn't even own a determined face .... and would require a talk with his "entity" to make a decision. If he talks with that entity, and it tells him he should follow the path of his "adjacent Lord" ..... God help U.S.!  :worried:
    liberalwithmorals
  • markemarke 334 Pts
    @JustAnAllMightFan

    If your neighbor sees your boat and decides he wants one and applies for a loan to buy one the lender will not be asking your neighbor if you cn afford a boat, he will be asking your neighbor if he can afford a boat.  The S&P credit rating for America was downgraded during the Obama administration for the first time in history and the reason was because Congress had failed to craft a plan for servicing the US debt.  Congress has never crafted a realistic plan for servicing the growing US debt.  All plans attempting to deal with the debt involve kicking the debt problem can down the road for future generations to solve.

    We cannot keep kicking the can down the road.  Irresponsible government overspending must stop here and now.  It does not matter what other nations can afford.  America cannot afford to keep obligating ther US taxpayer for more trillions added to trillions of additional debt no matter how good the cause seems to be for the additional spending we cannot afford.
    liberalwithmorals
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch