The Instigator
patrioticintellect
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
lindsay
Con (against)
Winning
42 Points

Dennis Kucinich is the only Democratic presidential candidate who can beat a Republican in 2008.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/10/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,503 times Debate No: 202
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (20)

 

patrioticintellect

Pro

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting evil.

I'm writing in Dennis Kucinich when I vote on November whether he is on the ballot or not. He is the only candidate that can beat a Republican. The rest are weak on progressive issues and any progressive values they speak out about will get trashed by Republicans. Republicans will do to Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, and Biden what was done to Kerry. They will put any candidate other than Dennis on the defensive for much of the election throughout the summer and up until November. It will be exactly like what happened when Kerry was accused of being a flip-flopper.

Think of the problem that a Democrat who sets himself or herself up for a run for the White House as the most electable candidate has. John Kerry did it and failed terribly. Without making sharp criticisms of the Bush administration and without using progressive messages to win vibrant support from his base, he lost to a man who many disapproved of. There is no reason why he should have lost. Except he did.

Now, we have three top-tier candidates unwilling to speak out about 9/11, impeachment, the illegality of the Iraq war, how wrong it is to consider human beings to be "illegal", the rise of fascism, etc. Instead, they play it safe only speaking ideas that will allow them to get Republican votes not even stopping to think if they are going to much towards the Right and losing the vote of Democrats. (*Or else they think they can be for whatever because Democrats will shamefully vote for a Democrat just because he or she is not a Republican and not even ask themselves if there's a dime's worth of difference.)

Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards should be prepared to eat the wisdom of Dennis Kucinich if they end up successfully marginalizing him out of the race:

I think it's inconsistent to tell the American people that you oppose the war and, yet, you continue to vote to fund the war. Because every time you vote to fund the war, you're reauthorizing the war all over again.
Dennis Kucinich

Funding the war yet speaking out against it is what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have continued to do. On April 26, 2007, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voted for H.R. 1591, which approved 124 billion dollars to go towards primarily the war in Iraq while also setting a timetable for withdrawal. The bill failed and instead a vote on a motion that was essentially H.R. 1591 without the troop withdrawal deadlines supported by anti-war Democrats was passed with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama voting against it.

As with the attack on John Kerry where Republicans said that "he voted for the war before he voted against it", it could undoubtedly be said the Republicans will be gearing up to use the same attacks on Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. And even John Edwards or Chris Dodd. The story behind the words would not be the same, however, the words would. The Republicans will hold flip-flops in the air and say, "He (or she) voted for the war before voting against it." And then go on to talk about how they, the Democrats, continue to allow for funding without doing what should be done to show they are strong anti-war candidates. If they were truly anti-war, they would defund the war, use the funds already appropriated to bring our troops home, and then they would move the UN in to institute an international peacekeeping and security force that could finally bring peace to the region and end our "go-it-alone" strategy that has so negatively affected our standing in the world. That said, the Democrats should run a candidate who has been against the war from the start and who has consistently voted to defund the war and bring our troops home like the American people want.

Giuliani, Thompson, Romney and especially now Mike Huckabee...Neither Republican presidential candidate will be easy for any Democrat. It will be even harder if the Democratic candidate's stances are not rock solid. I'll repeat myself. It will be extremely difficult if the candidate we run has a history of changing his stance on the issues and if he has sometimes voted for something and then against it. We need someone with consistency like Dennis Kucinich to run or else, I will repeat myself again, the American people lose.
lindsay

Con

I strongly disagree.

While I don't think Hilary Clinton stands as strong of a chance, I firmly believe that Obama, if elected the Democratic candidate, could sweep the election and become the next president of the United States. I think this debate will most likely be clearing up facts, because I am actually working (minimally) for his campaign, and you are incorrect in some of the things you said during your opening argument.

Obama voted AGAINST the war from the beginning. Edwards and Clinton both voted FOR the war. The Democratic candidate will most likely be one of those three, and Obama is the only one who can say he opposed the war from THE BEGINNING. When the debates come around, no Republican can say, "It's easy to oppose the war now, but you were in favor of it after 9/11" because he was NOT.

Obama speaks out often about the illegality of the Iraq war, and while he does not focus as much of his attention on impeachment as Kucinich does, I think it is because he is more future-oriented, rather than dwelling on the past Bush mistakes. He wants to make this nation a better place for TOMORROW rather than dwelling on all of the Bush administration mistakes. NOT to say he doesn't disapprove, he often speaks out about Scooter Libby, Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the like. But Obama is not playing it safe. Watch his speeches if you doubt what I'm saying!!!

Also, Obama (and Edwards) are getting all of their campaigning funded for by Americans like you and me. No PAC groups, no federal lobbyists. Clinton is being backed by these groups, and I agree WITH YOU that she is not as strong of a candidate, because her actions and words don't match up. If you are "for the people" you should be funded "by the people."

Also, Obama was not present for the voting of sanctions in Iran, and Clinton voted FOR them. This is absurd!!!! Everyone should know that SHE IS STILL GIVING GEORGE BUSH MONEY FOR HIS TRIVIAL WARS! However, Obama was out campaigning, but he did state that his vote would be cast AGAINST this. So you were incorrect in stating that he is funding the war by his vote. He is not.

And with the "he voted for the war before he voted against it" line, that simply will not ring true with Obama. He voted against the war from DAY ONE. So this line cannot be used against him. I think you just had either assumed he voted for the war, or were misinformed. His record shows that he never voted for this war.

Also, one of Obama's strong points that he consistently states during debates, is that he wants to talk not just with our allies (which are few and far between these days!) but also our enemies. This defeats what you were saying about "go it alone" strategy; Obama wants to show the world that "America is back and ready to lead" -one of his quotes. Obama has been against the war from the start and does not vote to fund it. He wants to bring our troops HOME safely and promptly.

I want to make clear that I think we both agree on a lot of things, so I hope this debate does not become hostile!!! We both apparently don't think Hilary has a good chance! And for the record, I really like and admire Kucinich. IF he were to be the elected Democrat candidate, I would vote for him, and be proud of my vote. He's a wonderful candidate, and I admire his passion AND voting record. However, Obama is the forerunner (by a long shot) AND with his recent endorsement from Oprah Winfrey, he is pulling ahead of even Hilary Clinton in some recent polls!

Obama offers uniting the nation in a way no other candidate does. Him being black, in my opinion, works FOR him rather than AGAINST him (as many ignorant people think). He can be a symbolic representation that America is truly not a racist nation anymore. He is not as EXTREME of a liberal as Kucinich (he is not for the legalization of drugs, for example) so he will be more of a uniter than Kucinich would. Republicans and Democrats need to come together during the next administration, because right now our nation is so polarized, it is causing a lot of internal problems and bringing down the morale of the nation. Obama is the man to do this. Clinton is far more inconsistent in her voting record, and Republicans absolutely despise her already, so she certainly would not be as effective of a "uniter." (I believe we both agree on that!)

With Obama having never voted for the war, being an advocate of Universal Health Care (that would be in effect by the end of his first term, he promised), and wanting to regain respect and allies in the world, I think he is the perfect candidate. He offers "Change We Can Believe In."
Debate Round No. 1
patrioticintellect

Pro

Obama has voted FOR funding the war however since being elected. As long as you vote for funding the war, you are SUPPORTING the war. Obama, Edwards, and Clinton are only able to promise our troops will be out of Iraq by 2013.

With an administration like the Bush administration, how do you end an illegal war? How was Vietnam ended? The leaders of America decided to stop funding it. They dictated what Kucinich has, which is that you use the money already appropriated to bring our troops home now.

Obama has been AGAINST the war from the beginning but unlike Kucinich, he has not been against ALL wars since the beginning. In his now infamous speech, he said he is in favor of "smart" wars not "dumb" wars. We cannot afford a future war with Pakistan, Iran, or any other Middle Eastern country. We cannot afford further militarization of America in our schools and in our free market economy.

If Obama was "future-oriented" and really cared about the "illegality of the Iraq war", he would support impeachment. If we do not impeach Cheney then Bush now, we stand to set a dangerous precedent. Impeachment is not personal. It's not political. It's constitutional. And it is necessary to preserve the rule of law and to ensure that future generations are not subject to the same tyranny Americans have faced under Bush.

What happens when Edwards, Obama, and Kucinich (the candidates Democracy for America are telling Democrats to vote for) split the vote against Hillary and she wins? What happens when she steps in and gets all that power after being given the most money from defense contractors? Or what happens if Edwards or Obama becomes the nominee and loses because of failing to frame the debate like John Kerry did in 2004 and a Republican wins?

Obama may be black but that does not mean his presidency will benefit black people. If he really cared about black people, he would be talking about the massive incarceration of blacks, the racism and classism of Hurricane Katrina, the death penalty, marijuana laws, etc. But remember, in 2005, he had the chance to step up for blacks that had been disenfranchised in the 2004 election but chose not to step up. Kucinich stood up for black people and demanded a reexamination of the official ballot count while Barack stood silent.

He may be able to unite people but for what? Compromises are good but not if they produce bad policies.

And he won't even say SINGLE-PAYER.

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE is a funny thing to hear from these candidates (Edwards, Clinton, Obama) because it still means more of the same. It still means they are keeping the insurance interests in power. However, I understand that they are afraid to take them on. That's why Americans support Dennis Kucinich.

Do you really believe corporations will listen to a Democratic leader or just plain government for that matter tell them to put people before profits? That's essentially what Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are trying to get voters to believe. And it's misleading.

This system is broken. And the only solution is one Obama is afraid to touch.

But this isn't just about Obama. This is about Kucinich being the only candidate. But you tell me---How does a candidate like Obama plan on beating Mike Huckabee? When Mike wins Iowa, how do you fight him?

Kucinich can handle the Christian evangelical movement and transform voters into supporting Jesus through ideas of peace instead of militarization. But Obama has never spoken a word about the Department of Peace (to my knowledge).

Kucinich would never get cowed into having to always defend his faith while Obama would take the bait forever and always.

Huckabee will put Obama on the fence with abortion, immigration, the war on terrorism, etc. Kucinich already has a developed arsenal of policies that show the interconnectedness of these issues. His policies delve deeper into our nation's problems than Obama's. He could take anything thrown at him when his patriotism is question whereas I doubt Obama or Edwards or Hillary could not. They would shift their positions to gain votes if targeted even if their principles are sound.

We're talking about a courage to survive here. We're talking about strength through peace. We're talking about civil liberties being of the utmost importance. We're talking about a necessary redistribution of wealth. We're talking about a vision here that is evocative of the days of FDR.

Neither of these Democratic candidates are as grounded in the history of the Democratic Party as Kucinich is. He's been around for 40 years.

People are bored with Obama, Edwards, and Clinton's narrative. Kucinich comes from a life of homelessness. That background speaks to people who have and are experiencing hardships. Dennis is a true symbol of the American Dream.

People are bored with the saturated, homogenized, and minute visions of Obama, Edwards, and Clinton. If anything is going to move people to stand up to Republicans, it will be true Democratic values for humanity that draws a link to the presidencies of FDR and JFK---and in fact, LBJ's Great Society.

Dennis has raised his ideas on peace and sustainability to the level that the Religious Right has raised their issues on Jesus and how Christianity should influence America. Only Dennis can take on the Christian consumer society we are unfortunately creating that puts a stranglehold on Americans by forcing them to be part of a docile work force and be ignorant and naive.

Obama may be the forerunner but he's no forerunner on the issues. And when he, Edwards, and Clinton fail to motivate people to change, how do we stop four more years of corporate Republican power that has the possibility of being more Christian evangelical and ignorant than ever before?
lindsay

Con

where to begin....

Will you please enlighten me and tell me how Obama is a flip-flopper? I see that's what you're getting at, but you just don't have your ducks in a row. Obama has opposed the war from the get-go. He voted against it. GEORGE W. BUSH got us into the war. At the beginning when we first went over there, he voted not to go. NOW I believe what you're talking about is at the beginning of the war, funding it. He is quoted as saying:

"Once we were in, we were going to have some responsibility to try to make it work as best we can," the presidential candidate said. "More importantly, you make sure the troops are supported. I don't think there's any contradiction there whatsoever. We should not get in; once we were in, we had to make the best of a bad situation." -Barack Obama

He supported giving our troops resources. Not the war. And now, that the war has been going on and on with no end in sight, he has proposed plans to get us out, voted against George Bush's sanction ideas and "blank check" requests, etc.... There is no contradiction.

Also, his plan includes all combat troops out by March 31, 2008. Not 2013.

It's as though you either have "forgotten" or simply DO NOT KNOW that Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007. The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007 is binding and comprehensive legislation that not only reverses the President's dangerous and ill-conceived escalation, but also sets a new course for U.S. policy in Iraq that can bring a responsible end to the war and bring our troops home. It implements - with the force of law - a phased redeployment of U.S. forces that remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political solution necessary to promote stability.

And just for the record, I believe Obama as a Church of Christ member will have more support from Christians than Kucinich, who is 100% for the legalization of marijuana AND is married to a woman half his age, also claims to have seen "UFO's"....I don't disagree with any of these things. I actually support Kucinich in all of these things. HOWEVER EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS WON'T. Kucinich will not be able to handle the evangelical movement based on his ideas of "peace" anymore than any other candidate could. They all advocate peace and oppose this war, exception (if any) being Hilary Clinton for favoring sanctions in Iran.

Watch Obama's speeches and tell me people are bored with him. HA! Even if he doesn't win, he will go down as being enthusiastic and eliciting hope from Americans again. He gets a crowd "fired up!" and "ready to go!" (IF you don't know what I'm talking about, you shouldn't be here because you don't have enough background on the debate...) NEVER have we had the opportunity to see a woman, a latino, and a black man so on the verge of being president, and the nation is excited (some negatively, some positively) about it, to say the least. If anything, Edwards and Kucinich are the ones the nation isn't as excited about, which is why they're not being talked about and not as high up in the polls....people are amazed that America is ready for this.

I think you should learn a little more about Obama prior to talking about him in a negative light.
Debate Round No. 2
patrioticintellect

Pro

From Barack Obama's speech given on October 26, 2002, around the same time Dennis Kucinich was leading the House with this October 2002 analysis on the lack of a real case for war with Iraq. Highlights from his speech, which are pertinent to this discussion and can be found on Wikisource are:

"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances...

...I don't oppose all wars...

...That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics...

...I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."

Obama is no man for peace. He does not take the difficult stands on peace, humanity, and sustainability that Kucinich takes or that all Democratic candidates for president should take.

I include that he had good foresight on being able to make the distinction that a war against Iraq would require a US occupation. But I also highlight it because I wonder if the reason for not supporting a plan like H.R. 1234, the plan to end the Iraq war now ---not this phased re-deployment garbage--- is because he has to be right to be elected. And he knows being able to predict all that has gone wrong requires him to support the continuation of the war in the way he does so that he can show he is capable of dealing with Bush's occupation.

Kucinich does not need to use ad hominems when talking about the Bush administration like Barack Obama does. He doesn't need to keep the war going to show how great he would be as president. Kucinich has the courage to survive, and the courage to stand up and fight for a necessary de-funding for the war.

As long as you vote to fund the war, there is no way around it. You are voting FOR the war.

He said in the Democratic debate held in Dartmouth, NH on September 26th:

RUSSERT: "Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?"

OBAMA: "I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don't know what contingency will be out there.

That translates into 2013 to me. It also makes things way worse when looking at the fact that Obama would leave a residual force of up to 60,000 troops in Iraq. On top of that, these measures you champion only "cut troops by more than half." Your still leaving troops in.

In fact, read his Foreign Affairs published foreign policy. He would remove troops as a threat to the Iraq government if they do not do as we tell them and privatize their oil and violate union workers and setup their economy this way, etc. He would leave them there as long as security was maintained.

What does the legalization of marijuana, being married to a woman half your age, and UFOs have to do with religion? Nothing. And simply put, if these facts were an issue for Kucinich, which they aren't, he would be able to make them positive. In fact, in all responses on UFOs so far he has made the situation a positive.

Evangelical Christians will support Obama because he supports their war on the Middle East. They believe in the Book of Revelation and egging on Armageddon between the forces of Christ (America) and the Antichrist (all those in the Middle East that "threaten" them and or are complicit in dealing with that "threat"). Obama supports America as a Redeemer Nation. His policy fosters an evangelical belief that Americans are the Chosen People who are a specially ordained by God to remain alive while others aren't. He lets them work their divine plan, which brings a clash of civilizations to the world.

BUT allow me to bring it back to the premise of this debate. I moved it to Obama only to answer to some of the points you brought up in Round 1. This is not about Obama. This is about the fact that no other candidate besides Kucinich can win in 2008.

It's not that he should win---it's that no other candidate in the Democratic Party has the track record or arsenal of policies or the candor and vision to make the American people rise to the occasion and take back America. He is the only capable of making people from poor to rich demand radical change.

The Republican Party can see how the Democratic Leadership has forsaken Kucinich. And they will go after that.

The Republican Party with the help of Rove will show how they abandon Americans on health care, on sustainability, on energy independence, on worker's rights, on education, on immigration, on the economy, and especially on the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism.

The Republicans will force Democrats to move to their side on the issues. They will get them to not talk about the issues with principled positions that should be stated in primaries and maintained throughout the election until the election in November. They will succeed with Obama, Edwards, or Clinton and win like the won over Kerry and Gore.

Oh but you say Kerry and Gore won? True. Recounts show they did. And if only they had stood up for black voters that had been disenfranchised (not even black politicians like Obama have the guts to do that---only Barbara Boxer, some black women in the House, Dennis Kucinich (some midget dude), etc.) then there would have been no Bush. But because they let black people down, they wound up letting Americans down by being cowards and submitting to the corporate powers that be.

Going back to the faith thing between Huckabee and Obama though. Interestingly, what the two have in common besides the fact that they both may face each other in a general election is that they both hold the campaigns that most rely on faith when articulating messages in their campaigns to people who attend rallies, speeches, and forums.

If this were the case, would the presidential election become a theology debate and not a discussion about the issues that the next president should take care of?

This is where Kucinich is better than Obama because he understands better the interconnectedness in the world and could talk to a Creationist like Huckabee and bring the debate on theology to dealing with real issues from a faith perspective if forced to by media, debate moderators, voters, etc.

And ultimately, what will the issue of faith then come down to if Obama is up against Huckabee and it's not Kucinich? It will be who is strongest when it comes to religion, who is pro-life, who is against gays, who is against immigration, and who is for a Book of Revelations clash in the Middle East, etc. It will be who is most ignorant of humanity. And Huckabee would win---he's the most ignorant, Creationist politician running.

Expand this to being about being a liberal. How does Obama expect to play that game? How does Edwards hope to play it? Democrats already are abandoning Hillary but what about Obama and Edwards? Democrats are naturally liberal but they still suffer because weak candidates waffle and shift and then lose.

There's no stake. That's the problem with politics. Being Democrat is enough for Obama or Edwards. It doesn't matter that they are practically Republican---that they are so corporate. Ultimately, people will vote for Democrats because anybody but Bush or anybody but a Republican is the way Democrats vote.

Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting evil.

If you cannot vote your heart, your heart will never win.
lindsay

Con

I agree with everything you said about Huckabee........

I don't think we're going to come to an agreement, but I would like to reiterate that Obama does not support the war in the middle east, so your statement about this fulfilling the christ/antichrist and revelations component is irrelevant. Evangelicals will prefer Obama to Kucinich based on his morals that are more closely linked to theirs. Both advocate peace. And actually, you contradicted yourself because you said that "Kucinich advocating peace would attract Evangelicals" or something similar to that earlier, and now you're saying Evangelicals are for the war...so that's not very clear on your part.

I could definitely be corrected, and I don't want to speak too soon, but especially now with Oprah (one of the most revered public figures in all time) backing Obama, I feel like it's in the bag. He has the respect of our nation-Republicans and Democrats alike. Kucinich is laughed at by Republicans, even moderators of debates laugh at him (watch the one where they ask him to clarify about the UFO sighting). Like you said, it's not about Obama vs. Kucinich...your point is Kucinich is the only Dem that would win, and that will just simply be disproven 1/20/2009. WHOEVER wins the Democratic Primary....be it Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich even....they are going to be the next president. America feels mislead by the Republicans, and aside from this-the pendulum always swings. This can be seen in history. EVEN if George W. Bush hadn't screwed over the nation so bad, it would still probably be a Democrat.

Therefore, whoever wins this primary is going to beat a Republican. And I don't think there's a chance that Kucinich will get it. Please don't take this so personally! I REALLY REALLY like him. I think he's great, and I adore his wife. And in my opinion, they would be great for this country. But the United States isn't quite ready for him.

I guess my closing point is, I strongly believe the President is GOING to be a Democrat. It doesn't have to be Kucinich to beat a Republican. In fact, a more moderate candidate will get the independent voters to come out to the polls and vote for him, so the REAL tough race would be between Guiliani and Obama....because Guiliani is not at all a social conservative.....I still think Obama would win, based on the 70% disapproval rate of the country towards the war. Guiliani still supports it, and EVERY DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE opposes it; some just have better track records of proving it (not Clinton, even in recent voting).
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
Kucinich for President! Shame on you, ABC, for not letting him take part in the debate tonight...
Posted by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
One time, I saw someone that had a Dennis Kucinich bumper sticker on a BMW. Ironically, Kucinich said the following quote about the rich:

"We will take away their BMW's."
Posted by MarineCorpsConservative 9 years ago
MarineCorpsConservative
C'mon now. A guy that claims he has seen UFO trying to get the bid for the Democratic Ticket? Whats next Bill Clintons wife running for president?
Posted by skygal12 9 years ago
skygal12
Rob: Okay - you got me. Sometimes I get a little carried away when I write things;-)
Posted by Rob 9 years ago
Rob
"I may not agree with a lot of the Conservative viewpoints, but they don't really waffle about where they stand in order to get votes"

... hahahahahaha

Come on. Have you never heard of a man named Mitt Romney?
Posted by SolaGratia 9 years ago
SolaGratia
You gotta give Kucinich credit: knowing that 99 out of every 100 people know he's a wacko liberal nutcase doesn't deter him .
Posted by skygal12 9 years ago
skygal12
clsmooth: Socialism hasn't failed elsewhere and Ron Paul scares me on some of the issues although I do agree that he tells the truth no matter what, which I like.
Posted by clsmooth 9 years ago
clsmooth
skygal: http://tinyurl.com... Or you can just Google "Kucinich" and "flag burning" in quotes.

Socialism has failed. Kucinich does not have wide support because of this. Ron Paul is the real anti-war candidate.
Posted by skygal12 9 years ago
skygal12
clsmooth: So you are saying that you don't agree with not-for-profit healthcare, which would rid us of insurance companies, copays, deductibles and denial of service because the average American doesn't have enough money to pay for it?

You don't agree with having REAL trade agreements that include worker's rights and environmental regulations?

Are you saying that we should continue to put our children in debt for an education instead of paying their way in exchange for a couple of years of national service?

I could go on and on, but I am wondering where the Democratic base is right now if it is really only the war that Kucinich is right on and that he is being labeled a facist.
Posted by skygal12 9 years ago
skygal12
clsmooth: Yes, I think I made that clear, I think it is very dangerous to waffle on issues - the Republicans have proven to be very crafty in using this to beat Democrats. I may not agree with a lot of the Conservative viewpoints, but they don't really waffle about where they stand in order to get votes (like, um, Edwards)..

You are right about pro-life, although he never talks about it so I don't really know much, I will research.

Please give a link to the flag burning amendment. I would like to see that. Thanks.

Chuckles: I don't think that Americans view Democrats as a solution, at least not anymore. The Republicans have done a very good job of making the Dems in Congress look ineffective, which is why Congress now has a lower approval rating than Bush, so I wouldn't count on that.
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by libertyforall 9 years ago
libertyforall
patrioticintellectlindsayTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jordanbs 9 years ago
jordanbs
patrioticintellectlindsayTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by thisearthlyride 9 years ago
thisearthlyride
patrioticintellectlindsayTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Kelley_Contends 9 years ago
Kelley_Contends
patrioticintellectlindsayTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ineffablesquirrel 9 years ago
Ineffablesquirrel
patrioticintellectlindsayTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by SolaGratia 9 years ago
SolaGratia
patrioticintellectlindsayTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Rob 9 years ago
Rob
patrioticintellectlindsayTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by skygal12 9 years ago
skygal12
patrioticintellectlindsayTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mariahsaywhaaa 9 years ago
mariahsaywhaaa
patrioticintellectlindsayTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by AMR 9 years ago
AMR
patrioticintellectlindsayTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30