Politics Wednesday's Nevada Debate

.
.
Sorry, meant Las Vegas Debate.

My two questions:

1) Which candidate will be taking the most jabs at Bloomberg (who made the cut)?

2) What delicious food will @crandc be preparing for the event?!

Not doing debate watch party this time, there are three debates in February. Stay tuned for next debate. And prediction game winner.

ABM said:

.
.
Sorry, meant Las Vegas Debate.

My two questions:

1) Which candidate will be taking the most jabs at Bloomberg (who made the cut)?

2) What delicious food will @crandc be preparing for the event?!

Click to expand...

Sanders as he’s the only one that wouldn’t accept a VP position under the Bloom.

If Bloomberg gets bashed enough, he may decide to run as an Independent. Now, wouldn't that be fun.

ABM said:

If Bloomberg gets bashed enough, he may decide to run as an Independent. Now, wouldn't that be fun.

Click to expand...

Not clear who he'd take more votes away from.

Minstrel said:

Not clear who he'd take more votes away from.

Click to expand...

Well, none from Trump. In terms of the dem party, hard to say, but he could effectively become a Ross Perot type.

ABM said:

Well, none from Trump.

Click to expand...

Based on what? I think quite a few Republicans who dislike Trump but would never vote for most Democrats would be quite attracted to Bloomberg as a candidate. He's more right-wing than left-wing, he's a war hawk, he's what conservatives consider to be a "law and order" politician and he doesn't have the kind of weird outbursts that cause some Republicans/conservatives not to like Trump.

I don't think it's at all clear whether he'd take more votes from Trump or the eventual Democratic nominee. Most likely, he'd take some from both and the overall impact wouldn't be hugely significant.

Minstrel said:

Based on what? I think quite a few Republicans who dislike Trump but would never vote for most Democrats would be quite attracted to Bloomberg as a candidate. He's more right-wing than left-wing, he's a war hawk, he's what conservatives consider to be a "law and order" politician and he doesn't have the kind of weird outbursts that cause some Republicans/conservatives not to like Trump.

I don't think it's at all clear whether he'd take more votes from Trump or the eventual Democratic nominee. Most likely, he'd take some from both and the overall impact wouldn't be hugely significant.

Click to expand...

I could very well be wrong, but what I'm saying is, if they're planning to vote for Bloomberg, they'd vote for him whether he were a Democrat or Independent.

If Bloomberg remained a Democrat, and somehow won the nomination, it would simply be him against Trump. Conversely, if ran as an Independent, it would be him and the Democrat nominee against Trump, thereby, potentially splitting some votes and effectively helping Trump. Some think Ross Perot cost George Sr. a 2nd term. (But, in that instance, he took Bush votes.)

If Bloomberg ran as an Independent he would get boat raced. Total non factor like we usually see with an Independent, unfortunately

ABM said:

I could very well be wrong, but what I'm saying is, if they're planning to vote for Bloomberg, they'd vote for him whether he were a Democrat or Independent.

If Bloomberg remained a Democrat, and somehow won the nomination, it would simply be him against Trump. Conversely, if ran as an Independent, it would be him and the Democrat nominee against Trump, thereby, potentially splitting some votes and effectively helping Trump. Some think Ross Perot cost George Sr. a 2nd term.

Click to expand...

Yes, I don't think that makes sense. If Bloomberg ran as an independent, first of all he'd be distancing himself from the Democratic party, which would make him much more palatable to disenchanted Republicans. He's more akin to Republicans than he is to Democrats, so he makes a natural place for "Never Trumpers" (who are Republicans) to go, considering they don't want to vote for a Democrat.

Considering that most people view votes for a third party to be wasted, an independent really mostly only makes sense for people who would be tempted to just not vote otherwise and therefore use the independent as a "protest vote." Democrats will largely be motivated to actually vote to unseat Trump, so very few of them are "weren't going to vote anyway." Ditto the vast majority of Republicans in wanting to keep their president in power. Most of the people who are usually voters but are likely unenthused to vote right now are Republicans who don't like Trump but also don't like Democrats. They're the ones most likely to "throw away" a vote on an independent.

Minstrel said:

Most of the people who are usually voters but are likely unenthused to vote right now are Republicans who don't like Trump but also don't like Democrats. They're the ones most likely to "throw away" a vote on an independent.

Click to expand...

Or, not vote at all.

At any rate, Bloomberg will have to be focused on by the other Democratic candidates, which will, in effect, take some focus off of Trump.

ABM said:

Or, not vote at all.

At any rate, Bloomberg will have to be focused on by the other Democratic candidates, which will, in effect, take some focus off of Trump.

Click to expand...

I don't think there is going to be a way to take the focus off Trump. Either you love him or you hate him. He wants all that focus either way.

Shaboid said:

I don't think there is going to be a way to take the focus off Trump. Either you love him or you hate him. He wants all that focus either way.

Click to expand...

True, but now the other Dem candidates are going to have to contend with fighting off the surging Bloomberg. Any way you look at it, he's gaining attention...in waves. Just look at CNN, MSNBC, FoxNews, and the like. He's suddenly the talk of the town.

Now, that said, he may flame-out like a firecracker. But, for now, he's on everyone's proverbial radar.

Minstrel said:

Yes, I don't think that makes sense. If Bloomberg ran as an independent, first of all he'd be distancing himself from the Democratic party, which would make him much more palatable to disenchanted Republicans. He's more akin to Republicans than he is to Democrats, so he makes a natural place for "Never Trumpers" (who are Republicans) to go, considering they don't want to vote for a Democrat.

Considering that most people view votes for a third party to be wasted, an independent really mostly only makes sense for people who would be tempted to just not vote otherwise and therefore use the independent as a "protest vote." Democrats will largely be motivated to actually vote to unseat Trump, so very few of them are "weren't going to vote anyway." Ditto the vast majority of Republicans in wanting to keep their president in power. Most of the people who are usually voters but are likely unenthused to vote right now are Republicans who don't like Trump but also don't like Democrats. They're the ones most likely to "throw away" a vote on an independent.

Click to expand...

I am not questioning the validity of that statement but I hate this so much. It's like brainwashing on a mass scale that if you don't vote for one of these two crappy parties you're throwing your vote away. The GOP / DNC have convinced so many people of that, just to keep any viable third party from trampling on their political power. It's so frustrating. It's a vicious cycle of well no third party is strong enough to garner support, because everyone is told you vote for them and your vote is a waste and you don't matter, so people continue to vote for the two parties because in their mind it "makes their vote matter", and then two parties can say well look I told you those third parties weren't viable, and round and round it goes.

Then when a side loses an election they tend to blame third party candidates and those who voted for them for it saying well, if you didn't vote for this person and voted for my person we wouldn't have "x" as president, so anything bad that president does is now just as much on you as the people who actually voted for that president.

Then in here, I keep hearing the train of thought well, there really aren't many independents they all end up voting one way most of the time, well of course they do, because they've been told over and over that hey you "have to" or you might as well not vote, then if they don't vote it's, "well your voice really doesn't matter because you didn't vote". It's all just crap for the two controlling political parties to stay in power. I don't buy into that line of thought at all, I should vote for someone I don't want to win, just because someone else might win I didn't want to win. I'm going to vote for a third-party candidate, or write in for who I think would do the best job that isn't apart of those two parties of corruption whether people like it or not. The reason, why I won't ever vote for either a GOP or DNC nominee, is I don't think those parties at all care about anything else other than their own gain, they sold the American people out and I think if you represent them, you're part of it. I hope voters stop letting them bully their way into votes so we can have a legitimate third party with new ideas, and new ways for us to progress as a country.

Rant mode disengaged...

TorturedBlazerFan said:

I am not questioning the validity of that statement but I hate this so much. It's like brainwashing on a mass scale that if you don't vote for one of these two crappy parties you're throwing your vote away. The GOP / DNC have convinced so many people of that, just to keep any viable third party from trampling on their political power. It's so frustrating. It's a vicious cycle of well no third party is strong enough to garner support, because everyone is told you vote for them and your vote is a waste and you don't matter, so people continue to vote for the two parties because in their mind it "makes their vote matter", and then two parties can say well look I told you those third parties weren't viable, and round and round it goes.

Then when a side loses an election they tend to blame third party candidates and those who voted for them for it saying well, if you didn't vote for this person and voted for my person we wouldn't have "x" as president, so anything bad that president does is now just as much on you as the people who actually voted for that president.

Then in here, I keep hearing the train of thought well, there really aren't many independents they all end up voting one way most of the time, well of course they do, because they've been told over and over that hey you "have to" or you might as well not vote, then if they don't vote it's, "well your voice really doesn't matter because you didn't vote". It's all just crap for the two controlling political parties to stay in power. I don't buy into that line of thought at all, I should vote for someone I don't want to win, just because someone else might win I didn't want to win. I'm going to vote for a third-party candidate, or write in for who I think would do the best job that isn't apart of those two parties of corruption whether people like it or not. The reason, why I won't ever vote for either a GOP or DNC nominee, is I don't think those parties at all care about anything else other than their own gain, they sold the American people out and I think if you represent them, you're part of it. I hope voters stop letting them bully their way into votes so we can have a legitimate third party with new ideas, and new ways for us to progress as a country.

Rant mode disengaged...

Click to expand...

I hear ya...but I think it may take 2 or 3 consecutive elections with viable Independent candidates so more people can get used to the idea before voting for them in strong enough numbers to really make a difference.
But until then, I believe there are just too many people who have the same attitude you mentioned. (voting for a 3rd party is a wasted vote) What I'm saying is, it's takes awhile to gradually win people over to a new way of thinking.

yankeesince59 said:

I hear ya...but I think it may take 2 or 3 consecutive elections with viable Independent candidates so more people can get used to the idea before voting for them in strong enough numbers to really make a difference.
But until then, I believe there are just too many people who have the same attitude you mentioned. (voting for a 3rd party is a wasted vote) What I'm saying is, it's takes awhile to gradually win people over to a new way of thinking.

Click to expand...

I know, and I don't expect a third party to jump up and win, but the viability is so "beaten down" by the mantra the large parties have thrown out. I'm annoyed thinking about it.

TorturedBlazerFan said:

I know, and I don't expect a third party to jump up and win, but the viability is so "beaten down" by the mantra the large parties have thrown out. I'm annoyed thinking about it.

Click to expand...

Hey man, ya gotta have faith.

And fwiw, I like your "rants".

TorturedBlazerFan said:

I am not questioning the validity of that statement but I hate this so much. It's like brainwashing on a mass scale that if you don't vote for one of these two crappy parties you're throwing your vote away. The GOP / DNC have convinced so many people of that, just to keep any viable third party from trampling on their political power. It's so frustrating. It's a vicious cycle of well no third party is strong enough to garner support, because everyone is told you vote for them and your vote is a waste and you don't matter, so people continue to vote for the two parties because in their mind it "makes their vote matter", and then two parties can say well look I told you those third parties weren't viable, and round and round it goes.

Then when a side loses an election they tend to blame third party candidates and those who voted for them for it saying well, if you didn't vote for this person and voted for my person we wouldn't have "x" as president, so anything bad that president does is now just as much on you as the people who actually voted for that president.

Then in here, I keep hearing the train of thought well, there really aren't many independents they all end up voting one way most of the time, well of course they do, because they've been told over and over that hey you "have to" or you might as well not vote, then if they don't vote it's, "well your voice really doesn't matter because you didn't vote". It's all just crap for the two controlling political parties to stay in power. I don't buy into that line of thought at all, I should vote for someone I don't want to win, just because someone else might win I didn't want to win. I'm going to vote for a third-party candidate, or write in for who I think would do the best job that isn't apart of those two parties of corruption whether people like it or not. The reason, why I won't ever vote for either a GOP or DNC nominee, is I don't think those parties at all care about anything else other than their own gain, they sold the American people out and I think if you represent them, you're part of it. I hope voters stop letting them bully their way into votes so we can have a legitimate third party with new ideas, and new ways for us to progress as a country.

Rant mode disengaged...

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more with your comments about throwing your vote away by voting for independent candidates. What's really throwing your vote away is giving it to the turd candidates that the two major parties keep feeding us.

TorturedBlazerFan said:

I am not questioning the validity of that statement but I hate this so much. It's like brainwashing on a mass scale that if you don't vote for one of these two crappy parties you're throwing your vote away. The GOP / DNC have convinced so many people of that, just to keep any viable third party from trampling on their political power.

Click to expand...

It's not the Republicans and Democrats to blame for this--it's a reality based on our electoral system (forgetting about even the Electoral College for a moment). In a first-past-the-post system, all that matters is reaching 51% in one vote. In such a system, this situation is guaranteed to happen.

First of all, you can't have more than two viable parties when most (even if not all) people identify across a conservative/liberal spectrum. If a new party were to emerge, it would be seen as either more liberal or more conservative. A more liberal party would split votes with the existing liberal party, dooming both. A more conservative party would split votes with the existing conservative party...dooming both. The only stable situation is one major party for each ideology.

Second of all, once you're in that situation, a voter who doesn't like either party is faced with a choice: vote for a third party they like more but has no chance at winning or vote for one of the two big parties that is closer to what they believe and has a chance of winning. The first option represents them better. The second option gives them some voice in government. It's a tough choice and most people take the second option because they want some say.

There are other, better systems. Like run-off votes, where you hold the first vote with all the candidates and then hold a second vote with just the two top vote-getters. That removes the above choice: someone who doesn't like either of the two big parties can vote for whomever they like in the first vote, allowing third parties to slowly gain a base of support, and then vote for whichever of the two big parties aligns closer to their views in the run-off. They get to express their real choice and get representation in who eventually runs things. And maybe one day, one of those third parties will be among the top two vote-getters.

There are other systems, like ranked choice voting. Plus, of course, parliamentary systems, which tend to be friendlier to smaller parties because it's not all or nothing when it comes to a leader--all sorts of parties can, and often do, have some representatives in parliament and it often takes coalitions of parties to create a controlling bloc. Obviously, a parliamentary system isn't going to happen in the US in the foreseeable future. But blame our system for independents and third parties being viewed as "wastes of a vote." Because, in our system, they are wasted votes if you want a voice in who's in control.

Minstrel said:

Based on what? I think quite a few Republicans who dislike Trump but would never vote for most Democrats would be quite attracted to Bloomberg as a candidate. He's more right-wing than left-wing, he's a war hawk, he's what conservatives consider to be a "law and order" politician and he doesn't have the kind of weird outbursts that cause some Republicans/conservatives not to like Trump.

I don't think it's at all clear whether he'd take more votes from Trump or the eventual Democratic nominee. Most likely, he'd take some from both and the overall impact wouldn't be hugely significant.

Click to expand...

No Rep would ever support Bloomberg. He's a cowardly racist, gun-grabbing, misogynistic, Anti-American, anti-industrial globalist warmonger facist who openly purchases positions of power to feed his overt sadism.

MARIS61 said:

No Rep would ever support Bloomberg. He's a cowardly racist, gun-grabbing, misogynistic, Anti-American, anti-industrial globalist warmonger facist who openly purchases positions of power to feed his overt sadism.

Click to expand...

Many of those things aren't incompatible with many Republicans, as their embrace of Trump shows. Being for gun control is, I'll grant you.

Minstrel said:

It's not the Republicans and Democrats to blame for this--it's a reality based on our electoral system (forgetting about even the Electoral College for a moment). In a first-past-the-post system, all that matters is reaching 51% in one vote. In such a system, this situation is guaranteed to happen.

Click to expand...

The Republicans and Democrats use it though, and use it as a weapon to maintain power.

Minstrel said:

First of all, you can't have more than two viable parties when most (even if not all) people identify across a conservative/liberal spectrum. If a new party were to emerge, it would be seen as either more liberal or more conservative. A more liberal party would split votes with the existing liberal party, dooming both. A more conservative party would split votes with the existing conservative party...dooming both. The only stable situation is one major party for each ideology.

Click to expand...

Yes you can, it has it's own issues but the one putting the label of "conservative / liberal" and saying everyone exists on this spectrum and everything politically has to fall somewhere in the line of this spectrum is the two parties. Isreal has three parties, and no it's not perfect there either). The idea that all that matters politically is conservative / liberal values and which way you lean though is kind of a western thing to put new labels on tribalism.

Minstrel said:

Second of all, once you're in that situation, a voter who doesn't like either party is faced with a choice: vote for a third party they like more but has no chance at winning or vote for one of the two big parties that is closer to what they believe and has a chance of winning. The first option represents them better. The second option gives them some voice in government. It's a tough choice and most people take the second option because they want some say.

Click to expand...

Were in that situation through yes failures of our system, but also because of the abuse of power by the republicans and democrats to say well if you lean my direction even if you don't like our guy at least it's not their guy. So the established political parties can basically maintain power because they've dealt with the third option by snuffing them out and the guys they can give you can range from extreme to moderate to whatever just because that's the choice given you by those powers.

Minstrel said:

There are other, better systems. Like run-off votes, where you hold the first vote with all the candidates and then hold a second vote with just the two top vote-getters. That removes the above choice: someone who doesn't like either of the two big parties can vote for whomever they like in the first vote, allowing third parties to slowly gain a base of support, and then vote for whichever of the two big parties aligns closer to their views in the run-off. They get to express their real choice and get representation in who eventually runs things. And maybe one day, one of those third parties will be among the top two vote-getters.

There are other systems, like ranked choice voting. Plus, of course, parliamentary systems, which tend to be friendlier to smaller parties because it's not all or nothing when it comes to a leader--all sorts of parties can, and often do, have some representatives in parliament and it often takes coalitions of parties to create a controlling bloc. Obviously, a parliamentary system isn't going to happen in the US in the foreseeable future. But blame our system for independents and third parties being viewed as "wastes of a vote." Because, in our system, they are wasted votes if you want a voice in who's in control.

Click to expand...

I think all systems fail at some point, I sure couldn't design some perfect system that works for 300M people, heck I probably couldn't get one to work for 3 people, but the current system of choose a Dem or an R or you're wasting your vote is extremely frustrating because whether your opinion is it's the cause is the parties, or the cause is just the system, the fact is the parties ACTIVELY fight third parties, especially if they're viewed as "moderate" on the conservative/liberal scale. Our political parties should be actively seeking whats best for the people of the country, not just what protects their interests.

Minstrel said:

There are other systems, like ranked choice voting. Plus, of course, parliamentary systems, which tend to be friendlier to smaller parties because it's not all or nothing when it comes to a leader--all sorts of parties can, and often do, have some representatives in parliament and it often takes coalitions of parties to create a controlling bloc. Obviously, a parliamentary system isn't going to happen in the US in the foreseeable future. But blame our system for independents and third parties being viewed as "wastes of a vote." Because, in our system, they are wasted votes if you want a voice in who's in control.

Click to expand...

Well said. Having seen what Parliamentary systems have done in places like Italy or Israel - I would say no thank you - in both countries I have seen the minority holding power over the majority - because neither of the big parties could form a government without them. Yikes.

Minstrel said:

Many of those things aren't incompatible with many Republicans, as their embrace of Trump shows. Being for gun control is, I'll grant you.

Click to expand...

By going by what you just said though, their embrace of Trump is basically just they picked one guy because it wasn't the other sides girl.
I also want to really apologize now if it sounds like I'm attacking you or anything like that. It's not my intent. I will try to remain respectful.

andalusian said:

Well said. Having seen what Parliamentary systems have done in places like Italy or Israel - I would say no thank you - in both countries I have seen the minority holding power over the majority - because neither of the big parties could form a government without them. Yikes.

Click to expand...

Is it really any better here where two parties continue to sell us out? To send our kids off on wars for oil, I mean we can go on and on on the failures of our system. Yes there are definitely issues with Isreal (I don't know much about Italy so I can't say), but they're just different issues, I'm not sure if they are "worse" issues or not that's kind of subjective I guess(?).

TorturedBlazerFan said:

Is it really any better here where two parties continue to sell us out? To send our kids off on wars for oil, I mean we can go on and on on the failures of our system. Yes there are definitely issues with Isreal (I don't know much about Italy so I can't say), but they're just different issues, I'm not sure if they are "worse" issues or not that's kind of subjective I guess(?).

Click to expand...

I would take the US's system over Israel's system every day of the week and twice on Tuesday. You basically have a tiny portion of the population (the ultra-orthodox) which control everything in the country because no-one can create a government without them.

In the US we have the super-rich minority that do the same, but at least you can make a reasonable argument that they invest in the economy for themselves which helps many - something you can not say about the situation in Israel and the ultra-orthodox (which by the way, oppose the idea of the state itself). I believe they are now going for the 3rd time to elections since they were not able to create a majority in the last 2 elections within the last year, basically meaning that the government is temporary and acting without any real oversight. Yikes.

andalusian said:

I would take the US's system over Israel's system every day of the week and twice on Tuesday. You basically have a tiny portion of the population (the ultra-orthodox) which control everything in the country because no-one can create a government without them.

In the US we have the super-rich minority that do the same, but at least you can make a reasonable argument that they invest in the economy for themselves which helps many - something you can not say about the situation in Israel and the ultra-orthodox (which by the way, oppose the idea of the state itself). I believe they are now going for the 3rd time to elections since they were not able to create a majority in the last 2 elections within the last year, basically meaning that the government is temporary and acting without any real oversight. Yikes.

Click to expand...

You mean like the oversite trump has, one side says hah we got you you're impeached, the other side nope. - Ok, I'm being sort of disingenuous. I wasn't making the argument that Isreal has it right, my argument is for the US though, our two-party system seems to have really broken down the past couple decades (at least). I'm not claiming we have it worse than the rest of the world either. I believe that they have sold us that super-rich people like the idea of big government who will form laws to keep them rich and keep competition at arms length, that military spending has become a money-laundering scheme for Friends and Family of the government (it's not even going to "protect" us!!!!), that while many of them pretend to be really at odds the political elite of the DNC and GOP have enjoyed the dividing and conquering of the US while they get richer and more powerful in the process, and I'm of the opinion that viable third parties could help to break down what we have gotten into. Is it the only answer? I guess not.

TorturedBlazerFan said:

You mean like the oversite trump has, one side says hah we got you you're impeached, the other side nope. - Ok, I'm being sort of disingenuous. I wasn't making the argument that Isreal has it right, my argument is for the US though, our two-party system seems to have really broken down the past couple decades (at least). I'm not claiming we have it worse than the rest of the world either. I believe that they have sold us that super-rich people like the idea of big government who will form laws to keep them rich and keep competition at arms length, that military spending has become a money-laundering scheme for Friends and Family of the government (it's not even going to "protect" us!!!!), that while many of them pretend to be really at odds the political elite of the DNC and GOP have enjoyed the dividing and conquering of the US while they get richer and more powerful in the process, and I'm of the opinion that viable third parties could help to break down what we have gotten into. Is it the only answer? I guess not.

Click to expand...

Trump certainly has more oversight on him than what is happening in Israel. In over 70 years of the country - they never had a government without the ultra-orthodox party. Never. Always in control.

Now viable 3rd party options is a nice idea - I am just saying that a multi-party coalition option is a gateway to minority rule. Maybe the 2-stage option Minstrel mentioned earlier might be of interest, but in theory, the primary selection is a bit like it - even if we end up with 2 nominees, there are very different people campaigning to be these nominees as we see the difference between the Warren/Bernie of the world vs. the moderates in this primary season.

andalusian said:

Trump certainly has more oversight on him than what is happening in Israel. In over 70 years of the country - they never had a government without the ultra-orthodox party. Never. Always in control.

Now viable 3rd party options is a nice idea - I am just saying that a multi-party coalition option is a gateway to minority rule. Maybe the 2-stage option Minstrel mentioned earlier might be of interest, but in theory, the primary selection is a bit like it - even if we end up with 2 nominees, there are very different people campaigning to be these nominees as we see the difference between the Warren/Bernie of the world vs. the moderates in this primary season.

Click to expand...

I understand. I think I said this above I don't know if we can come up with a "perfect" solution to any of this that "everyone's happy" in fact my guess is there is almost no chance of that ever happening, but I think for where we are at now in this country right now a viable third party would do good things for us. It could definitely be a gate-way into other problems (and some of those may be more severe), but again we're not going to get a perfect solution. My main issue really comes down to my belief that the two parties we have currently have taken the American people and instead of serving them have used them as step stools to their own power, or fortunes (sometimes both) so from my personal point of view, I have no trust there when it comes to them.

TorturedBlazerFan said:

By going by what you just said though, their embrace of Trump is basically just they picked one guy because it wasn't the other sides girl.

Click to expand...

In many cases, I agree. As the tweet someone else posted said, Democrats who vote for Bloomberg are all but saying that they'd have been okay with Trump if he had run as a Democrat. I don't think Bloomberg will actually win the Democratic nomination (as Trump obviously did in the 2016 Republican primaries) but if he somehow did, I think many Democrats would vote for him because "he's not Trump" or "I hate Republicans." Except, he is very Trumpian. Just a more genteel (but certainly not gentile!) version.

I also want to really apologize now if it sounds like I'm attacking you or anything like that. It's not my intent. I will try to remain respectful.

Click to expand...

I didn't take it that way. Feel free to criticize what I say all you like--I'm fine with that. I wouldn't post if I was bothered by someone contesting what I say.