Are Democrats Open To Working With Republicans? - 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!

Are Democrats Open To Working With Republicans?
in Politics

By adepadep 3 Pts
Are the liberals open to working with the GOP and Trump?
  1. Live Poll

    ?

    17 votes
    1. Yes
      41.18%
    2. No
      58.82%



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • canycany 12 Pts
    No, they think that they are all the way up the latter right now. The GOP have to show them their place. Also, love that I don't need to wait for one on one debates and await for votes that could not come!!!!!!! Also? Love the working polls and ability to debate with everybody not waiting for s person who may not show up there!!!!!!!
  • agsragsr 861 Pts
    @adep, great question.  There are 2 sides to it, will Republicans work with Democrats, but will Democrats really work with Trump administration?   I think that some Dems may, but not the liberals, just too much gap in their agenda.  Also by working with Republicans Democrats may lose support from some of the left extremists.
    Applesauce
    Live Long and Prosper
  • I do presume that the Republicans are willing to work with the Dems.
  • So, that's a widely asked question. The Democrats are very optimistic st the movement after the Republican's huge, surprising loss on the American health Act bill. Now, remember, they do have the majority while the Democrats are down, in all of the branches. Due to the Conservatives and moderates not compromising, the bill was taken completely off the table. Donald Trump seems to be open to working with the Democrats, considering that he released a statement saying so. I believe that the Democrats are also open to working with the Republican Party and Trump administration.
  • @cany , I agree with you on both points.  Dems percieve that they have an upper hand right now, and even poll about Sanders show that he isthe most popular politician at the moment.  To top it off, I agree with agsr that Dems are not happy about Trump calling Schumer a clown.
    Your points about this site are spot on.  We love it.
  • No, they don't seem to be at the moment.
  • Yes, they are definitely open to doing tax reform in my opinion.
  • There are 2 questions in this debate:
    1) are Democrats open to work with GOP, I would say probably yes, although not sure how seriously.  The tax reform can be a good way to atleast try to find common ground.
    2) Are liberals open to work with GOP.  I would say that is a lot less likely.  The whole point of liberals, is that they stand on the opposite extreme of the GOP policies.  I don't think there is enough common ground there to have a serious partnership on any issues between Liberals and GOP.  The only exception maybe if Earth get attacked by Aliens and we need to jointly defend the planet :)
  • In the title, you are asking about Democrats as in members of the Democratic party. In the actual question, you are asking about liberals. Which one is it?

    As a libertarian, which is the extreme version of a liberal, I am more open to working with Republicans than with Democrats: while I resent them both and consider them extremely outdated, Republicans do stand for a small government and a free market to an extent, while Democrats are becoming increasingly closer and closer to the corporate state advocates.

    As for Democrats, it really depends on how their current goals align with the Republican policies. During Clinton, Bush and even, to some extent, Obama times, Democrats were willing to discuss various issues with Republicans, because, while they were disagreeing on many things, there was still some level of consensus with regards to relationship with facts. But now that Trump's administration has a very... flexible relationship with facts, and that the Republican party seems to be okay with this, as long as it is their guy who is in the White House - there is not many venues for the parties to work together on.
    Applesauce
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 485 Pts
    edited August 2018
    I can't speak for other Democrats or liberals but for myself there are two categories. The "traditional" Republican, people like Graham, McCain, H.W., these Republicans I am very happy and willing to work with. However the Trump brand of Republicans I'm not willing to work with. So traditional Republicans and libertarians yes. I don't think you can argue that I'm ignorant and hate Republicans. I canvassed for John McCain, I honestly believe H.W. was the best president in the passed 50 years. Some of my closest friends and Republicans and libertarians. They say the opposite ends of the political spectrum have more in common than they share with the middle, the political horseshoe. I definitely notice this with my libertarian friends, we may disagree heavily on some things, but we get along perfectly on many other things.

    Why? Well as someone mentioned above, there is too much of an ideological divide between liberals and Trump Republicans, too much hostility, neither side wants to work with each other. My issue with the Trump Republicans is the social issues, which is a significantly different view from the libertarians. If trump Republicans had their way gay marriage would be illegal. Whereas libertarian philosophy supports gay marriage. One of my libertarian friends said it best, he wants the gays to be able to protect their marijuana plants using guns.  I don't see Trump Republicans as consistent in their views in the slightest. Religious liberty is a necessity when it comes to Christians but not Muslims. Business's should be allowed to operate free of regulation until they don't provide a platform for Alex Jones. It's terrible to criticize Trump and the investigation was a witch Hunt but a hanger representation of Obama and the birther movement apparently didn't disrespect the office. Even if I disagree with someone's politics, I have great respect if they are consistent in them when they go against what they see as alright. For me I think the KKK is terrible, ignorant, and we would be better off if they didn't exist, but I don't want LGBT or racial minorities to be silenced, so I will fight to the death to let the KKK preach as long as they don't physically hurt anyone.

     ib America we don't really need to work with each other, as long as both sides work with the center the center can bridge the gap. I really think their should be 6 parties, Democratic socialists, liberals, slightly left of center Dems, slightly right of center Republicans, alt right, and libertarians.

    However this only holds true for this exact moment. If some major event happens this is subject to change.
  • I can't speak for other Democrats or liberals but for myself there are two categories. The "traditional" Republican, people like Graham, McCain, H.W., these Republicans I am very happy and willing to work with. However the Trump brand of Republicans I'm not willing to work with. So traditional Republicans and libertarians yes. I don't think you can argue that I'm ignorant and hate Republicans. I canvassed for John McCain, I honestly believe H.W. was the best president in the passed 50 years. Some of my closest friends and Republicans and libertarians. They say the opposite ends of the political spectrum have more in common than they share with the middle, the political horseshoe. I definitely notice this with my libertarian friends, we may disagree heavily on some things, but we get along perfectly on many other things.

    Why? Well as someone mentioned above, there is too much of an ideological divide between liberals and Trump Republicans, too much hostility, neither side wants to work with each other. My issue with the Trump Republicans is the social issues, which is a significantly different view from the libertarians. If trump Republicans had their way gay marriage would be illegal. Whereas libertarian philosophy supports gay marriage. One of my libertarian friends said it best, he wants the gays to be able to protect their marijuana plants using guns.  I don't see Trump Republicans as consistent in their views in the slightest. Religious liberty is a necessity when it comes to Christians but not Muslims. Business's should be allowed to operate free of regulation until they don't provide a platform for Alex Jones. It's terrible to criticize Trump and the investigation was a witch Hunt but a hanger representation of Obama and the birther movement apparently didn't disrespect the office. Even if I disagree with someone's politics, I have great respect if they are consistent in them when they go against what they see as alright. For me I think the KKK is terrible, ignorant, and we would be better off if they didn't exist, but I don't want LGBT or racial minorities to be silenced, so I will fight to the death to let the KKK preach as long as they don't physically hurt anyone.

     ib America we don't really need to work with each other, as long as both sides work with the center the center can bridge the gap. I really think their should be 6 parties, Democratic socialists, liberals, slightly left of center Dems, slightly right of center Republicans, alt right, and libertarians.

    However this only holds true for this exact moment. If some major event happens this is subject to change.


    It makes no sense to hold this opinion. How can you say Trump Republicans won't work with Dems when Trump offered them everything they asked for and more on DACA?  Trump has tried to work with the Dems to fix 0bamacare, but Schumer said flat-out 0bamacare was "off the table". 
  • CYDdharta said:

    It makes no sense to hold this opinion. How can you say Trump Republicans won't work with Dems when Trump offered them everything they asked for and more on DACA?  Trump has tried to work with the Dems to fix 0bamacare, but Schumer said flat-out 0bamacare was "off the table". 
    Could you be specific regarding what the offer was and the accompanying demands? I recall several instances where DACA was offered for a variety of concessions on the part of the Democrats, and from what I can remember, any changes they were seeking to the ACA were a little more substantial than you are implying.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3408 Pts
    edited August 2018
    @CYDdharta

    Fully repealing Obamacare and replacing it with the Republican version of the federal healthcare support system was one of the central points of Trump's election campaign. Why would Democrats suddenly assume that Trump was lying about it all the way, just because he made a few cheap gestures towards them? You do not get to yell, "Obamacare is the worst thing to happen to America since the Civil War!", for a year and then suddenly be welcomed in constructive negotiations on the subject.
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 485 Pts
    edited August 2018
    @CYDdharta and this is why I won't work with you. I'm happy to say Obama was a shitty president. I'm happy to say Hillary Clinton is selfish and untrustworthy. For specific examples, Hillary being against gay marriage, her super predatots comments, Obama's use of the drone program, his expansion of the NSA powers while denying it's existence, his soft stands on Russia, his inability to make any criminal Justice reform or do anything to help the black minority while also claiming he is their champion, his inability to admit the ACA was rushed and in need of reform. The current Democrats attempt at stopping kavanaugh is hysterical and destined to fail. The man is clearly qualified and puts law over party.

    I can point out the flaws in the politicians I support and vote for. I even admitted that from my side of the isle I'm not currently willing to work with Trump Republicans. I've seen traditional Republicans and libertarians point out flaws in Trump that don't align with their ideology. Trump Republicans seem to have no ideology besides "whatever Trump does is right and if you disagree you're x,y,z and it's all your fault." They flip flop and are as inconsistent as the man himself. You proved my point. I don't believe you actually want to work with people like me and if you said you did it would probably be a ploy to appear more open, but then again I could be wrong I do have a bias. But then again people aren't calling out my comment for being dishonest in here. Of course my favorite part of all is when Trump Republicans try to blame Democrats for anything, Democrats have 0 power in the government right now, any failure is a republican failure, if no Democrats showed up nothing would change. McCain sunk the ACA not Democrats.

    And I can't help but wonder, when the next Republican president comes along will he be just as infallible as Trump? Will you still see Trump as the greatest president ever to live? Or just maybe you defend him because he is the current face of your party just like a star quarter back on a winning football team, and once that winning streak is over the bias will fade with it.
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts
    @adep:

    Both sides need to be working with each other regardless of who holds what political representative office. 
    (Whether it's the current political representatives of today, or the future political representatives of tomorrow?)
    Because work needs to be done, because it affects society as a whole from one degree to another. 
    The illegal immigration conversation needs to be addressed 3 plus decades ago? 
    (Like a national wide sit-down with every mayor, governor, and senator representating each state?)
    The second amendment and individual weapons responsibility should have a nationwide conversation as well? 
    The various types of crimes that occur across the country year after year, how about a nationwide conversation as well to address them?
    And the other types of conversations that affect society as a whole, because of how some maybe treat society individually?
    If we are still having conversations in regards to illegall immigration, the second amendment and individual weapons responsibility, and the various crimes that affect society as a whole, say 30-50 years from now and not much has changed from now until then, then what does that maybe say about how we manage ourselves individually for societies sake? 



  • @WordsMatter

    This is the problem with all these "outsider" candidates, really: they use parties for their own purposes, disregarding what those parties stand for. Just like Sanders used the Democratic platform to push his very anti-Democratic anti-establishment anti-capitalist ideas, Trump used the Republican platform to push national populism. Once he was elected, he no longer needed the party support, so he went full rogue - and the Republicans, now feeling invested in him and realizing that their support depends partially on how they look in Trump's supporters' eyes, turned into his lapdogs, forgetting their own platform and personal ambitions and substituting them for pandering to Trump's caprices.

    I think political parties should have higher standards for who is allowed to run in their primaries. Sanders and Trump had nothing to do with these parties until 2016 - why would they be allowed to run along with those who had been in the parties for 20+ years? Nobody prevents one from running independent, this is what democracy is about.

    It is also a bizarre notion that someone who had never worked in politics would make for a great head of the executive branch. It never works in business (you do not appoint a random carpenter to be a CEO of Microsoft), and it even more so can never work in politics. I am not sure why the other Republican candidates during the primaries focused more on the details of Trump's personal life, than on his apparent lack of knowledge and experience. Instead of talking about his sexual adventures, giving him the bizarre kind of positive publicity ("Really, this is all they can criticize me for? They really have no valid points then!"), they should have just focused on his inability to do the job he is applying for.
  • TTKDBTTKDB 267 Pts
    @MayCaesar:

    How many Democrats and Republicans ran against each other, before it came to Trump and Hillary Clinton? 

    Everyone of the political representatives who wasn't Trump had their opportunities to say what they wanted prior to Trump and Hillary Clinton running to be the next President I believe?

    When any individual becomes the POTUS, my guess is that their individual campaign platform said more to the voting public than the other candidates platforms did? 

    When it comes to the current POTUS, wouldn't it maybe seem probable that some of the voting public grew tired over what the other actual political representatives were saying, and decided to give the non political representative a chance?





  • MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    Fully repealing Obamacare and replacing it with the Republican version of the federal healthcare support system was one of the central points of Trump's election campaign. Why would Democrats suddenly assume that Trump was lying about it all the way, just because he made a few cheap gestures towards them? You do not get to yell, "Obamacare is the worst thing to happen to America since the Civil War!", for a year and then suddenly be welcomed in constructive negotiations on the subject.
    ...so the Dems would rather see 0bamacare crash and burn rather than work with the current administration to try to fix it.  No quarter!  Makes sense, since 0bamacare was designed to fail from the start.
    Applesauce
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 485 Pts
    edited August 2018
    @CYDdharta I seem to remember Trump literally saying "let Obamacare fail" that doesn't sound like someone who is genuinely concerned about those on Obamacare or that he would stop at nothing to fix it. He have up within a year. Again how does that juicy McCain thumbs down mean the Democrats tanked Obamacare?

    I can't imagine the cognitive dissonance necessary to literally control the house, Senate, and presidency, and to have a mandate from the American people for the GOP to pass whatever they want with no bipartisanship required, yet still find a way to blame Democrats for your parties failures. 
  • MayCaesar said:
    @WordsMatter

    This is the problem with all these "outsider" candidates, really: they use parties for their own purposes, disregarding what those parties stand for. Just like Sanders used the Democratic platform to push his very anti-Democratic anti-establishment anti-capitalist ideas, Trump used the Republican platform to push national populism. Once he was elected, he no longer needed the party support, so he went full rogue - and the Republicans, now feeling invested in him and realizing that their support depends partially on how they look in Trump's supporters' eyes, turned into his lapdogs, forgetting their own platform and personal ambitions and substituting them for pandering to Trump's caprices.

    I think political parties should have higher standards for who is allowed to run in their primaries. Sanders and Trump had nothing to do with these parties until 2016 - why would they be allowed to run along with those who had been in the parties for 20+ years? Nobody prevents one from running independent, this is what democracy is about.

    It is also a bizarre notion that someone who had never worked in politics would make for a great head of the executive branch. It never works in business (you do not appoint a random carpenter to be a CEO of Microsoft), and it even more so can never work in politics. I am not sure why the other Republican candidates during the primaries focused more on the details of Trump's personal life, than on his apparent lack of knowledge and experience. Instead of talking about his sexual adventures, giving him the bizarre kind of positive publicity ("Really, this is all they can criticize me for? They really have no valid points then!"), they should have just focused on his inability to do the job he is applying for.

    ROFL.  As if the insider candidates were ever any better at representing party values.  In the modern era, aside from the Bush dynasty, no one was more of a GOP insider than Romney.  But the originator of 0bamacare hardly embodied conservative values, in fact he hardly held consistent values.  Trump's values, as demonstrated by the actions he's taken since his election, are more consistently conservative than anything we've seen since at least Reagan.  That isn't saying very much since all the party has been putting up since then are squish RINO establishment lackeys, although that does explain why you like them so much.the GOP is supposed to represent it's members.  Instead, the leadership ignores the values and concerns of GOP members and promotes the schemes of the monied interests of the donor class.  There is nothing for the base to vote for.  Bush 41 rode Reagan's coattails in 1988, though he wasn't popular enough to be reelected.  Bush 43 had to have SCOTUS step in and hand him the election.  GOPe candidates Bush 41, Dole, McCain, and Romney weren't convincing enough to win on the national stage.  Every 4 years, the establishment puts up their candidate of choice and tells the GOP voter base "we know he isn't the most conservative candidate, but if you don't vote for him, look at everything you'll lose".  In 2016, the GOP voters had finally had enough and put up their candidate expecting GOPe to repay them in kind for their many years of loyalty.  Instead, GOPe remained loyal to themselves.  Pathetic.
  • @CYDdharta Your logic:
    *puts a gun to the victim's head* "Give me $500 right now, or I'll blow your brains out."
    "But I don't have $500 on me!"
    "So, you would rather die than work with me to try to fix the situation?"

    Reread what you quoted, it has the answer to your question.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1275 Pts
    edited August 2018
    @CYDdharta I seem to remember Trump literally saying "let Obamacare fail" that doesn't sound like someone who is genuinely concerned about those on Obamacare or that he would stop at nothing to fix it. He have up within a year. Again how does that juicy McCain thumbs down mean the Democrats tanked Obamacare?

    I can't imagine the cognitive dissonance necessary to literally control the house, Senate, and presidency, and to have a mandate from the American people for the GOP to pass whatever they want with no bipartisanship required, yet still find a way to blame Democrats for your parties failures. 

    0bama designed 0bamacare to fail, that was the whole purpose.  When 0bamacare failed, as it was destined to, the Dems could step back in claiming single-payer government healthcare was the only way out.


    What "cognitive dissonance"?  @MayCaesar considers him/herself a Republican, but would rather side with Dems just to undermine the Trump administration.  The same is true of too many in Congress.  The swamp isn't going to be drained overnight.

  • MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta Your logic:
    *puts a gun to the victim's head* "Give me $500 right now, or I'll blow your brains out."
    "But I don't have $500 on me!"
    "So, you would rather die than work with me to try to fix the situation?"

    Reread what you quoted, it has the answer to your question.

    Um, but your scenario has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with anything we're discussing.  Please try to be relevant.
  • WordsMatterWordsMatter 485 Pts
    edited August 2018
    @CYDdharta the cognitive dissonance is you clearly blaming Democrats while they actually have no power in the government.  I quote,
    "so the Dems would rather see 0bamacare crash and burn rather than work with the current administration to try to fix it." 
    Now explain to me exactly how the Democrats impede the current administration from trying to fix it. Please tell me I don't have to explain to you the number of votes necessary to pass a bill in the house and Senate, and then tell you how many Republicans are in each of those.

    @MayCaesar has a clear consistent philosophy. You cried about Alex Jones being banned from some social media, calling for the government to regulate it and treat it is a utility?? You say this at the same time net  neutrality has been killed, so that Verizon could throttle California firefighters. Now explain to me the double standard of letting the companies that provide internet access to have full private control over it and the internet not be treated like a utility, yet a few sites you can access on the internet should be a utility? You can't stand Democrats spending and increasing of the debt, but the debt is growing just as fast under Trump. Kneeling for the national anthem is disrespectful to our armed forces but it's ok to prefer that your war heroes don't get captured.  you  believe people should be able to turn away gays because private businesses have rights, yet you freak out when a republican is kicked out of a private resteruant. You do know political affiliation is not a protected class and you're free to discriminate against people for their affiliation. Did you ever think maybe the reason Alex Jones got kicked off isn't because there is a secret plot to silence him, but that its actually a smart business decision because the free market called for him to be pushed out. Do you support a free market or not? Do businesses have the right to decide who they serve or not? Your views don't stay consistent when they would result in something that you don't like. 

    Even in this thread you've been back peddling. You started out saying Trump gave everything to the Dems to get healthcare reformed, and that it was their fault it didn't get through. Once I pointed out that Republicans could do it without them and a republican sank it you're shifting the blame to RINOs. Instead of just admitting that maybe Trump wasn't good enough at getting everyone on the same page, you continue to pull back, casting blame on everyone else. Prove to me that you don't just blindly follow the supreme leader, tell me just one thing that Trump has failed at, that is his entirely, or primarily his fault.

    I do have to admit Trump is doing a good job of draining the swamp by giving the swamp creatures jobs and then having everyone find out how corrupt they are. 
  • CYDdharta said:

    What "cognitive dissonance"?  @MayCaesar considers him/herself a Republican, but would rather side with Dems just to undermine the Trump administration.  The same is true of too many in Congress.  The swamp isn't going to be drained overnight.

    I have never considered myself a Republican. I also would not side with "Dems" to undermine anyone; I do not take sides.

    Your problem is that you see everything in terms of "sides", so you judge everyone's action based solely on what "side" they are, rather than on the action itself. You will defend Trump no matter what he does, and attack Democrats no matter what they do; even if Trump takes a gun and shoots someone tomorrow (as he said he could), you will say, "Why did the Democrats not stop him? Pathetic."

    Trump supporters are some of the least interesting debaters out there, right alongside flat-Earthers and Kremlin bots. Your political position can literally be summarized with "Trump is infallible; his critics are indefensible". There is not much more depth to it than this.

    I can make a long list of things which I think Trump did well, and an equally long list of things which I think he messed up. I do not think you could make the latter list, because your position on Trump is so biased, even things he objectively messed up will be justified in your eyes, or blamed on someone else.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1275 Pts
    edited August 2018
    I see your cognitive dissonance now.  Were you attempting to get as much wrong as you possibly could??  What you didn't misquote or misrepresent, you made up completely.

    @CYDdharta the cognitive dissonance is you clearly blaming Democrats while they actually have no power in the government.  I quote,
    "so the Dems would rather see 0bamacare crash and burn rather than work with the current administration to try to fix it." 
    Now explain to me exactly how the Democrats impede the current administration from trying to fix it. Please tell me I don't have to explain to you the number of votes necessary to pass a bill in the house and Senate, and then tell you how many Republicans are in each of those.

    How did they impede the Trump administration from trying to fix 0bamacare?!?  By taking the position that they would never work with the administration to fix it.  Pretty straightforward and obvious.



    @MayCaesar has a clear consistent philosophy. You cried about Alex Jones being banned from some social media, calling for the government to regulate it and treat it is a utility?? You say this at the same time net  neutrality has been killed, so that Verizon could throttle California firefighters. Now explain to me the double standard of letting the companies that provide internet access to have full private control over it and the internet not be treated like a utility, yet a few sites you can access on the internet should be a utility? You can't stand Democrats spending and increasing of the debt, but the debt is growing just as fast under Trump. Kneeling for the national anthem is disrespectful to our armed forces but it's ok to prefer that your war heroes don't get captured.  you  believe people should be able to turn away gays because private businesses have rights, yet you freak out when a republican is kicked out of a private resteruant. You do know political affiliation is not a protected class and you're free to discriminate against people for their affiliation. Did you ever think maybe the reason Alex Jones got kicked off isn't because there is a secret plot to silence him, but that its actually a smart business decision because the free market called for him to be pushed out. Do you support a free market or not? Do businesses have the right to decide who they serve or not? Your views don't stay consistent when they would result in something that you don't like. 

    Net neutrality?!?  You do realize that that would make no difference whatsoever to the cases of censorship that we're witnessing now, right?  In fact, net neutrality wouldn't address ANY of the concerns you raised.  Verizon has competition.  Don't like their data rates?  Go to Comcast, or HughsNet or Frontier...  There's really no where to go to get away from Google or Facebook.  They are monopolies and should be treated as such. 

    Show me where I said anything about Alex Jones, or NFL players kneeling, or Republicans being kicked out of a restaurant.  You completely made up these allegations.  Just a bit of advice; stop lying, try reality for a change.



    Even in this thread you've been back peddling. You started out saying Trump gave everything to the Dems to get healthcare reformed, and that it was their fault it didn't get through. Once I pointed out that Republicans could do it without them and a republican sank it you're shifting the blame to RINOs. Instead of just admitting that maybe Trump wasn't good enough at getting everyone on the same page, you continue to pull back, casting blame on everyone else. Prove to me that you don't just blindly follow the supreme leader, tell me just one thing that Trump has failed at, that is his entirely, or primarily his fault.

    I do have to admit Trump is doing a good job of draining the swamp by giving the swamp creatures jobs and then having everyone find out how corrupt they are.

    You really have reading comprehension issues.  I never said Trump offered the Dems everything on healthcare, I said he offered them everything they asked for on DACA, and that he offered to work with the Dems on healthcare.  DACA has nothing at all to do with healthcare, they're completely separate issues.  If you're still confused, google DACA.  As for "shifting the blame to RINOs" you do realize that the only reason 0bamacare was not repealed is because of RINO McCain, a man who undermined his own party in order to help the party who called him a war monger and war criminal just 2 years prior.  No wonder the former VP of the opposition party delivered his eulogy.  Name any other time a sitting president had to deal with an insurgent group within his own party like Trump does with the never-Trumpers.  It may have happened, but not in this century or the last.  The swamp is used to being protect, not challenged.  They're certainly not used to being attacked.  As for what Trump has gotten wrong, he made some staffing decisions; Omarosa; Sessions, which surprised me, Rosenstein should have been fired and investigated, not made head of the DOJ.  I'm not even all that impressed with Brett Kavanaugh.  He might be ok, but I thought Trump should have picked someone more solidly conservative.
  • MayCaesar said:

    I have never considered myself a Republican. I also would not side with "Dems" to undermine anyone; I do not take sides.

    Your problem is that you see everything in terms of "sides", so you judge everyone's action based solely on what "side" they are, rather than on the action itself. You will defend Trump no matter what he does, and attack Democrats no matter what they do; even if Trump takes a gun and shoots someone tomorrow (as he said he could), you will say, "Why did the Democrats not stop him? Pathetic."

    Trump supporters are some of the least interesting debaters out there, right alongside flat-Earthers and Kremlin bots. Your political position can literally be summarized with "Trump is infallible; his critics are indefensible". There is not much more depth to it than this.

    I can make a long list of things which I think Trump did well, and an equally long list of things which I think he messed up. I do not think you could make the latter list, because your position on Trump is so biased, even things he objectively messed up will be justified in your eyes, or blamed on someone else.

    Ok, so you're an independent never-Trumper.  It really doesn't make a difference.  Maybe, maybe, you can think of a few things you think Trump does well, but you never post them, you only criticize.
  • @CYDdharta

    You should really focus on the ideas, not on who I "am". I have posted enough about what I like about Trump's presidency, and I think the economy is doing better at the moment than it has ever done since Clinton's second term.

    I am sorry that your bias does not allow you to see anything past your narrow world of political camps. It is either "for" or "against" for you, you are not able to see the finer details.
  • MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    You should really focus on the ideas, not on who I "am". I have posted enough about what I like about Trump's presidency, and I think the economy is doing better at the moment than it has ever done since Clinton's second term.

    I am sorry that your bias does not allow you to see anything past your narrow world of political camps. It is either "for" or "against" for you, you are not able to see the finer details.

    If you're going to butt into a conversation, don't whine if you become part of it.  You may have mentioned the economy, but you didn't give credit to Trump for it.
  • @CYDdharta

    This is not high school, I am not a teacher giving credits to my students for a well done job. I describe and analyze events and their implications; I do not operate in terms of "credits".

    Everything you say, every single comment, shows tribal thinking at its finest. Tribal-thinking people are always the first to fall under manipulation from populists.
  • @CYDdharta Is the goal with healthcare to fix it or to have the democrats agree to help fix it? The first can be done without the democrats. If you want to see where Democrats worked with Republicans you can look at the deal for the border wall and the large number of federal judge appointments made this week as just a start.

    I'm not surprised you are now parroting the supreme leader on google, however there is even less of an argument that google is a virtual monopoly. Ask.com Yahoo.com Bing.com AOL.com, theres 4 quick google competitors you can go to. If you don't like facebook or twitter then go to the conservative alternative that already exists, here is seven of them https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/twitter-alternative-social-networks/
    you have your competition but the free market decided Alex Jones is not accepted by the majority. Want an alternative to youtube? go to pornhub, people seriously post a bunch of videos on there that are not porn because they wouldn't stay up on youtube. Just because the two biggest social media sites don't like you doesn't mean there is a monopoly. Go on reddit they still have The_Donald up.
     The three cities I have lived in had 2 ISP options and in some neighborhoods only 1, show me as many alternatives to that as I've showed you with social media and search engines, size doesn't matter.

    I like that Trump left the TPP and I love the new retirement savings directive he signed today. There are 2 things I like about what he has done. Give me one thing you don't like.

  • MayCaesar said:
    @CYDdharta

    This is not high school, I am not a teacher giving credits to my students for a well done job. I describe and analyze events and their implications; I do not operate in terms of "credits".

    Everything you say, every single comment, shows tribal thinking at its finest. Tribal-thinking people are always the first to fall under manipulation from populists.

    Correct; you're free to lie to anyone you wish to here, even yourself if you're so inclined. Your posts here show you desperately trying to believe your own bs.

    MayCaesar
  • CYDdharta said:

    If you're going to butt into a conversation, don't whine if you become part of it.  You may have mentioned the economy, but you didn't give credit to Trump for it.


    The only difference between Obama and Trumps economic impact is that:
    1. Obama didn't brag on twitter every second he could
    2. Obama had consistent growth throughout his presidency. 

    Lets see if Trump still reaps credit when the economy goes into a recession. Mark my words, a U.S. recession will occur within the next five years.
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