NY-14: Goliath falls to OCASIO!

[MAINEiac4434]

For anyone who still buys into the "conservative intellectual Ben Shapiro" myth:

https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher

For additional reading, don't forget to read Shapiro's magnum opus and novel-length Freudian slip True Allegiance to learn more about his deeply held beliefs about police shootings.

Shapiro has acknowledged this piece, yet does not respond. Perhaps he will accept Nathan Robinson's debate offer.

I think plans are developing for a debate with Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project.

Well there is a fresh challenge:

Thanks for posting this image now I want to kill myself even more than I already did

[Calthrina950]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

[Progressive Pessimist]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

[ON Progressive]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

Except that debate was offered in bad faith. I know it was offered in bad faith because Shapiro literally wrote a book called "HOW TO DEBATE LEFTISTS AND DESTROY THEM", and also he offered an illegal campaign contribution alongside it.

[136or142]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

So, you agree then that Ted Cruz should debate Cenk Uygur.  

[Calthrina950]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

[136or142]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

[MAINEiac4434]

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

[136or142]

Her Republican opponent is Anthony Pappas who is an economics professor.  I would expect she'll debate him if they haven't debated already during the primaries.  Unfortunately, Pappas seems to be a one issue candidate on male custody rights, but on paper he should be qualified to debate substantive political issues.

[Calthrina950]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

[Chief Justice Keef]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

So then what's your problem?

[Calthrina950]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

So then what's your problem?

My problem is that many of the posters on here have continued to defend Ocasio-Cortez, even though it should be pretty clear that she is not the best informed on the issues, which I think is a prerequisite for any holding public office. We have too many people, on both sides of the aisle, as it is who are woefully inadequate for the job that they tasked with, and Ocasio-Cortez would merely increase those numbers. If she were someone who was able to better articulate her viewpoints and had done her homework, and if she had a laser focus on the issues affecting her constituents, then I would have no problem with her.

Moreover, many of the posters here seem to subscribe to the view that the "enemy" is not someone who should be reckoned with, shouldn't be thought of seriously, and should be mocked. Although I don't agree with many of Ben Shapiro's views, I also don't think he is an abhorrent villain that many here have painted him as. There are ideological opposites. As long as those opposites are willing to work within our system and have a basic respect for the principles of our democracy, then they should be given due consideration. Neither Ocasio-Cortez nor Shapiro are models to be emulated in every way, but this whole situation surrounding them will eventually escalate to the point that no one will be willing to treat with the other side in a fair manner.

[MAINEiac4434]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

I feel like you're fundamentally misunderstanding what a "debate" is in the context of a politically campaign. Ocasio-Cortez won, in part, because she attended a debate and Joe Crowley sent someone else in his place. You seem to think she's against debates, period. She's only against debates with random tryhard asshole misogynists like Ben Shapiro.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a forum for nerdy teenagers. You take this place and yourself entirely too seriously.

[MAINEiac4434]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

So then what's your problem?

My problem is that many of the posters on here have continued to defend Ocasio-Cortez, even though it should be pretty clear that she is not the best informed on the issues, which I think is a prerequisite for any holding public office. We have too many people, on both sides of the aisle, as it is who are woefully inadequate for the job that they tasked with, and Ocasio-Cortez would merely increase those numbers. If she were someone who was able to better articulate her viewpoints and had done her homework, and if she had a laser focus on the issues affecting her constituents, then I would have no problem with her.

Moreover, many of the posters here seem to subscribe to the view that the "enemy" is not someone who should be reckoned with, shouldn't be thought of seriously, and should be mocked. Although I don't agree with many of Ben Shapiro's views, I also don't think he is an abhorrent villain that many here have painted him as. There are ideological opposites. As long as those opposites are willing to work within our system and have a basic respect for the principles of our democracy, then they should be given due consideration. Neither Ocasio-Cortez nor Shapiro are models to be emulated in every way, but this whole situation surrounding them will eventually escalate to the point that no one will be willing to treat with the other side in a fair manner.

Ben Shapiro basically called for a genocide against Palestinians. He is an absolute cretin and should be shamed into submission.

[Sestak]

Shapiro's an idiot who supports marital rape. Next.

[Calthrina950]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

I feel like you're fundamentally misunderstanding what a "debate" is in the context of a politically campaign. Ocasio-Cortez won, in part, because she attended a debate and Joe Crowley sent someone else in his place. You seem to think she's against debates, period. She's only against debates with random tryhard asshole misogynists like Ben Shapiro.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a forum for nerdy teenagers. You take this place and yourself entirely too seriously.

Nerdy teenagers? Many of the users on here (i.e. Fuzzy Bear, GeorgiaModerate, pbrower, muon2, Torie) are in their fifties or sixties, and belong to the Baby Boomer Generation. They have a great deal of experience and approach the issues discussed here in a serious, analytical manner. Many of the other users on this forum (i.e. That Conservative Guy, TheSaint, Loyola, TimTurner, etc.) are young adults, but they have a serious interest in politics and make very substantive contributions. This website was founded for people in the general public who are interested in electoral statistics and the facts connected to those statistics. To say that this is just a "forum for nerdy teenagers" is a great understatement.

I find it an irony that I, who consider myself to be a moderate independent, have argued with people on both extremes of the ideological spectrum. I've argued with people like you, Adam, ProudModerate2, DoctorImperialism, AtorBoltox, and Landslide Lyndon who are on the far left of that spectrum, and I've argued with users on other websites that I frequent (i.e. The Federalist, Townhall, Huffington Post), who are way on the right side of the spectrum. Both extremes have views that I think only worsen the polarization in this country. People like many of you who call Republicans fascists, and people like the Trump supporters elsewhere who call Democrats communists, are people that I despise.

And again, I said in my post that I don't support much of Shapiro's views. He is way more to the right economically then I am, and I certainly don't agree with his stances on social questions as they relate to minorities. But that doesn't mean that I completely denounce someone if they are at least interested in engaging in intellectual debate, and respect the values of our political system.

[Sestak]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

I feel like you're fundamentally misunderstanding what a "debate" is in the context of a politically campaign. Ocasio-Cortez won, in part, because she attended a debate and Joe Crowley sent someone else in his place. You seem to think she's against debates, period. She's only against debates with random tryhard asshole misogynists like Ben Shapiro.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a forum for nerdy teenagers. You take this place and yourself entirely too seriously.

Nerdy teenagers? Many of the users on here (i.e. Fuzzy Bear, GeorgiaModerate, pbrower, muon2, Torie) are in their fifties or sixties, and belong to the Baby Boomer Generation. They have a great deal of experience and approach the issues discussed here in a serious, analytical manner. Many of the other users on this forum (i.e. That Conservative Guy, TheSaint, Loyola, TimTurner, etc.) are young adults, but they have a serious interest in politics and make very substantive combinations. This website was founded for people in the general public who are interested in electoral statistics and the facts connected to those statistics. To say that this is just a "forum for needy teenagers" is a great understatement.

I find it an irony that I, who consider myself to be a moderate independent, have argued with people on both extremes of the ideological spectrum. I've argued with people like you, Adam, ProudModerate2, DoctorImperialism, AtorBoltox, and Landslide Lyndon who are on the far left of that spectrum, and I've argued with users on other websites that I frequent (i.e. The Federalist, Townhall, Huffington Post), who are way on the right side of the spectrum. Both extremes have views that I think only worsen the polarization in this country. People like many of you who call Republicans fascists, and people like the Trump supporters elsewhere who call Democrats communists, are people that I despise.

And again, I said in my post that I don't support much of Shapiro's views. He is way more to the right economically then I am, and I certainly don't agree with his stances on social questions as they relate to minorities. But that doesn't mean that I completely denounce someone if they are at least interested in engaging in intellectual debate, and respect the values of our political system.

lmao.

Also, while I do understand the importance of debate, I don't blame Ocasio-Cortez for refusing to debate someone who things it should be legal to rape your wife.

[136or142]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

So then what's your problem?

My problem is that many of the posters on here have continued to defend Ocasio-Cortez, even though it should be pretty clear that she is not the best informed on the issues, which I think is a prerequisite for any holding public office. We have too many people, on both sides of the aisle, as it is who are woefully inadequate for the job that they tasked with, and Ocasio-Cortez would merely increase those numbers. If she were someone who was able to better articulate her viewpoints and had done her homework, and if she had a laser focus on the issues affecting her constituents, then I would have no problem with her.

So basically those who you personally think should agree to a debate with a random person who asks for a debate should do it.

Even on this criteria here, how far would you go with that?  Donald Trump doesn't know much of anything about any issue. Should he be debating 24/7 until he gets up to speed?

[Calthrina950]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

I feel like you're fundamentally misunderstanding what a "debate" is in the context of a politically campaign. Ocasio-Cortez won, in part, because she attended a debate and Joe Crowley sent someone else in his place. You seem to think she's against debates, period. She's only against debates with random tryhard asshole misogynists like Ben Shapiro.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a forum for nerdy teenagers. You take this place and yourself entirely too seriously.

Nerdy teenagers? Many of the users on here (i.e. Fuzzy Bear, GeorgiaModerate, pbrower, muon2, Torie) are in their fifties or sixties, and belong to the Baby Boomer Generation. They have a great deal of experience and approach the issues discussed here in a serious, analytical manner. Many of the other users on this forum (i.e. That Conservative Guy, TheSaint, Loyola, TimTurner, etc.) are young adults, but they have a serious interest in politics and make very substantive combinations. This website was founded for people in the general public who are interested in electoral statistics and the facts connected to those statistics. To say that this is just a "forum for needy teenagers" is a great understatement.

I find it an irony that I, who consider myself to be a moderate independent, have argued with people on both extremes of the ideological spectrum. I've argued with people like you, Adam, ProudModerate2, DoctorImperialism, AtorBoltox, and Landslide Lyndon who are on the far left of that spectrum, and I've argued with users on other websites that I frequent (i.e. The Federalist, Townhall, Huffington Post), who are way on the right side of the spectrum. Both extremes have views that I think only worsen the polarization in this country. People like many of you who call Republicans fascists, and people like the Trump supporters elsewhere who call Democrats communists, are people that I despise.

And again, I said in my post that I don't support much of Shapiro's views. He is way more to the right economically then I am, and I certainly don't agree with his stances on social questions as they relate to minorities. But that doesn't mean that I completely denounce someone if they are at least interested in engaging in intellectual debate, and respect the values of our political system.

lmao.

Also, while I do understand the importance of debate, I don't blame Ocasio-Cortez for refusing to debate someone who things it should be legal to rape your wife.

I certainly don't condone such a view, and again, I did say that it was within her rights to refuse, especially given how Shapiro made his offer.

And what is it with "lmao"? Landslide Lyndon seems to fall on the left side of the ideological spectrum, from what I've seen of his posts. If he isn't, then that is my mistake.

[Calthrina950]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

So then what's your problem?

My problem is that many of the posters on here have continued to defend Ocasio-Cortez, even though it should be pretty clear that she is not the best informed on the issues, which I think is a prerequisite for any holding public office. We have too many people, on both sides of the aisle, as it is who are woefully inadequate for the job that they tasked with, and Ocasio-Cortez would merely increase those numbers. If she were someone who was able to better articulate her viewpoints and had done her homework, and if she had a laser focus on the issues affecting her constituents, then I would have no problem with her.

So basically those who you personally think should agree to a debate with a random person who asks for a debate should do it.

Even on this criteria here, how far would you go with that?  Donald Trump doesn't know much of anything about any issue. Should he be debating 24/7 until he gets up to speed?

See my above post. I don't know why I'm even conversing with you again after the previous clashes that we have had.

[136or142]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

I feel like you're fundamentally misunderstanding what a "debate" is in the context of a politically campaign. Ocasio-Cortez won, in part, because she attended a debate and Joe Crowley sent someone else in his place. You seem to think she's against debates, period. She's only against debates with random tryhard asshole misogynists like Ben Shapiro.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a forum for nerdy teenagers. You take this place and yourself entirely too seriously.

Nerdy teenagers? Many of the users on here (i.e. Fuzzy Bear, GeorgiaModerate, pbrower, muon2, Torie) are in their fifties or sixties, and belong to the Baby Boomer Generation. They have a great deal of experience and approach the issues discussed here in a serious, analytical manner. Many of the other users on this forum (i.e. That Conservative Guy, TheSaint, Loyola, TimTurner, etc.) are young adults, but they have a serious interest in politics and make very substantive combinations. This website was founded for people in the general public who are interested in electoral statistics and the facts connected to those statistics. To say that this is just a "forum for needy teenagers" is a great understatement.

I find it an irony that I, who consider myself to be a moderate independent, have argued with people on both extremes of the ideological spectrum. I've argued with people like you, Adam, ProudModerate2, DoctorImperialism, AtorBoltox, and Landslide Lyndon who are on the far left of that spectrum, and I've argued with users on other websites that I frequent (i.e. The Federalist, Townhall, Huffington Post), who are way on the right side of the spectrum. Both extremes have views that I think only worsen the polarization in this country. People like many of you who call Republicans fascists, and people like the Trump supporters elsewhere who call Democrats communists, are people that I despise.

And again, I said in my post that I don't support much of Shapiro's views. He is way more to the right economically then I am, and I certainly don't agree with his stances on social questions as they relate to minorities. But that doesn't mean that I completely denounce someone if they are at least interested in engaging in intellectual debate, and respect the values of our political system.

lmao.

Also, while I do understand the importance of debate, I don't blame Ocasio-Cortez for refusing to debate someone who things it should be legal to rape your wife.

I certainly don't condone such a view, and again, I did say that it was within her rights to refuse, especially given how Shapiro made his offer.

And what is it with "lmao"? Landslide Lyndon seems to fall on the left side of the ideological spectrum, from what I've seen of his posts. If he isn't, then that is my mistake.

Yes, but you also wrote that you thought she should have accepted the debate.  Funny how you don't post that as well.

[ON Progressive]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

I feel like you're fundamentally misunderstanding what a "debate" is in the context of a politically campaign. Ocasio-Cortez won, in part, because she attended a debate and Joe Crowley sent someone else in his place. You seem to think she's against debates, period. She's only against debates with random tryhard asshole misogynists like Ben Shapiro.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a forum for nerdy teenagers. You take this place and yourself entirely too seriously.

Nerdy teenagers? Many of the users on here (i.e. Fuzzy Bear, GeorgiaModerate, pbrower, muon2, Torie) are in their fifties or sixties, and belong to the Baby Boomer Generation. They have a great deal of experience and approach the issues discussed here in a serious, analytical manner. Many of the other users on this forum (i.e. That Conservative Guy, TheSaint, Loyola, TimTurner, etc.) are young adults, but they have a serious interest in politics and make very substantive combinations. This website was founded for people in the general public who are interested in electoral statistics and the facts connected to those statistics. To say that this is just a "forum for needy teenagers" is a great understatement.

I find it an irony that I, who consider myself to be a moderate independent, have argued with people on both extremes of the ideological spectrum. I've argued with people like you, Adam, ProudModerate2, DoctorImperialism, AtorBoltox, and Landslide Lyndon who are on the far left of that spectrum, and I've argued with users on other websites that I frequent (i.e. The Federalist, Townhall, Huffington Post), who are way on the right side of the spectrum. Both extremes have views that I think only worsen the polarization in this country. People like many of you who call Republicans fascists, and people like the Trump supporters elsewhere who call Democrats communists, are people that I despise.

And again, I said in my post that I don't support much of Shapiro's views. He is way more to the right economically then I am, and I certainly don't agree with his stances on social questions as they relate to minorities. But that doesn't mean that I completely denounce someone if they are at least interested in engaging in intellectual debate, and respect the values of our political system.

lmao.

Also, while I do understand the importance of debate, I don't blame Ocasio-Cortez for refusing to debate someone who things it should be legal to rape your wife.

I certainly don't condone such a view, and again, I did say that it was within her rights to refuse, especially given how Shapiro made his offer.

And what is it with "lmao"? Landslide Lyndon seems to fall on the left side of the ideological spectrum, from what I've seen of his posts. If he isn't, then that is my mistake.

You called him "far left" which is comical at best. Landslide Lyndon likes to complain about the left of the Democratic Party all the time. Besides, "far left" only means communism and anarchism really. Virtually nobody here, and certainly not Landslide Lyndon, is either of those things.

[136or142]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

You two have insulted me in the past, and that is why I limit my interactions with you. Debate should be civil and professional, and neither of you have demonstrated that you are capable of being so. That is another limit to debate that I recognize.

So then what's your problem?

My problem is that many of the posters on here have continued to defend Ocasio-Cortez, even though it should be pretty clear that she is not the best informed on the issues, which I think is a prerequisite for any holding public office. We have too many people, on both sides of the aisle, as it is who are woefully inadequate for the job that they tasked with, and Ocasio-Cortez would merely increase those numbers. If she were someone who was able to better articulate her viewpoints and had done her homework, and if she had a laser focus on the issues affecting her constituents, then I would have no problem with her.

So basically those who you personally think should agree to a debate with a random person who asks for a debate should do it.

Even on this criteria here, how far would you go with that?  Donald Trump doesn't know much of anything about any issue. Should he be debating 24/7 until he gets up to speed?

See my above post. I don't know why I'm even conversing with you again after the previous clashes that we have had.

Nothing that you wrote above answers my question.

Why shouldn't you converse with me?  I think I always back up my points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments. So, I believe that public discourse is advanced.

[Calthrina950]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

I feel like you're fundamentally misunderstanding what a "debate" is in the context of a politically campaign. Ocasio-Cortez won, in part, because she attended a debate and Joe Crowley sent someone else in his place. You seem to think she's against debates, period. She's only against debates with random tryhard asshole misogynists like Ben Shapiro.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a forum for nerdy teenagers. You take this place and yourself entirely too seriously.

Nerdy teenagers? Many of the users on here (i.e. Fuzzy Bear, GeorgiaModerate, pbrower, muon2, Torie) are in their fifties or sixties, and belong to the Baby Boomer Generation. They have a great deal of experience and approach the issues discussed here in a serious, analytical manner. Many of the other users on this forum (i.e. That Conservative Guy, TheSaint, Loyola, TimTurner, etc.) are young adults, but they have a serious interest in politics and make very substantive combinations. This website was founded for people in the general public who are interested in electoral statistics and the facts connected to those statistics. To say that this is just a "forum for needy teenagers" is a great understatement.

I find it an irony that I, who consider myself to be a moderate independent, have argued with people on both extremes of the ideological spectrum. I've argued with people like you, Adam, ProudModerate2, DoctorImperialism, AtorBoltox, and Landslide Lyndon who are on the far left of that spectrum, and I've argued with users on other websites that I frequent (i.e. The Federalist, Townhall, Huffington Post), who are way on the right side of the spectrum. Both extremes have views that I think only worsen the polarization in this country. People like many of you who call Republicans fascists, and people like the Trump supporters elsewhere who call Democrats communists, are people that I despise.

And again, I said in my post that I don't support much of Shapiro's views. He is way more to the right economically then I am, and I certainly don't agree with his stances on social questions as they relate to minorities. But that doesn't mean that I completely denounce someone if they are at least interested in engaging in intellectual debate, and respect the values of our political system.

lmao.

Also, while I do understand the importance of debate, I don't blame Ocasio-Cortez for refusing to debate someone who things it should be legal to rape your wife.

I certainly don't condone such a view, and again, I did say that it was within her rights to refuse, especially given how Shapiro made his offer.

And what is it with "lmao"? Landslide Lyndon seems to fall on the left side of the ideological spectrum, from what I've seen of his posts. If he isn't, then that is my mistake.

You called him "far left" which is comical at best. Landslide Lyndon likes to complain about the left of the Democratic Party all the time. Besides, "far left" only means communism and anarchism really. Virtually nobody here, and certainly not Landslide Lyndon, is either of those things.

Virtually all of the users who have a burgundy avatar on this forum are farther to the lift then most mainstream Democrats. And some of the Democrats here are farther left than others, i.e. someone like IceSpear or HagridoftheDeep is farther to the left than someone like Bagel23. That is what I mean by "far left".

[136or142]

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So, where does this end?  Every politician and candidate who is challenged to a debate has to accept?

Who knows, that might actually work.  Mueller could challenge Trump to a 'debate' over what Trump and his campaign and associates did during the campaign.

Ben Shapiro is not entitled to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s attention or time. He is not her constituent nor is he a politician. His logic in this entire situation is identical to the logic of some incel nerd who thinks he’s entitled to a woman’s attention because he held a door and bought her lunch.

It's unfortunate that so many of the red and burgundy avatars here are celebrating the fact that Ocasio-Cortez rejected the debate offer. It was within her rights to do so, but to evade debate with someone on issues such as these isn't the best way to win the respect of others. And yes, I have seen the posts about the debate offer to Shapiro. That still doesn't change my overall point. People on both sides of the ideological debate who chant slogans and do "soft" interviews, but do not engage in substantive debates, undermine their own credibility.

A debate for the sake of a debate doesn't make it substantive.

A debate focused around policy is substantive, in my view. I'm not defending Shapiro here, but what harm does a debate pose? You can have people who are ideological opposites disagree on the issues, but as long as they back up their points with valid evidence and have well thought out arguments, then I believe that public discourse is advanced.

So what, she has to debate every asshole who asks her to debate? That’s stupid.

I think that there should be limits to whether or not a debate should be held. As I said in my post (if you two had even bothered to read it), it was within Ocasio-Cortez's rights to turn down Shapiro's offer. And Shapiro's offer wasn't posed in the manner that it should have been.

I feel like you're fundamentally misunderstanding what a "debate" is in the context of a politically campaign. Ocasio-Cortez won, in part, because she attended a debate and Joe Crowley sent someone else in his place. You seem to think she's against debates, period. She's only against debates with random tryhard asshole misogynists like Ben Shapiro.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is a forum for nerdy teenagers. You take this place and yourself entirely too seriously.

Nerdy teenagers? Many of the users on here (i.e. Fuzzy Bear, GeorgiaModerate, pbrower, muon2, Torie) are in their fifties or sixties, and belong to the Baby Boomer Generation. They have a great deal of experience and approach the issues discussed here in a serious, analytical manner. Many of the other users on this forum (i.e. That Conservative Guy, TheSaint, Loyola, TimTurner, etc.) are young adults, but they have a serious interest in politics and make very substantive contributions. This website was founded for people in the general public who are interested in electoral statistics and the facts connected to those statistics. To say that this is just a "forum for nerdy teenagers" is a great understatement.

I find it an irony that I, who consider myself to be a moderate independent, have argued with people on both extremes of the ideological spectrum. I've argued with people like you, Adam, ProudModerate2, DoctorImperialism, AtorBoltox, and Landslide Lyndon who are on the far left of that spectrum, and I've argued with users on other websites that I frequent (i.e. The Federalist, Townhall, Huffington Post), who are way on the right side of the spectrum. Both extremes have views that I think only worsen the polarization in this country. People like many of you who call Republicans fascists, and people like the Trump supporters elsewhere who call Democrats communists, are people that I despise.

And again, I said in my post that I don't support much of Shapiro's views. He is way more to the right economically then I am, and I certainly don't agree with his stances on social questions as they relate to minorities. But that doesn't mean that I completely denounce someone if they are at least interested in engaging in intellectual debate, and respect the values of our political system.

What about those who call Democrats socialists?