Will Trump actually debate Sanders?

Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump said Wednesday night he would be willing to debate Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders for charity before the June 7 California primary—after Sanders wrote a letter to the real-estate mogul challenging him to a debate.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/trump-sanders-debate-kimmel/484445/?utm_source=feed

why wouldn't he?

I think it has to happen. It would be fantastic.

Sanders should apply the pressure until Trump formally committs.

I used to think Hillary would trounce Trump in a debate but I'm beginning to think that's not the case. Sanders could be a formidable opponent if Trump doesn't pin him down on his economic beliefs.

Trump's wall is an easy target to point out his stupidity but it's so populist it may not matter.

Hillary Clinton would do fine in a debate against Trump.

Have you ever actually listened to Trump? He does not pin people down on issues because he cannot have a substantive discussion.

Imagine the bad hair flying at that debate. Epic.

Turtleneck wrote:Hillary Clinton would do fine in a debate against Trump.

Have you ever actually listened to Trump? He does not pin people down on issues because he cannot have a substantive discussion.

Presidential debates are never really a substantive discussion. It's about how you appear to come across. Hillary does not come across as likable or authentic by any measure. Donald is aloof but his rhetoric resonates with low information voters (the vast majority of voters). Voters don't care about the issues so much as whether someone appears "presidential". They both come off as jerks but Donald seems to do fairly well when it's not about what you say but how you say it.

Turtleneck wrote:I think it has to happen. It would be fantastic.

Sanders should apply the pressure until Trump formally committs.

I think it would be fun for a few reasons.

It would piss Hills off.

It might give Bernie a chance at beating her in CA.

Trump is convinced he can woo the Bernie voters for the general, it might be amusing watching him try.

The "conventional" politicians and their handler's heads would be exploding.

All worth it.

I'm holding out for the Rubio/O'Malley debate.

I'm for this Debate.

Turtleneck wrote:Hillary Clinton would do fine in a debate against Trump.

Have you ever actually listened to Trump? He does not pin people down on issues because he cannot have a substantive discussion.

if it's a debate of issues, policies, intellect, etc - Hillary wins hands down. No need to even tune in.

If it's a mainstream media Made-For-TV professional wrestling, race to the bottom sort of thing that the knuckle-draggers enjoy.. then Hillary, along with humanity, loses.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:Hillary Clinton would do fine in a debate against Trump.

Have you ever actually listened to Trump? He does not pin people down on issues because he cannot have a substantive discussion.

if it's a debate of issues, policies, intellect, etc - Hillary wins hands down. No need to even tune in.

If it's a mainstream media Made-For-TV professional wrestling, race to the bottom sort of thing that the knuckle-draggers enjoy.. then Hillary, along with humanity, loses.

Depends on which side of any given issue she decides to take. I'm sure she'll check the polls first to make sure her views align with whichever way the wind is blowing...

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
if it's a debate of issues, policies, intellect, etc - Hillary wins hands down. No need to even tune in.

If it's a mainstream media Made-For-TV professional wrestling, race to the bottom sort of thing that the knuckle-draggers enjoy.. then Hillary, along with humanity, loses.

Depends on which side of any given issue she decides to take. I'm sure she'll check the polls first to make sure her views align with whichever way the wind is blowing...

Which, theoretically, is what an elected official in a representative government should do, correct?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Depends on which side of any given issue she decides to take. I'm sure she'll check the polls first to make sure her views align with whichever way the wind is blowing...

Which, theoretically, is what an elected official in a representative government should do, correct?

No. Not at all.

I'd love to see a threesome between them.

That'd be unappetizing, dwags. How dare you put that vision in my head.

xsanguine wrote:That'd be unappetizing, dwags. How dare you put that vision in my head.

Who do you think would get behind her and who would get the end that talks?

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Which, theoretically, is what an elected official in a representative government should do, correct?

No. Not at all.

Depending on the circumstances, I totally disagree with you xsang. These aren't Kings were electing. If most of the country is in agreement on something and they are on the other side, they should change their views (again, depending on the circumstances.)

They should stand up for what they believe in and let the voters decide by popular vote. That's the theory. I don't agree with it... But it's a lot more palatable than saying whatever you think will get you elected and then reneging, as they all seem to do, after you win.

DWags wrote:

xsanguine wrote:That'd be unappetizing, dwags. How dare you put that vision in my head.

Who do you think would get behind her and who would get the end that talks?

Trump would get mad at Bernie for staring at him...."Sanders, would you just get your dick sucked so I can fuck my half of the torso?"

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
if it's a debate of issues, policies, intellect, etc - Hillary wins hands down. No need to even tune in.

If it's a mainstream media Made-For-TV professional wrestling, race to the bottom sort of thing that the knuckle-draggers enjoy.. then Hillary, along with humanity, loses.

Depends on which side of any given issue she decides to take. I'm sure she'll check the polls first to make sure her views align with whichever way the wind is blowing...

congratulations - you just described every politician known to man, including Trump.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Depends on which side of any given issue she decides to take. I'm sure she'll check the polls first to make sure her views align with whichever way the wind is blowing...

congratulations - you just described every politician known to man, including Trump.

So why are we trying to paint some as better than others? They're all liars and cheats.

xsanguine wrote:They should stand up for what they believe in and let the voters decide by popular vote. That's the theory. I don't agree with it... But it's a lot more palatable than saying whatever you think will get you elected and then reneging, as they all seem to do, after you win.

I don't agree that they should stand up for what they believe in at all (again.... You get it.) example- gay marriage- when it became evident that most of the country was for it, even if you are against it, it's your job to suck it up and evolve and change. Not to sit there stuck in the mud stopping the progress that the people you represent clearly want.

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:congratulations - you just described every politician known to man, including Trump.

So why are we trying to paint some as better than others? They're all liars and cheats.

indeed.

the one difference is the moral authority that republicans have always pretended to have. They used to just be {gasp} appalled at Bill Clinton.. or that immoral unethical colored boy from Kenya.

Now, because of their misogynistic racist bigoted views, are supporting a candidate who has been married 3 times, has had multiple affairs, filed for bankruptcy multiple times, etc.

so it just shows the true color of the religious extremists in America. That's all.

That's where we get the situation where people say whatever they want to get elected and then "stick to their guns" based on their party's wishes afterwards.

If what you are saying is the case then both parties would be indistinguishable from each other from a policy standpoint. Theoretically they choose a position based on a common belief and then the voters align based on what the party believes. If everyone just goes with whatever the polls say then everyone has the same beliefs. So what's the point of voting in that situation?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

So why are we trying to paint some as better than others? They're all liars and cheats.

indeed.

the one difference is the moral authority that republicans have always pretended to have. They used to just be {gasp} appalled at Bill Clinton.. or that immoral unethical colored boy from Kenya.

Now, because of their misogynistic racist bigoted views, are supporting a candidate who has been married 3 times, has had multiple affairs, filed for bankruptcy multiple times, etc.

so it just shows the true color of the religious extremists in America. That's all.

Bob, have you done a lot of research on the Clinton's? They're not exactly boy/Girl Scouts.

xsanguine wrote:That's where we get the situation where people say whatever they want to get elected and then "stick to their guns" based on their party's wishes afterwards.

If what you are saying is the case then both parties would be indistinguishable from each other from a policy standpoint. Theoretically they choose a position based on a common belief and then the voters align based on what the party believes. If everyone just goes with whatever the polls say then everyone has the same beliefs. So what's the point of voting in that situation?

Not really because they represent different parts of the country. And also, not every issue is cut and dry as to what the country supports. In fact, most are pretty 50/50. But, when there is an issue where the elected official is clearly in the minority with their representatives, they should support those they represent. (Unless, you know, they have access to information that isn't publically available.)

So like when they say we shouldn't be nation building and then get in office and start nation building? Or when they say they shouldn't target medical marijuana dispensaries... And then target medical marijuana dispensaries?

xsanguine wrote:So like when they say we shouldn't be nation building and then get in office and start nation building? Or when they say they shouldn't target medical marijuana dispensaries... And then target medical marijuana dispensaries?

Well now you're just talking about lying. They probably shouldn't do that either. That's a totally different thing than what I'm saying though.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:So like when they say we shouldn't be nation building and then get in office and start nation building? Or when they say they shouldn't target medical marijuana dispensaries... And then target medical marijuana dispensaries?

Well now you're just talking about lying. They probably shouldn't do that either. That's a totally different thing than what I'm saying though.

But the environment you're spelling out is conducive to lying in order to getting into office. It's all the same... Say what the voters want to hear and then do the opposite when you're in bob because it's beneficial for you to do so. They've already been doing that.

xsanguine wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:indeed.

the one difference is the moral authority that republicans have always pretended to have. They used to just be {gasp} appalled at Bill Clinton.. or that immoral unethical colored boy from Kenya.

Now, because of their misogynistic racist bigoted views, are supporting a candidate who has been married 3 times, has had multiple affairs, filed for bankruptcy multiple times, etc.

so it just shows the true color of the religious extremists in America. That's all.

Bob, have you done a lot of research on the Clinton's? They're not exactly boy/Girl Scouts.

I know.. they're morally depraved.

but they're also not bible-bangers who run around the country lecturing everyone on how moral and ethical they should be...

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Well now you're just talking about lying. They probably shouldn't do that either. That's a totally different thing than what I'm saying though.

But the environment you're spelling out is conducive to lying in order to getting into office. It's all the same... Say what the voters want to hear and then do the opposite when you're in bob because it's beneficial for you to do so. They've already been doing that.

I'm pretty sure you're just talking about something totally different at this point.

So, to answer your question in the post before, if the people they represent were all spastic and decided that they were against something before an election, then immediately after they decided they were for it, then their representative should respect that and go with it instead of making them wait four years to elect someone that agrees with their new viewpoint.

That doesn't really happen though. So it's sort of moot.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

But the environment you're spelling out is conducive to lying in order to getting into office. It's all the same... Say what the voters want to hear and then do the opposite when you're in bob because it's beneficial for you to do so. They've already been doing that.

I'm pretty sure you're just talking about something totally different at this point.

So, to answer your question in the post before, if the people they represent were all spastic and decided that they were against something before an election, then immediately after they decided they were for it, then their representative should respect that and go with it instead of making them wait four years to elect someone that agrees with their new viewpoint.

That doesn't really happen though. So it's sort of moot.

Which is why I don't support authoritarian models of society... Like democracy.

I'd watch that debate in a heart beat. It makes Hillary look bad no matter who wins.

Death Roe wrote:I'd watch that debate in a heart beat. It makes Hillary look bad no matter who wins.

her busy schedule of killing brave Americans in Benghazi with her email server precludes her from being there.

xsanguine wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

I'm pretty sure you're just talking about something totally different at this point.

So, to answer your question in the post before, if the people they represent were all spastic and decided that they were against something before an election, then immediately after they decided they were for it, then their representative should respect that and go with it instead of making them wait four years to elect someone that agrees with their new viewpoint.

That doesn't really happen though. So it's sort of moot.

Which is why I don't support authoritarian models of society... Like democracy.

Unfortunately you can never offer a functional alternative.

Turtleneck wrote:

xsanguine wrote:

Which is why I don't support authoritarian models of society... Like democracy.

Unfortunately you can never offer a functional alternative.

Sure can.

xsanguine wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

Unfortunately you can never offer a functional alternative.

.

Sure can.

We have had this debate. You have not because you live in this bubble where all issues and problems are individualized and nothing requires collective decision-making or collective action. When asked how to deal with collective issues problems, you just say something like "there is never a need to make collective decisions." So no, you have not offered a functional alternative.

I have no problem with people collectively making decisions. I have a problem with people collectively making decisions for others that aren't interested in their solutions. Unless it involves coercion people should be allowed to do what they want or don't want.

xsanguine wrote:I have no problem with people collectively making decisions. I have a problem with people collectively making decisions for others that aren't interested in their solutions. Unless it involves coercion people should be allowed to do what they want or don't want.

And every time asked how the capacity for collective decision-making would be organized, you cannot articulate a response.