Instigator / Pro

Are Democrats tired of losing against Trump?


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 4 votes and with 27 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

Democrats said Trump's candidacy was a publicity stunt to boost ratings of 'The Apprentice,' that he would not win a primary, the nomination, or the election. He did. They said he would not last six months, one year, midterms. He did. They said that Russia, Russia, Russia, urine tapes, Stormy, Avenatti, Cohen, Manafort would bury him. He's still here. They said the Mueller Report would take him down. He's still here. Who's Mueller? A has-been war hero. So was Benedict Arnold. Now they have had impeachment. He's still here.
Are they tired of losing, yet? Have they put up a candidate who at least can best his popularity rating, low as it is. No, After four years [this began long before his inauguration], Democrats can't even do that outside of margin of error.

Round 1
The question is whether Democrats are tired of losing in their effort to dispense with President Trump. The initiative has been a continuous string of arguments by them that Trump’s campaign was a farcical attempt for publicity. Then, Hillary Clinton’s attempt to bait Trump during one debate in challenging him to accept the results of the election in 2016 was a violation of her own the challenge when she lost the election, first by declaring that Trump’s election was illegitimate, and then by publishing What Happened.
Following the inauguration of President Trump [conducted by Chief Justice John Roberts, thus offering the Supreme Court imprimatur of a legitimate election], within one hour of that event, the Washington Post published an article declaring that Trump’s impeachment effort had begun.[1] For what? Is it now impeachable that a President walks hand-in-hand in a parade with his wife? That is all the President had done in that hour.
The description above lists several separate incidents over the first three years of the Trump presidency. The Democrats even impeached the President in a clear partisan vote in the House, followed by a non-partisan acquittal in the Senate.
The Democrats are incensed that Hillary Clinton lost the election. So, why is their ire not directed to her? It was her failed campaign. She decided to plant Trump squarely in the middle of her campaign with the slogan “Love trumps hate.”[2] Unforgettable. She chose to ignore the rust belt to campaign in NY and CA; two states that would have voted for her regardless if she bothered to campaign there.[3] Unforgivable. In an age when media is the ticket to conducting a presidential campaign, how do we forget that Hillary Clinton ran away from the media soon after declaring her candidacy? She followed by self-redefining at least twice in the campaign as if embarrassed by her past.[4] Unimaginable.
Who can forget last summer 2019 [shall we call it the Summer of Recovery of Shame?] when the hype-harbinger of Mueller’s Report gave us two declarations of failure to find substantiated charges against Trump? "Further, the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election." - Mueller Report, "Executive Summary to Vol 1," pg. 9. “…this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime" - Mueller Report, "Conclusion." Vol. 2, pg 182.
If that was not enough tired shame, who can forget the hyped appearance of Mueller in Congress, a testimony that, at best, was a deflating wish balloon, showering Congress in bozone. Are Democrats tired yet?
An impeachment fiasco launched by Nancy Pelosi, and concluded by a comic keystone cop performance by Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff. “Jerry, Jerry, Jerry...” Schiff proclaimed on a too-open mic, usurped by Nadler to give the closing argument. Hollowood could not have scripted a more embarrassing, losing effort.
As this new presidential election season looms ahead, Democrats, after months of declaring that the last thing they want is an old, white man as a candidate…[5]  their choice as the primary season drones on is… two old white guys. Are Democrats tired of losing, yet?

So ar M, I see no evidence that they are tiring. In fact, you'll notice that it's conceded by saying that they're fulled with ire and that they're fighting back with Bernie and Biden, at the ending of Pro's Round One.

The fact that they've had so many passionate candidates, truly fighting it out, debates that actually are cutthroat and speak of topics and policy, not just people with sarcastic quips, shows that not only are they the cery opposite to tiring from their loss to Trump but that in comparison the withered and tiring party is the Republicans. It is they who have been cucked, debates practically nonexistent in terms of any depth or worthy candidates other than Trump (who isn't worthy at all but that's for another debste) and in short, it's them who have surrendered to Trump even though in his original many of them were against him but settling for him, this has tired them out and now they support him in a meek spirit.

All Pro is doing is poking fun, read mg and kickikg the ego of a wounded creature while it's down. That doesn't mean he's proven the creature is tiring, it means he badly wishes that it was.
Round 2
If poking fun cannot be part of a debate when the string of faux pas committed by the Party continue to plague it, it is at least humorous. Or is satire dead?
One must admit that the campaign run by the Democrats in 2016 was just the beginning of the humor. I mentioned the irony of their candidate, challenging her opponent to accept the results of the election. She was so confident that she should have been 50 points ahead,[1] no less. Then, she lost to him by an Electoral College landslide of 20 states,[2] and the entire Party, including Ms. Clinton, could not meet the challenge of acceptance. That’s not just poking fun; that’s fact supporting the claim that Democrats do not have a valid argument in their platform because they are just tired.
A tired platform
The fact is, on the Democrat webpage,[3] the party platform is still from 2016. Tired. Before my opponent declares that the same is the result on the Republican Party site,[4] let’s recall which Party won the 2016 election, and is in the Oval, continuing to meet the promises made in their 2016 platform. Elections have consequences, they say. One is to maintain a successful course already set. The fact is, regardless of all the bluster, and to recall a 1995 movie, The American President,[5] we can quote from the character, President Andrew Shepherd, allowing for poetic license to update the times and the candidates, “This is a time for serious people, [Joe, Bernie], and your fifteen minutes are up. My name is [Donald Trump], and I am the President.”
Meanwhile, the Democrats are desperately in need of another revision of “Hope and Change.” It seems it is past time to get up and fly a platform flag rather than merely fly a tired wish balloon that Trump is not the “legitimate” President.
A tired candidate
The Democrats began preparations for the 2020 election by presenting a diverse quorum of some 25 potential candidates.[6] The Party made explicit declarations early in the campaign that diversity in the presidential candidate choice was essential to their success in 2020.[7][8] Where are they, now, just four months from the Party Convention in Milwaukee? While a woman remains in the contest to exhibit a modicum of diversity, Tulsi Gabbard, she polls at 1%, does not qualify to participate in the remaining primary debate[s?], and has to her credit a total of two delegates.[9] Two formidable candidates remain, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. Two old white guys, precisely what the Party did not want to select as the nominee.[10] And one of them is so tired; he wants to sit for the upcoming debate.[11] How tired is that?
A tired message
What has been the Democrat message since the Trump election in November 2016? Well, DNC Chair, Tom Perez, said it best: “[Trump] doesn’t give a shit about health care.”[12] “They [Republicans] call it a skinny budget. I call it a shitty budget”[13] And, finally, Perez qualified the Party’s 2020 effort: “Democrats give a shit about people.”[14] Only, it seems the Party is too tired to carry that entire mantra. They dropped the article, ‘a,’ and everything thereafter. And they have been giving the same old, tired potty talk ever since. How funny is that? How tired is that?
I apologize for the profanity, hoping that in merely quoting the Party line, the offense was already given. It is not my line.

References are detailed in the comments section.

Round 3

With my opponent having forfeited round 2, I will press on. There’s more sleepy in the Democrats than presented to date.
I’ve presented a tired platform, candidate, and message, with citations. As this is the last round, and those three elements of the argument are left standing without debate, I declare those points as a win.
A tired impeachment
Since this entire argument against the Democrats is a sleepy affair, let’s investigate for just how long this narcolepsy has been going on. In round 1, mention was made of the Washington post article[1]that announced the start of the Trump impeachment effort and that it was launched within the hour of President Trump’s inauguration. As mentioned, the apparent impeachable offense was walking in a parade hand-in-hand with his wife, Melania. One may recall other Presidents performing the same unconstitutional, impeachably shameful activity.
What shame? As I peruse the Constitution, as I am practiced at doing nearly daily, I perceive no reference to parade-walking, with or without spouse.  However, without intentionally causing a marketing uproar, but merely to demonstrate a point, the Constitution has been the research-rich practice of personal pursuit over the past two years, resulting in a volume of personal production, entitled, not excessively narcissistic, Faux Law.[2]In it, the point is made that the Constitution is habitually abused by misinterpretation of its language, and that this is committed with frequency by the Supreme Court, the Presidents, the Congress, and we, the people. To wit: the press conference announcement by Democrat Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi in September 2019 to initiate the official investigation of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, for the purpose of impeachment.[3]
What has this to do with Party narcolepsy? Just this: Pelosi’s presser was not the means by which impeachment of any federal officer is to be conducted. One might argue that the Constitution does not define how the impeachment effort is launched; only that the House owns the “sole power” to do so.[4]However, the Constitution does enjoin each house of Congress to define their rules of procedure. For the House, that includes the process of initiating impeachment by an investigation.[5]
Quite simply, the House Managers, along with Speaker Pelosi, ignored their own House Rules, and Supreme Court precedent, by failing to hold a complete House membership majority vote to both approve an impeachment investigation and to provide the authorization to issue witness subpoenas in September 2019. It was launched, instead, only by Speaker Pelosi’s previously mentioned press conference. House committees, by Rule [House Rules of the 116thCongress Rules X and XI], and by Supreme Court precedent [[U.S. v. Rumley [1953], [Quinn v. U.S. [1954], and Watkins v U.S. [1957]], cannot arbitrarily begin investigation, or issue subpoenas, by their own recognizance; they must obtain full House approval by majority vote. Having failed to do so, the entire House impeachment investigation by several committees was entirely and completely invalid. Does that render the subsequent impeachment proceeding, including the subsequent Senate trial invalid? The answer to that, unfortunately, is: to quote “the most investigated innocent woman in America,”[6]“What difference does it make?”[7]Now, not a thing.
Why didn’t Speaker Pelosi follow her own rules? Do you really have to be asked? See the title of this debate.
Let’s have some fun on which to close the debate, unless the opponent chooses to avoid forfeit:
Father, why do these words sound so nasty?
Can be fun
Join the holy orgy
Sleepy Sutra
all references detailed in comments, round 3.