The Instigator
shwayze
Pro (for)
Losing
18 Points
The Contender
the-mad-ones
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

The Democratic Party has been hijacked by the radical left.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 5/13/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,910 times Debate No: 4014
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (61)
Votes (15)

 

shwayze

Pro

This trend over the last 40 years is incredible. From McGovern to Carter to Dukakis to Bill Clinton to Al Gore to John Kerry to John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, why is it that the only candidates in serious contention for the Democratic nomination are all hard left-wing democrats? What happened to the left of center moderate democrat? Does that even exist anymore? Do you liberals realize that if you ran a moderate Democrat, YOU WOULD SWEEP THIS ELECTION BY A LANDSLIDE. But no, the best you have to offer is Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. What a joke. What is going on in the Democratic Party? And trust me, the Republicans have a bunch of their own issues, but why is that the Democratic Party has seemingly been controlled by the elite liberals? I firmly believe the Democratic Party, once a respectable and decent organization, has been taken over by the elitist and radical latte drinking liberals from Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, and Massachusetts. This race shouldn't even be close at all. This is a democratic year and the fact the John McCain is running close and almost even to both Democratic candidates is laughable. John McCain is a terrible candidate for the Republican Party. It's virtually a liberal running against two socialists. Is this the best we have to offer?
the-mad-ones

Con

the-mad-ones forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 1
shwayze

Pro

shwayze forfeited this round.
the-mad-ones

Con

I can't even remember why I chose to accept this debate. There is no point to this.

Random thoughts:

My client essentially ignores all of the historical presidential candidates aside from the winners. He also ignores the fact that the democratic party was a relatively fractured party during the past 40 years.

The idea of the moderate democrat "New Democrat") is actually a relatively recent phenomenon.

Hijacking is an aggressive action with intent. The party has simply taken on more liberal values with regards to social freedoms. No one intentionally made the party more liberal.

This particular election features relatively liberal options, but that is simply a reflection of the current state of the nation.

Most senators and presidential candidates spend a fair amount of time and money on polls/polling. If these polls indicate that people are supporting/concerned about certain ideals/policies, then candidates will base their stances and platforms on said policies. As simple as that.

Perhaps it's the nation that's become more liberal, and not the Democratic party.
Debate Round No. 2
shwayze

Pro

shwayze forfeited this round.
the-mad-ones

Con

the-mad-ones forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
shwayze

Pro

2004: John Kerry rated as the most liberal senator in the senate.

2007: Barack Obama rated as the most liberal senator in the senate.

-American Journal
the-mad-ones

Con

Kerry had been in the Senate for almost 20 years by 2004. In addition, he happens to be Senator of a pretty liberal state. Some politicians actually do perform within the expectations imposed on them by the concept of representative democracy. As such, they reflect the needs and desires of their constituents. Kerry would be an example of this.

Obama is adamantly respected in his elected state of Illinois.

As I mentioned before, this supposed 'hijacking' is no hijacking at all, but simply a reflection of the needs and desires of the populace.

And perhaps this 'radical' left is no longer so 'radical', but rather just normal.
Debate Round No. 4
61 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by the-mad-ones 8 years ago
the-mad-ones
Simply citing the most basic of economic principles does not prove a point. There's so much more to economics and policy than supply and demand for commodities.
Posted by the-mad-ones 8 years ago
the-mad-ones
Infallibility is not the issue here...any statements referring to such are simply semantical in nature...just another form of rhetoric.

The Fed's goals are to maintain employment and keep inflation in control...NOT to interfere with markets.

The legislative branch may "interfere" with markets through the SEC/related agencies, and the law (Sherman Anti-Trust, etc). These entities exist not to prevent free markets, but to actually facilitate the freedom. Without the SEC, corporations would misreport their figures and misrepresent themselves. Without Anti-trust legislation, competition would be reduced to zero, prices would become exorbitant, laborers would have no power over pay, and corporations would attain governmental powers.

Government is not the only way for market efficiency to be diminished. If the government simply stepped back and allowed corporations to act on their own, then a large portion of our daily lives/rights would be sacrificed to and usurped by them. The environment, wages, health care, and education would all be controlled by wealthy oligarchies and monopolists. Most importantly though, technology and innovation would suffer, as competition would be nonexistent.

The American dream would die, as the descendants of the wealthy and the heads of corporations would be able to hoard the majority of the nation's wealth. Extreme scenario, yes, but the reason it is so extreme is because we have governmental entities that prevent this from occurring.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
I agree that the slave trade help the U.S economy out tremendously. Outlawing slavery hurt the U.S. economy badly in the short term. But the government has no business interfering with a man's freedom just so our country can benefit economically. That's why they need to get out of the way of free men and let the market do what it does. Yes, some will be hurt in the short run. But in the long run all corrects itself naturally. Supply and demand are like hot and cold-- a recipe for equilibrium.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
The fed only interferes with the market. Markets always correct themselves. Government intervention leads to problems that only more government intervention can "correct." Unfortunately they never correct anything, and just make it worse. Markets are infallable, like nature.
Posted by the-mad-ones 8 years ago
the-mad-ones
The US outgrew Europe for a plethora of reasons...it is unlikely that "capitalism vs socialism" was the primary reason.

The colonies were initially subsidized by a foreign government, with citizens accustomed to operating within a governmental system.

Tobacco became a highly profitable crop, and the colonies were the #1 tobacco-producing region in the world.

The slave trade ensured that this Tobacco production would also remain cheap.

The US had and continues to have more in the way of natural resources than any other nation in the world.

The US also played the neutrality card in two world wars, making large amounts of profit through arms dealing, while also avoiding the large-scale economic damage occurring to European nations as a result of the war.

All of these situational items (among many more) contributed to the US' overall success. Much more so than Europe's socialism vs US' capitalism. Remember that Western Europe was not always so pro-socialist. From a historical perspective, this is still somewhat of a recent phenomenon.
Posted by the-mad-ones 8 years ago
the-mad-ones
To clarify...the Federal Reserve does not enact policy. In addition, it runs independently of the government. It has a dual mandate and a limited number of options at any given point in time to ensure that this dual mandate is preserved.

This dual mandate consists of maintaining an optimal natural employment rate and of keeping prices stable. If unemployment gets too high, then consumption (a primary focus of capitalist/Keynesian economics) declines. When consumption declines, the economy suffers, business investment declines, and the government is forced to provide assistance to the populace (some would call this socialist). When prices become unstable (high levels of inflation, or even deflation), the same things can occur.

So in conclusion, the Fed probably does more to ensure the long term success of capitalism than any institution in the world.
Posted by HandsOff 8 years ago
HandsOff
kganchev,

"Looks like the Europe is outgrowing the US now..."

My point exactly. As we become more socialist and less capitalistic, we will eventually be no better off than our european friends.
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
As far as countries in western Europe, the only ones I see as good as or better than the US are Luxenbourg, Norway, and Singapore so far as PPP goes. [ http://en.wikipedia.org...(PPP)_per_capita ]

"Europe doesn't have a Fed, and they can't interfere with each countries economy because each country has its own government."

I was speaking of the US. Our dollar is only weaker because of our socialistic policies, not because of our capitalist ones.

"I didn't say they're doing better, but they're advancing quickly and their government is not socialism but Communism!"

And when did it start to do so much better? Was it when Mao established his socialist / communist policies, or was it when the reforms swept in and the PRC turned much more capitalist than it had previously been?
Posted by kgantchev 8 years ago
kgantchev
"Not because of capitalism, though. That's only happening because of the socialistic interference in the economy by the Fed."
Europe doesn't have a Fed, and they can't interfere with each countries economy because each country has its own government.

"The PPP of the US is much higher than the majority of Europe."
Not the majority of Western Europe, as a matter of fact it's the opposite, the majority of Western Europe has higher PPP check out the PPP map: http://en.wikipedia.org...

"They're advancing, not doing better than us."
Then we agree... I didn't say they're doing better, but they're advancing quickly and their government is not socialism but Communism! It looks like their economy is progressing just fine. Heck we even owe them money, oh sorry, not anymore! The Chinese made us wipe out 75% of our nuclear weapons and the remaining shall not be aimed at the Asian continent, all in exchange of pardoning the debt!
Posted by DucoNihilum 8 years ago
DucoNihilum
"The euro is beating the USD"

Not because of capitalism, though. That's only happening because of the socialistic interference in the economy by the Fed.

"Europe is uniting which will give it more leverage on the market,"

The PPP of the US is much higher than the majority of Europe.

"the US is also losing it to the Chinese who are steadily advancing."

They're advancing, not doing better than us.
15 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SoutherngentFL 8 years ago
SoutherngentFL
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 camelunfiltered 8 years ago
camelunfiltered
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 Arnaud 8 years ago
Arnaud
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 Biowza 8 years ago
Biowza
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 artC 8 years ago
artC
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 BeatTheDevil89 8 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 oboeman 8 years ago
oboeman
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 Pluto2493 8 years ago
Pluto2493
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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 cooljpk 8 years ago
cooljpk
shwayzethe-mad-onesTied
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