I Remember I Was At This One Forum And They Had Debates That Everyone Voted On. I Challenge @Savvir

[Prince.Skeletor]

So people would vote for who the debators would be, and then the two debated and everyone voted via a poll on who won.
We should have that here, if not only for friendly debate but also to see where everyone is at.

I would like to start.
I challenge @Savvir for the first such debate.

This is following a few back and forths we had in that other "ya'll think this site is comprimised" thread.
@Savvir do you accept this challenge?

And also, i'm not making this thread because based on votes I think i'll win.
I actually think i'll lose, not because i'm wrong but because many will just vote against me cuz it's me, and others will only disagree with me because of a similar mentality as @Savvir

It started off like this, so if you agree it shall just follow on from the below

Honestly, Trumps government probably loves this website.

The massive amount of #bothsides rhetoric has been a blessing for their cause.

They would want yall to keep going. Yall not saying anything that works against them

You seem to be under the impression that the DNC would prefer Bernie Sanders over Trump.
I'm pretty sure they would prefer Trump over Bernie

You disagree?

I’m talking about bothsiders helping Trump…

Are you saying bothsiders help Bernie too?

What does the dnc liking or not liking Bernie have to do with my statement?

As far as the dnc preferring Trump… I’m pretty the DNC would prefer any democrat as president instead of Trump.

Listen, the fight against bothsiders man...it's only relevant during Trump because he's so exceptionally evil.
But do you really see a large number of Democrats going against him?
Come on man, they have have the same donors and the things Democrats are letting Trump get away with is MADNESS!

If they were real they would all get together and have Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries get bushed
You got nothing except "strongly worded letters" that Trump probably didn't even read.

The opposing leadership sucks and as far as the rest of the legislators many of them got the same donors so they shutting the f up.
Are you sure you should have more anger towards them then bothsiders?
Don't you think your finger pointing is misdirected?

What does the dnc liking or not liking Bernie have to do with my statement?

Let's see

Honestly, Trumps government probably loves this website.

The massive amount of #bothsides rhetoric has been a blessing for their cause.

They would want yall to keep going. Yall not saying anything that works against them

Trump is a chaos agent, but he doesn’t threaten their donor base. The big banks, the corporations, the defense contractors, bla bla, they cut checks to both parties. A Trump presidency doesn’t sever those ties, it actually keeps the same donor class in the driver’s seat.
Bernie, on the other hand, is an actual threat to that pipeline. I'm sure you agree with this.

And we saw it in real time. During the primaries, mainstream Democrats didn’t just fight Bernie, they teamed up to kneecap him. The media gave Trump wall-to-wall, 24/7 coverage, practically building him up, while Bernie got frozen out or treated like a fringe candidate. That wasn’t an accident, it was the establishment making sure that the real threat to their power never broke through.

So….

You’re not even arguing the point that bothsiders help Trump… you just want to talk about a completely different point about Bernie right?

the real point is that democrats were pushing healthcare reform and police accountability bills etc that have been deaded. And trying to just focus on donors is valid… but I’m more focused on actual policy differences which are ENOURMOUS.

This whole exchange between me and you is really just you trying to shift the topic to justify the bothsides ideology. Looking through the proposed legislation proves your whole premise is shallow and lacks insight. So i appreciate the attempt… but it still falls flat.

You trying to dodge the issue, but you can’t but say I am.
You accused me of changing focus topics, Let me break that down again, and show you why your attempt to refocus on “policy differences” is you being evasive.

You want to talk policy? Let's go! But the DNC establishment spent billions of dollars, leveraged every institutional tool, pushed negative media narratives, and used rules, superdelegates, and party machinery to block Bernie. This wasn’t a normal primary battle, it was a war on populism.

Firstly the Clinton campaign’s joint fundraising with the DNC, via the “Hillary Victory Fund,” routed massive funds in a way that disadvantaged Bernie’s ability to raise on equal footing.
Democratic insiders openly and covertly undercut Bernie’s momentum, disqualifying staff, gatekeeping debates, amplifying attacks, and sidelining his path forward.
That is not a neutral or a fair primary. That is a calculated sabotage nawm.

Yes, Democrats have introduced bills on healthcare, police reform, climate, etc. Many of them died, stalled, or were watered down. That’s not just incompetence you know, that’s the result of internal resistance and pressure from interest groups.

You don’t want to admit that your policy focus is a dodge, because if you stick there, you have to admit the fact that the party itself is stacked against the populist wing. You’d rather talk about bothsiders and which bills died than the people who decided which bills ever got a hearing.

In conclusion..... Bothsiders aren’t the problem, they’re just pointing out what’s in plain sight.
And the more attacks against bothsiders the more you just alienating people by saying "Yo close your eyes".

It's the same as saying that people who said Biden too old and needs to drop out were helping Trump.
Be more practical, stop being on a warpath expecting people to not acknoledge whats in plain sight.
There is zero victory in taking that path my dude.

I'm sure you and me may agree on many things, but your strategy sucks expired taco bell.

Dude…. Are you really saying the current Republican Party is the same as the current democrat party

The bothsiders arguement is flawed completely. Could the democrat party be better? Yes. But trying to point out the party’s flaws as proof of them being the same as this fascist maga cult is completely rediculous.

I don’t know how come you nikkas keep trying to say they are the same… and instead of pointing out how THEY ARE THE SAME… you only point out how democrats could have been better.

The evidence you show to support your statements isn’t even true to what your statement is saying.

A Kamala Harris run executive branch would be doing the same thing as this Trump run executive branch? The answer to that is obvious… but the juelzing yall do to try to say it without saying it is Olympics level mental gymnastics

Dude…. Are you really saying the current Republican Party is the same as the current democrat party

No not even one bit
That's not at all what i'm saying, and you interpreting it as such is very telling.
Kinda shows that you are indoctrinated.
For the record the current Repub party is beyond evil.
And with that beyond evil I don't see much opposition from the Democrats.

So you realizing how evil they are but not seeing much opposition from your party except for the names that I am dropping is something you should consider.
At one point I saw more Democrats against Zohran Mamdani than Trump.

he bothsiders arguement is flawed completely. Could the democrat party be better? Yes. But trying to point out the party’s flaws as proof of them being the same as this fascist maga cult is completely rediculous.

Okay just listen to this one thing
You saying Bothsiders is flawed and are the problem IS the problem.
Democrat party favorability polls are at an all time now, DURING THE MOST EVIL republican administration and party EVER.
The repubs own everything and WHILE doing an evil horrible job Dems's future looks horrible.

That alone shows you that you need to let go of that hate against bothsiders.
Instead align with them, and only WITH them can you win.
That's what i'm saying, you cannot win without them and you will never change their mind.
Just accept that and be more strategic.

I don’t know how come you nikkas keep trying to say they are the same… and instead of pointing out how THEY ARE THE SAME… you only point out how democrats could have been better.

I don't think Bothsiders saying they the same.
And I don't think they need to.
You gotta come to the realization that if you got two murderers, one that killed 30 people and one that killed 10 people both should be arrested.
You don't have to equate them to arrest both of them.
That's how most humans think.

A Kamala Harris run executive branch would be doing the same thing as this Trump run executive branch?

No it wouldn't, it would be much better than this nightmare.
I am not trying to be a purist here, I am talking about strategy.

Align with bothsiders instead, ask more from your party.
That's how you win instead of being an apologist.

Blaming bothsiders is like blaming the fire alarm for being loud instead of blaming the people who set your house on fire.
And then when witnesses point out the people who are the arsonists you blame them for empowering the arsonists because you like some of them since a few of them poured less gasoline than others.
Don't you see how ridiculous that is?

So yeah, attacking bothsiders is ridiculous. It’s basically saying, “Don’t question the corruption on our side, or else you’re helping the other corrupt side.” That’s not democracy my dude, that’s hostage-taking.

Oh. You think bothsiders share the sentiment that republicans are worse than democrats?

Lol

You really haven’t been paying attention to the people who hold that label.

Thinking bothsiders understand there a vast different on which party is worse is like a republican thinking they’re voting for fiscal responsibility. Lol

The bothsider ideology has been usurped by Trumpers. You’re just falling for the okie doke at this point.

Oh. You think bothsiders share the sentiment that republicans are worse than democrats?

For the most part yes.
I think there's some on both isles, like Republicans who think they are both the same but Dems are worse.
But I would say most of them are leftists/progressives/libs that believe both are bad but Repubs are worse.

Thinking all politiicans are corrupt and that causing apathy towards politics and not voting is nothing new man.
In both U.S. and Canada, so in North America but especially U.S. this is nothing new.
It's been like this for so very long.
And the corruption could be 70%/30%, but you will argue hey why do you think it's 50/50.
No, it doesn't need to be 50/50 to cause apathy.

You really haven’t been paying attention to the people who hold that label.

If you mean this site yes
I always find people here remember my username way more than I remember theirs
But I don't think that changes anything

Thinking bothsiders understand there a vast different on which party is worse is like a republican thinking they’re voting for fiscal responsibility. Lol

The bothsider ideology has been usurped by Trumpers. You’re just falling for the okie doke at this point.

You saying that bothsiders got us Trump is totally backwards. Trump got built by the media and the DNC who gave him wall-to-wall airtime while sabotaging Bernie. This if fact.
Dems kept screaming Russia but it was Hillary and the DNC that propped him up so he could be the nominee thinking he'd be too easy to defeat.

And now the media is barely attacking him, if you think they are my answer is not enough.
How come Democrats aren't all endorsing Mamdani?
How come you learn more about Trump corruption from Kyle Kulinsky and Krystal Ball than from Democat leaders?
90% of the things Kyle and Krystal talk about dumping on Trump NO DEMOCRATS are mentioning!!
Maybe 95% even.

Bothsiders didn’t hand him power, that's ridiculous, the establishment did. Blaming people who see corruption on both sides is just a cope to avoid admitting your party chose donors over democracy.
And after handing him power you got Chuck Schumer sending strongly worded letters, and you are content with that.
If so aren't YOU more pro-Trump than bothsiders?
Because you may be against him symbolically but you giving him what he wants.

I don't know what your strategy is here, but whereever you are now in having what you want politically won't get much better if you continue like this.

 

[Turtle]

Spoiler

 

[Savvir]

So people would vote for who the debators would be, and then the two debated and everyone voted via a poll on who won.
We should have that here, if not only for friendly debate but also to see where everyone is at.

I would like to start.
I challenge @Savvir for the first such debate.

This is following a few back and forths we had in that other "ya'll think this site is comprimised" thread.
@Savvir do you accept this challenge?

And also, i'm not making this thread because based on votes I think i'll win.
I actually think i'll lose, not because i'm wrong but because many will just vote against me cuz it's me, and others will only disagree with me because of a similar mentality as @Savvir

It started off like this, so if you agree it shall just follow on from the below


























No not even one bit
That's not at all what i'm saying, and you interpreting it as such is very telling.
Kinda shows that you are indoctrinated.
For the record the current Repub party is beyond evil.
And with that beyond evil I don't see much opposition from the Democrats.

So you realizing how evil they are but not seeing much opposition from your party except for the names that I am dropping is something you should consider.
At one point I saw more Democrats against Zohran Mamdani than Trump.


Okay just listen to this one thing
You saying Bothsiders is flawed and are the problem IS the problem.
Democrat party favorability polls are at an all time now, DURING THE MOST EVIL republican administration and party EVER.
The repubs own everything and WHILE doing an evil horrible job Dems's future looks horrible.

That alone shows you that you need to let go of that hate against bothsiders.
Instead align with them, and only WITH them can you win.
That's what i'm saying, you cannot win without them and you will never change their mind.
Just accept that and be more strategic.


I don't think Bothsiders saying they the same.
And I don't think they need to.
You gotta come to the realization that if you got two murderers, one that killed 30 people and one that killed 10 people both should be arrested.
You don't have to equate them to arrest both of them.
That's how most humans think.


No it wouldn't, it would be much better than this nightmare.
I am not trying to be a purist here, I am talking about strategy.

Align with bothsiders instead, ask more from your party.
That's how you win instead of being an apologist.

Blaming bothsiders is like blaming the fire alarm for being loud instead of blaming the people who set your house on fire.
And then when witnesses point out the people who are the arsonists you blame them for empowering the arsonists because you like some of them since a few of them poured less gasoline than others.
Don't you see how ridiculous that is?

So yeah, attacking bothsiders is ridiculous. It’s basically saying, “Don’t question the corruption on our side, or else you’re helping the other corrupt side.” That’s not democracy my dude, that’s hostage-taking.






For the most part yes.
I think there's some on both isles, like Republicans who think they are both the same but Dems are worse.
But I would say most of them are leftists/progressives/libs that believe both are bad but Repubs are worse.

Thinking all politiicans are corrupt and that causing apathy towards politics and not voting is nothing new man.
In both U.S. and Canada, so in North America but especially U.S. this is nothing new.
It's been like this for so very long.
And the corruption could be 70%/30%, but you will argue hey why do you think it's 50/50.
No, it doesn't need to be 50/50 to cause apathy.


If you mean this site yes
I always find people here remember my username way more than I remember theirs
But I don't think that changes anything


You saying that bothsiders got us Trump is totally backwards. Trump got built by the media and the DNC who gave him wall-to-wall airtime while sabotaging Bernie. This if fact.
Dems kept screaming Russia but it was Hillary and the DNC that propped him up so he could be the nominee thinking he'd be too easy to defeat.

And now the media is barely attacking him, if you think they are my answer is not enough.
How come Democrats aren't all endorsing Mamdani?
How come you learn more about Trump corruption from Kyle Kulinsky and Krystal Ball than from Democat leaders?
90% of the things Kyle and Krystal talk about dumping on Trump NO DEMOCRATS are mentioning!!
Maybe 95% even.

Bothsiders didn’t hand him power, that's ridiculous, the establishment did. Blaming people who see corruption on both sides is just a cope to avoid admitting your party chose donors over democracy.
And after handing him power you got Chuck Schumer sending strongly worded letters, and you are content with that.
If so aren't YOU more pro-Trump than bothsiders?
Because you may be against him symbolically but you giving him what he wants.

I don't know what your strategy is here, but whereever you are now in having what you want politically won't get much better if you continue like this.

1. I said bothsiders help Trump. You’re arguing that I said bothsiders got him elected above all other factors…



Breh. Show me a bothsider who agreed that Kamala was a much better candidate during the election. Can you @ them?

You’re trying to make reasonable statements to water down what the actual opinions of bothsiders was before and during the election.

All these paragraphs aren’t changing that.

The group of people who claim that label don’t have an ideology that matches the stuff you’re trying to present in this thread.

2. What actions should chuck Schumer have taken that he didn’t? I’m genuinely curious.

3. Which democrats are not endorsing the NY mayor candidate that should be? What’s the norm for democrat msyoral endorsements that’s not being follow. Again I’m just curious about this topic.

4. Saying that because I’m against bothsides are the same narrative means I want people to overlook democrat corruption is a huge jump. Are you being honest with these takes or just trying to muddy the water on what my intention is?

 

[blockburna420]

 

[Prince.Skeletor]

1. I said bothsiders help Trump. You’re arguing that I said bothsiders got him elected above all other factors…



Breh. Show me a bothsider who agreed that Kamala was a much better candidate during the election. Can you @ them?

You’re trying to make reasonable statements to water down what the actual opinions of bothsiders was before and during the election.

All these paragraphs aren’t changing that.

The group of people who claim that label don’t have an ideology that matches the stuff you’re trying to present in this thread.

2. What actions should chuck Schumer have taken that he didn’t? I’m genuinely curious.

3. Which democrats are not endorsing the NY mayor candidate that should be? What’s the norm for democrat msyoral endorsements that’s not being follow. Again I’m just curious about this topic.

4. Saying that because I’m against bothsides are the same narrative means I want people to overlook democrat corruption a jump. Are you being honest with these takes or just trying to muddy the water on what my intention is?

1. If they helped Trump didn't they help him get elected? Also if you aligned with bothsiders more Trump would not have won, and you also do not understand why Kamala didn't win.
And i'm not watering down anything. Your attempt to narrow the definition of “bothsiders” just shields your own side from accountability.

2. Are you seriously askign me how Chuck Schumer could have done better? He should’ve used the power of his leadership to refuse deals that compromise core principles and withheld support for bills that make rich donors richer. What could he have done better? Dude the bar is soooo lowww with him, when was the last time he fought for anything?
Leadership means deciding who gets airtime, which bills get hearings, and who gets priority. Schumer (and his allies) consistently side with centrist, donor-friendly legislation rather than structural change.

3. Regarding Mamdani say what? Endorsement norms my dude. Within a party major figures usually combine forces behind the primary winner or a broadly acceptable candidate. If establishment Democrats are withholding support from a democrat nominee, that sends a message does it not?
The norm would be... once the primary is decided, party unity kicks in, and most elected Democrats jump on board. Refusing to do so is a snub.

4. Nope. The leap is yours. Criticizing bothsider talk doesn’t mean ignoring corruption, it means refusing to scapegoat independent critics for systemic failure.
Also I see what you doing, Whenever I criticize your defensive stance, you seem to shift the conversation whenever someone calls out your party. That’s a tactic to avoid critique, not honesty.
You don’t get to frame all criticism as malicious. If any critique is labeled as “muddying the waters,” it kills accountability, you don't see that?

And you saying that calling out bothsiders means ignoring corruption is a strawman, I’m accusing you of using that dodge to escape accountability.
You defending a system, not criticizing it, and when someone points that out, you scream “bothsider” to distract from the real issue.

 

[Savvir]

1. If they helped Trump didn't they help him get elected? Also if you aligned with bothsiders more Trump would not have won, and you also do not understand why Kamala didn't win.
And i'm not watering down anything. Your attempt to narrow the definition of “bothsiders” just shields your own side from accountability.

2. Are you seriously askign me how Chuck Schumer could have done better? He should’ve used the power of his leadership to refuse deals that compromise core principles and withheld support for bills that make rich donors richer. What could he have done better? Dude the bar is soooo lowww with him, when was the last time he fought for anything?
Leadership means deciding who gets airtime, which bills get hearings, and who gets priority. Schumer (and his allies) consistently side with centrist, donor-friendly legislation rather than structural change.

3. Regarding Mamdani say what? Endorsement norms my dude. Within a party major figures usually combine forces behind the primary winner or a broadly acceptable candidate. If establishment Democrats are withholding support from a democrat nominee, that sends a message does it not?
The norm would be... once the primary is decided, party unity kicks in, and most elected Democrats jump on board. Refusing to do so is a snub.

4. Nope. The leap is yours. Criticizing bothsider talk doesn’t mean ignoring corruption, it means refusing to scapegoat independent critics for systemic failure.
Also I see what you doing, Whenever I criticize your defensive stance, you seem to shift the conversation whenever someone calls out your party. That’s a tactic to avoid critique, not honesty.
You don’t get to frame all criticism as malicious. If any critique is labeled as “muddying the waters,” it kills accountability, you don't see that?

And you saying that calling out bothsiders means ignoring corruption is a strawman, I’m accusing you of using that dodge to escape accountability.
You defending a system, not criticizing it, and when someone points that out, you scream “bothsider” to distract from the real issue.

1. Democrats themselves judge the democrat party. Independents criticize the democrat party. The reason I’m talking about bothsiders is because they are lowkey trump supporters as evidenced by their loudest proponents on this website. Let me know if you need examples.

I’m only calling out one group of “critics” because they push a narrative in bad faith. There’s been plenty of bothsider exposal threads on here. Once again, let me know if you need examples of what I’m talking about.

2. Can you give me specific examples of what you’re claiming?

3. Which specific democrats failed to endorse Mondami that you think should have?

4. This is where you’re missing my point. I don’t consider the bothsides movement “independent” not because they criticize democrat flaws but because of how many Trump supporters claim that label. Let me know if you need examples.

 

[Seoul Gleou]

That guy is just a contrarian. When confronted with actual evidence, he runs away

 

[Savvir]

@YaThreadFloppedB!