That's largely because these are not debates, we gave up on actual debates decades ago. These are a glorified version of America's Got Talent - Political Edition. You have 2 minutes to tell us how you will change the world, ready.... GO!
You used to win a debate with reason, articulation, superior intellect... now you win with bumper sticker sayings, quick wit, and gotcha moments.
Heard a guest on a recent podcast who had a great idea: let the DNC run the debates like they used to. "X"- out ALL the networks. Stream it live and simulcast it on C-Span. Smaller debate pools. No audience. Independent moderators. 5 minutes per answer/per candidate.
This would eliminate/reduce most of the grandstanding.
And my personal contribution: a hard cut-off on open mics when candidates use up their 5 minutes.
These 'debates' put on by cable channels and networks have one overriding purpose: to generate revenue. They will turn the most serious, important nationwide event into "Survivor" or "Dancing with the Stars" just to jack up ratings and market share. I hate it.
I'd love it if the news went back to being a loss leader for their parent networks. They reported the news without the need to cultivate and maintain a loyal following. But back then, there were only 3 networks and this little thing called PBS.
Hey Clem......I would like to clarify something. Your post on the locked thread got me to thinking and I offered up an opinion for discussion purposes. OCD arrived and the typical insults began to flow.
Here is what I want to clarify. I was not talking about just the Democratic candidates. I was talking about all of the candidates no matter who they are affiliated with.
I was not clear about that and I can see how my thoughts might have been misinterpreted since it was a Democratic Candidates thread.
I was just thinking back to the previous election and how so very many of us said something like: Of all the people in the United States, these are two choices [Trump/Hillary.]
This might be too deep for this board and perhaps even for you, but I was trying to suggest that due to all the labeling and attempts at trying to degrade those who aren't just like others on one side, that today's politicians are forced into very small boxes. They parrot what their supporters want to hear and dare not irritate them.
The focus is not on "you should vote for me because I can/will/have accomplished..." Rather it's on "you should vote for me because my opponent is [insert negative labels."]
Nope. I got what you were saying. My response was generally to you and the board but specifically to GM, who was speaking directly about the Donk candidates.
And your opinion is not far from mine. In 2016, I found the entirety of the GOP candidate pool to be unimpressive in much the same fashion as this year's crop of Dems. The one difference between then and now: there is no con man/buffoon running a scam disguised as a presidential campaign in this slate of hopefuls.
Recently, Scaramucci reaffirmed the words of several insiders who are on the record as saying that IQ45 planned on losing the election, in a bid to make millions post-election with his newfound raised profile. These motives were something I surmised weeks/months before election day, as I've known how he 's operated for decades.
Although there is no Trump running among the Dems, every presidential race risks similar hijacking if the candidates are not serious, sober and dedicated. Any one of those uninspiring folks would have done less damage to the image of the White House than this current mistake, but he's the one who got enough passionate voters to tip the EC scale. If a couple of Dems don't step up and start exciting D's and I's, his 4 will turn into 8.
We're done as the world's #1 superpower if that happens.
I think we are just in a new political economic era. Old things are under more scrutiny and new ideas need to be proven to work. Polarization is a side effect of this being exploited by both sides for the last 10 years or more. Trump just ramped it up to exhausting.
I don't think any of the old 'good life' stuff is coming back, like well paid mills and factories from which you can work 30 years earning a great living and retire comfortably... they are gone or are going extinct. The gig economy sucks. The wealth disparity is worse than ever. There are really two economies; one for the well to do and one for the working class. Religion is less prevalent and evil crap like mass shootings are up.
Our leaders spend so much time talking about going backwards that we never move forward, yet the economy and much of the rest of the world has.
And yet candidates like E Warren and B Sanders are ridiculed as 'whackos' by the very class of voters who have been hurt the most by lobbyists, Wall Streeters and deep-pocket fat cats dangling politicians from their strings.
This exploitation is exactly what was happening in the first 2.5 decades of the 20th c. It took the Great Depression, 2 World Wars and bloodshed on the picket lines to bring about the prosperity of USA 1950-1990. They started in the '70's, and by the '90's, we watched them do it right in front of our faces.
It's Obama's fault we're in this mess. If he hadn't bailed out all those East Coast Elites and the Detroit Auto Industry, we could have had a true crash. It wouldn't have forestalled the pitchforks and pyres that are inevitable. We are fast approaching the 'let them eat cake' tipping point. When that day comes, with any luck I'll be:
dead insulated with my nest egg on an island somewhere too addled by dementia to be effected by it.
P.S. we're still in a position to be at the front in the 21st... but only if we get this 50's-loving, knuckle-dragging throwback out of office.
Honestly.... what adjectives would you use to describe the person I'm discussing? Have you stepped next door to read the environmental policy roll-backs that are now happening under his watch and with his enthusiastic consent? Straight out of 1950. Public rhetoric regarding civil causes/responses to criticism by PsOC: George Wallace, 1962. Personal lifestyle in his private sector days: Hugh Hefner/Playboy prototype, set: 1950-1960. Dude even posed in asilk bathrobe like Hef in a cheesy 1970's photo shoot. So yes- I reserve the right to describe him referencing neanderthal as an adjective. He's a fossil and as Bill Maher says: "The last of the old 50's white dudes."
Is that not the very definition of "throwback?"
WTF Vers?
Don't expect me to sugar-coat my opinions of that man to conform to some sanitized standard of discourse proscribed by you.
Something you should know: I do not respond well to being scolded.
Only two people have ever shared that privilege, and they earned it by raising me. You did not. I'll thank you to extend to me the same courtesy I've afforded you when you've stepped over my personal lines.
"What lines?" you might ask. Exactly my point. I have never treated you as you just did me. Never.
So here is where we stand at present, you and I:
Everybody gets one with me. You just used yours tonight.
p.s. Interesting that you jumped to race first. But maybe that's the level you operate on. Maybe not. Or worse, perhaps that's the level at which you think I operate. Doubly insulting. I have no proof of either possibility, so I'm letting all of this slide tonight.
if the election was held today, its Warren for me, straight up.
she inspires me.
I'd say the same, at present.
I'm not inspired as much as impressed with her acumen, preparedness and professionalism. She's bringing thought-out platforms that speak to the Big Issues while most of her fellow contestants are still trying to find their voices. I'll risk the policies of hers that take me out of my comfort zone in deference to the laundry list of practical attributes she brings as a politician.
She's that girl in 4th grade who got to work on the semester-long assignment the day it was dropped. She's the girl you wanted to captain the debate team because she could line up all the facts, line up the talking points... and line up the batting order. She's the girl you wanted in your study group because she could keep the entire group on-task when all we freshmen wanted to do was smoke dope and toss the Frisbee.
In short: She's that smart, sane, competent woman who has run the company from just under the glass ceiling, while the frat boys take liquid lunches at the club and jack the corporate jet to the Seychelles for 'professional team-building retreats.'
I thought the "knuckle-dragging" comment was out-of-bounds and that is why I brought up the race comment. I have seen that comment before and it was an insult towards black folks. I don't like terms like that. That doesn't make me a racist.
I'm also not a fan of threats. I like you and I'm okay w/us disagreeing about things. I have friends and even family members where we strongly disagree about political and religious ideas. I am not sure if I should keep my mouth shut when I see something inappropriate just so you like me?
if the election was held today, its Warren for me, straight up.
she inspires me.
I'd say the same, at present.
I'm not inspired as much as impressed with her acumen, preparedness and professionalism. She's bringing thought-out platforms that speak to the Big Issues while most of her fellow contestants are still trying to find their voices. I'll risk the policies of hers that take me out of my comfort zone in deference to the laundry list of practical attributes she brings as a politician.
In short: She's that smart, sane, competent woman who has run the company from just under the glass ceiling, while the frat boys take liquid lunches at the club and jack the corporate jet to the Seychelles for 'professional team-building retreats.'
This is where I am at as well - 100%. She is impressive, smart, prepared. Wish she didn't have the Pocahontas thing hanging over her - but I think she's more than capable of turning attacks from Trump around.
I am a little concerned because I think we need more of a moderate in the WH to heal and bring people together. But I'd also refer the best candidate rather than the candidate the might be moderate but inferior. As much as I like Biden, and he's centrist by comparison - his constant verbal slip ups make him an absolute no for me.
Recently, Scaramucci reaffirmed the words of several insiders who are on the record as saying that IQ45 planned on losing the election, in a bid to make millions post-election with his newfound raised profile.
If this was the purpose, I think a fair question would be, why would he run again then?
Because if he wins, the statue(right word?) of limitation is up and he won’t get prosecuted.
Remember, he can’t be indicted for obstruction due to the legal opinion. But everyone, even Fox News, is aware that if he doesn’t win in 2020, he can get charged.
It *might* apply to any state charges as well, but I’m not sure.
So basically he’s running for self preservation. Besides, he doesn’t make nearly the amount of money if he loses 2020 than he would’ve in 2016.
American politics have become meaningless.....The candidates are simply self-promoters who are continually in search of any ammunition to submarine the efforts of their opponents....
Because of this dynamic, candidates take a big risk detailing any policy that they feel would help the American people....because any information they divulge will become potential ammunition to their adversaries. Adversaries who can gain more ground attacking the idea's of an opponent, than proposing any original idea's of their own...
So, instead of, What I can do for you.....it becomes, What they are going to do to you...
The constant ridicule, accusations, and misrepresentations leads to a field of candidates whose actual policies become muddled within the opponents derision, ambiguous values only understood as those represented by their party, and therefore, a complete domination by democratic or republican candidates...
Do you know what show this is from? Do you recognize the actor who went on to do a major US show that ran for 8 seasons? I Love both shows and the actor btw
That's largely because these are not debates, we gave up on actual debates decades ago. These are a glorified version of America's Got Talent - Political Edition. You have 2 minutes to tell us how you will change the world, ready.... GO!
You used to win a debate with reason, articulation, superior intellect... now you win with bumper sticker sayings, quick wit, and gotcha moments.
Heard a guest on a recent podcast who had a great idea: let the DNC run the debates like they used to. "X"- out ALL the networks. Stream it live and simulcast it on C-Span. Smaller debate pools. No audience. Independent moderators. 5 minutes per answer/per candidate.
This would eliminate/reduce most of the grandstanding.
And my personal contribution: a hard cut-off on open mics when candidates use up their 5 minutes.
These 'debates' put on by cable channels and networks have one overriding purpose: to generate revenue. They will turn the most serious, important nationwide event into "Survivor" or "Dancing with the Stars" just to jack up ratings and market share. I hate it.
I'd love it if the news went back to being a loss leader for their parent networks. They reported the news without the need to cultivate and maintain a loyal following. But back then, there were only 3 networks and this little thing called PBS.
Damn. How sad we've become.
Count me in for the Clem plan. I'm down with all of that but with a couple caveats.. one, we have to resolve the issue of debate participation, it's impossible to have a reasonable debate with 7-10 people on the stage, many of whom are getting less than 5% support.. they are there to grandstand, make the big splash, something to become relevant in the race.. not sure how to fix that.
As far as the DNC running the DNC debates, my only concern with that is, are they really going to ask tough questions? Not that the networks really do, but aren't they going to set everything up for success? And, as we learned from Hillary, the DNC is not above picking favorites.. but I guess that is going to be a concern regardless of who runs it.
Here's a thought. Once the Ds and Rs have picked their final candidate, let the Ds run a debate and the Rs run a debate. Let the RNC ask the D candidate questions.. let the DNC ask the R candidate questions... just kicking around ideas..
I like the format you suggested. And I like having non bias moderators along with the C-Span idea. Five minute responses would give every candidate ample time to lay out their plans. So in theory, it seems to be sound. But who would actually watch that? I mean people like you, myself and maybe Vers would. I think some of the people who post on this board might.
But the people as a whole? I'm not convinced that is a format the general public wants. It seems today's society, overall, is more interested in canned responses, feel good catch phrases and gotchya moments. IMO they care more about hearing the things they want to hear and are far less interested in substance.
And let's look at the candidates. Not as far as specifics or policies, but as it pertains to tactics. While Biden isn't my favorite candidate, let's look at what we saw in one debate. And I'll use Kamala Harris as an example. Rather than use the time she was given to make a case for her policies, she dug back 37 years to attack Biden on the busing issue. Now I'm not sure of your exact age, but we came from the same time period.
37 years ago I was 23. My thoughts and political beliefs have evolved over time. Things that were accepted then, are not accepted now. I'm pretty sure a lot of these "woke vegans" of the current time would have been eating at McDonald's three times a week back then. People change, ideas change and people evolve over time. At least some of us do. So I guess my question is, even if given ample time to address the questions with five minute responses, are you any more sure they wouldn't spend some of that time attacking their opponents rather than making their own case? I'm not.
Many people these days seem to wish to blame those asking questions for the responses people give to those questions. I'm not of that ilk. In today's political climate it seems as though politicians feel tearing down their opponents have a greater meaning to voters than making their own case as to their worthiness for the office.
I think we are both after the same thing. To be an informed voter. And I agree with you that the current debate format does not allow for that. I'm just not as optimistic as you are that the actual candidates will allow for that either. Nor am I convinced that most Americans have the patience to listen to it. The time of the 30 second sound bite seems to reign supreme.
IN the clip you also have the actors of Haggred (Harry Potter movies) and Mr Bean.
I like HL too, I was going to guess him but couldn't tell. When I found it all I could think was this guy looks like a white old school teacher with a stick up his ass clutching his pearls...
It has everything to do with how I choose to spend my time and attention at this address. All of us voluntarily interact with each other on these boards. If you insist on mistaking my last nerve for a trampoline, I'll simply choose to cease our interactions, and avoid the aggravation.
You have a personal penchant for pugnacity that is amply represented on these boards. I've seen you beef it out with any number of folks over the years, and have managed to never have been part of that. It has only recently appeared up in our interactions, and both times it has been initiated by you. We've enjoyed a fine relationship for more than 10 years, but it truly is a choice we both make. If I determine that you aren't worth the effort, I'll simply stop making the effort. This is not written as a threat... it's simply a statement of how I intend to proceed from here.
Here's what I wish you would do: ignore remarks of mine (and others) that you don't like, and wait for a convo that sparks good talk between us once again. It's the courtesy I've always extended to you, when you've made comments that don't meet my standards. One thing you must admit: I've never preached to you about your posting style or taken shots of any sort at you. In all the years we've posted together. To date, you've dinged me twice within a short 6-week period.
I've reached that age where I've given myself permission to cut people off who don't make my life better by their presence. I've been cleaning out my Rolodex quite a bit, the last few years. I sleep better, enjoy my days more, and carry around less emotional baggage than I did when I was younger. Please don't be the next to get placed on the curb. I enjoy you... but if I have to start paying with emotional upheaval, the cost will quickly become too high for the value you bring.
I'd normally reserve a message like this for a PM, but you insisted on making it public several posts ago.
I've always liked and respected you. I'd like to continue that. Please help me by respecting the one boundary I've asked of you.
Hickenlooper to end presidential bid, considering U.S. Senate run in Colorado
WASHINGTON — Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper is expected on Thursday to end a presidential campaign that never got off the ground and instead announce that he is seriously considering a run against Republican Sen. Cory Gardner, according to two people familiar with his plans.
A quirky businessman-turned-politician who failed to stand out in the crowded Democratic presidential primary field, Hickenlooper would be an immediate front-runner in another crowded field of Democratic Senate hopefuls eager to challenge Gardner, one of the most vulnerable GOP incumbents seeking reelection next year in a state where President Trump is deeply unpopular.
For months as Hickenlooper struggled to gain traction and raise money as a presidential candidate, he batted away questions about why he was running for president instead of challenging Gardner, saying at one point that he is “not cut out to be” a U.S. senator and repeatedly insisting that his skill set as an executive was a poor fit for a more deliberative role in Congress.
That line would no doubt be used against him should he run, although he is still considered an obvious front-runner in one of next year’s most competitive and important Senate contests.
Although more than a dozen candidates are already running, none are as familiar to Colorado voters or as battle-tested in statewide races as the former two-term governor and Denver mayor.
That’s the main reason Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, desperate to flip three seats next November to gain back control of the Senate, have continued to court Hickenlooper, despite his public protestations that the job of being in the U.S. Senate “didn’t speak to” him.
As a presidential candidate, Hickenlooper only seemed to generate headlines when he misspoke: The former small-business owner refused to concede to MSNBC host Joe Scarborough that he was a “capitalist,” then flipped his messaging around and explicitly ran against socialism. The only memorable moment from his only nationally televised town hall involved him acknowledging having accidentally taken his mother to see the infamous pornographic film “Deep Throat.”
In July, he fired his campaign manager and communications director in an effort to revive his campaign, celebrating a poll that showed him at 2% as a major breakthrough.
But with the Democratic National Committee’s debate qualifying criteria of 130,000 individual donors preventing him — and several others — from appearing in next month’s debate, Hickenlooper began to look at the Senate race as an appealing off-ramp.
In Denver, a political consultant tied to Hickenlooper caused a stir when he bought several web domains that could be utilized for a Senate bid. And as the former governor considered his options while continuing to campaign for president in Iowa, a poll that showed him easily winning Colorado’s Democratic Senate primary and defeating Gardner by 12 percentage points was leaked to the news media.
Despite the fondness for Hickenlooper back home, many of the Democrats already seeking the Senate nomination appear unlikely to step aside to clear the field for him if he declares his candidacy , and some may bristle at efforts by politicians in Washington to influence the race.
In the wide primary field, two candidates have already demonstrated an ability to raise money: former state Sen. Mike Johnston, a former educator from Denver, and Dan Baer, who was an Obama administration staffer.
John Walsh, who served as U.S. attorney in Denver during the Obama administration, is also running, as are Andrew Romanoff, a former statehouse speaker who has struggled to find a second act in politics since leaving the Legislature a decade ago, and Alice Madden, who served as House majority leader with Romanoff and also left public office in 2009.
It has everything to do with how I choose to spend my time and attention at this address. All of us voluntarily interact with each other on these boards. If you insist on mistaking my last nerve for a trampoline, I'll simply choose to cease our interactions, and avoid the aggravation.
You have a personal penchant for pugnacity that is amply represented on these boards. I've seen you beef it out with any number of folks over the years, and have managed to never have been part of that. It has only recently appeared up in our interactions, and both times it has been initiated by you. We've enjoyed a fine relationship for more than 10 years, but it truly is a choice we both make. If I determine that you aren't worth the effort, I'll simply stop making the effort. This is not written as a threat... it's simply a statement of how I intend to proceed from here.
Here's what I wish you would do: ignore remarks of mine (and others) that you don't like, and wait for a convo that sparks good talk between us once again. It's the courtesy I've always extended to you, when you've made comments that don't meet my standards. One thing you must admit: I've never preached to you about your posting style or taken shots of any sort at you. In all the years we've posted together. To date, you've dinged me twice within a short 6-week period.
I've reached that age where I've given myself permission to cut people off who don't make my life better by their presence. I've been cleaning out my Rolodex quite a bit, the last few years. I sleep better, enjoy my days more, and carry around less emotional baggage than I did when I was younger. Please don't be the next to get placed on the curb. I enjoy you... but if I have to start paying with emotional upheaval, the cost will quickly become too high for the value you bring.
I'd normally reserve a message like this for a PM, but you insisted on making it public several posts ago.
I've always liked and respected you. I'd like to continue that. Please help me by respecting the one boundary I've asked of you.
Thanks in advance.
Please drop my "pugnacious" self from your "Rolodex."
You made a racist comment about a white man being a knuckle dragger. I said that imagine if a white dude had said that about a black man?
Somehow, you thought that was a huge personal attack. I have called out similar comments when whites made them and you didn't seem to mind, but now it's an attack?
Sorry Clem, I'm not digging this. I am not a hypocrite. If it's wrong for one side to make such statements, it's also wrong for the other side to reciprocate.
I was hoping that you would say you didn't mean it that way or that you misspoke. Instead, you put the spotlight on me and used a word like "pugnacious." I have a different definition of my disputes on here. I try to be righteous and do the right thing no matter the consequences. I'll gladly take the grief if it's for a righteous cause and will not be swayed by negative attacks on my character.
Thus, I will leave you w/this.............racial stereotypes are not cool. We may disagree w/others and there may be some divide, but none of us are apes. We are human beings. We may be flawed, but we don't need to be compared to apes. This is the first time I have had to so say this in response to a black man, but I've made it plenty of times when it was made by white men. So yeah, please remove me from your Rolodex.
Vers, Trump is 100% a knuckle dragger and you damn well know it. I'm 100% white, you wanna try and call me racist against whites? You are looking the fool lately, not sure what's going on with you in your personal life, but a number of us can see the change.
Perhaps it's the victimhood you've been trying so hard to display. It's the same argument all over the right these days, too bad it's more about ignorance than anything else. This ignorance is what we are watching morph into a large scale white supremacy movement and fascist nationalism in the good ole US of A.
Or maybe it's you're inner treehugger wanting to make everything alright by coming together, holding hands, and singing kumbaya just so you can feel a since of normalcy again. I mean with the genie out of the bottle with all the hate these days, I can see how a guy like you can't acknowledge that it's getting worse by the day and not try to find some position that allows you to still be comfortable. I hardly think that you calling Clem a racist for saying something completely true about Trump is the line you've identified that is worthy of ending your friendship over... You have too much respect for Clem and the volumes of practical wisdom and understanding he has laid down on this board over the years to act like that.
If something more personal is going on with you we would understand that, but short of anything like that you don't seem to be acting like yourself lately. I agree with Swish, you are moving further and further toward the right and acting like a Trump supporter.
I didn't call Clem a racist. I said that all hell would break loose if a white man made that comment about a black man.
As far as the rest of your post goes......it's just a plethora of insults. I'm not going to trade them w/you. Think what you will, but I will not allow your insults to stop me from doing what I think is right.
You made a racist comment about a white man being a knuckle dragger.
By YOUR definition.... not mine.
I think Neanderthal/Cro Magnon. By your own admission, you associate that with racist, because a racist White person you knew used it to describe a Black person. Well guess what? I'm not that guy, although in one fell swoop, you've placed me in the same camp as he. After 15 years worth of posting history, you could make this assumption after one post.
You never even considered asking me for clarification or explanation. No benefit of the doubt, after years of posting equity that contradicts such an assumption. After years of us both watching people misreading/misinterpreting posts and needing half a page of explanation to clear things up, you were so clear about my motives as to presume to "set me down with a stern correction." No regard whatsoever am I allowed by you. And this, after you've repeatedly said in public posts and PM's that you respect me. After years of being held out by you as some model of behavior to follow, I'm getting preached to from on high.
This is not an example of respect, as far as I'm concerned. It's not even basic common courtesy.
No... you imperiously assigned racism to my statement and judged me on your terms and your terms alone. In other words, your opinion is the only one that counts.
I've seen you do this repeatedly over the past several months in virtually every DT forum, so I guess it was only a matter of time until you got around to me. I never once called you on it, even though I found it to be a bit- unbecoming. Now that you've placed me in your crosshairs, I'll be as honest as I can be with you: if you find yourself knee-deep in beef with no fewer than a dozen different posters with as many different personalities from all walks of life... perhaps the one problem we all have in common can be easily seen the next time you need a shave.
I find this all unfortunate, but not totally unexpected. Dawg, you've been doing this A LOT lately.
And I know your first and most natural reaction is to immediately push back, but I will respectfully ask that you at least take a moment to consider what I've said. This goes beyond me making a post that didn't meet your standards. This is about a pattern of behavior I've seen for at least 4-6 months.
Thanks for your time and camaraderie for the past 15 years. It was really good- until it wasn't.
I'll be as honest as I can be with you: if you find yourself knee-deep in beef with no fewer than a dozen different posters with as many different personalities from all walks of life... perhaps the one problem we all have in common can be easily seen the next time you need a shave.
I hope you feel better about yourself after that comment. Have a nice life.
I've seen you do this repeatedly over the past several months in virtually every DT forum, so I guess it was only a matter of time until you got around to me. I never once called you on it, even though I found it to be a bit- unbecoming. Now that you've placed me in your crosshairs, I'll be as honest as I can be with you: if you find yourself knee-deep in beef with no fewer than a dozen different posters with as many different personalities from all walks of life... perhaps the one problem we all have in common can be easily seen the next time you need a shave.
i mean good lord this was dank. so much smoke in one paragraph, i cant breathe and this wasnt even aimed at me lolololol
In the original Democratic Candidates thread, Clem made a comment that went something like that he hasn't fully embraced any of the candidates. That triggered a thought that has been eating at me for awhile. Many Americans echoed the thought of "how could we end up w/Trump and Hillary as our choices in the last presidential election?"
I tried to start a conversation about why that might be. I received a couple of good replies, but then the discussion was derailed by more of the personal attack crap.
The two good answers I received dealt w/just how tough the office of the presidency is. I think it goes beyond that, though.
Here is the point I am trying to make. There is so much divisiveness in our mainstream and social media. Extreme takes rule the day. We are always pointing fingers at one another. "You are this..." "You are that..." Sides are taken. Hurtful arrows fly freely and safely across the internet. We are a country that is divided at least in the throes of the mainstream media and especially social media venues.
Where does that leave our politicians? They rely on their constituents/supporters to further their careers and understandably so.
That was long-winded, but I felt I had to paint the background scene in order to introduce the theme of the painting. Politicians have long been somewhat corrupt and certainly fickle. They don't act out of a sense of what is right or wrong. They act because they need votes. Thus, the narrow-minded thinking, hate, bias, and blame-gaming mindset of their supporters actually paint each candidate into tight corners. Of course, because so many folks focus on tearing down their opponents instead of championing their own causes, those policies fall under a very critical microscope and we continually focus on the negatives of each candidate and we don't ask for the candidates to champion what they can do to actually help our country.
I get that isn't a "Damn Son" post on this board, but I think it is pretty important. I know my post won't draw much attention other than ridicule from those who post a lot on this forum, but perhaps silent readers will get something out of it? I hope so, because it is my contention that we stop being so contentious towards one another and instead try to bridge the divide rather than furthering it w/cruel and insulting statements about those who don't agree w/us.
I agree to the extent that all the back and forth does nothing productive and just deteriorates the conversations. But you can not have one sided conversations and expect anything to come of it.
As for the name calling and insults you accuse (me) others of, I hardly ever think of you, especially in an aggressive way, until you drop my name in random comments condemning the things I believe. You pretty much do exactly what you are saying you dislike others doing... just saying.
And I think there are many types of politicians. Take Moscow Mitch for instance, he absolutely doesn't care what his constituents think but acts like it's his personal mission to do whatever it takes to keep the GOP in power and his donors happy. Rand Paul, also of Kentucky, jilts his constituents as well in favor of libertarian conservatism. Joe Manchin from neighboring WV, does what he thinks his constituents (majority republican) want all the time against his party's best interest. So I think lumping them into a group with a label of corrupt and fickle would need factful fleshing out to be anything than more than opinion, even though it's a popular opinion.
Elegy for Bernie? Not quite yet: Sanders 2020 poses a conundrum Democrats must solve
ernie Sanders’ 2020 trajectory doesn’t make much sense. That is, it doesn’t make sense to those people who still believe they know “how things work” in American politics — the people who haven’t absorbed the central lesson of the last three or four years, which is that nobody knows how anything works.
According to the “I’ve got this figured out” crowd, Sanders was a semi-irrelevant figure in the 2020 race. He was too old and too weird. He had bitterly divided the Democratic Party in 2016 and had — in some obscure way — helped elect Donald Trump. His supporters were entirely bearded young white men in Brooklyn, Portland and Ann Arbor, not-so-subtly contaminated by racism, misogyny and various kinds of unexamined privilege. Both his personality and his policies were well outside the acceptable range, and would send “suburban moderates” and “Obama-Trump voters” — those objects of bottomless Democratic lust — screaming back into the toxic cult of You Know Who.
Bits of that may be true. Some of the rest of it is understandable. I won’t dispute that the obnoxious online behavior of a fair number of Sanders supporters has alienated many mainstream Democrats, especially older feminist women who were all-in for Hillary Clinton in 2016. In fact, in historical terms that feels like a fatal flaw running through the entire Bernie enterprise: No Democrat can possibly be elected president without the enthusiastic support of middle-class, middle-aged, college-educated white women, a group that would probably agree with Sanders on policy about 90 percent. (Yes, Bernie-stanners, there has been plenty of bile and vitriol coming back in the other direction. But I see no point in airing that out, do you?)
But a lot of that analysis is also flat-out false, including the overarching conclusion that Bernie Sanders is not an important factor in the 2020 race. He is older than either Joe Biden or Trump, but appears far more vigorous and alert than either of them. He remains second to Biden in most Democratic primary polls, neither surging nor declining much while other candidates go through their exceedingly minor boom-and-bust cycles. Remember when your friends were confidently aboard the Pete Buttigieg juggernaut, for five minutes? Remember when Kamala Harris set Biden on fire that one time, and looked like the tough-as-nails leader who would prosecute Donald Trump for everything? Those were good times. Well, neither of those people has cracked double figures in any major poll this month.
No, polls should never be treated as gospel — although after Labor Day, we can put aside the argument that it’s too early for polling to mean anything and that at this point in whatever-year Samwise Gamgee or Toad the Wet Sprocket was leading and you don’t see them on the dollar bill, do you? Anyway, the fact that Sanders appears to have around one-fifth of the Democratic vote locked down is not the important part. The important part is how he has done that and who those people are, and the fact that Democrats probably can’t win without Sanders’ issues and Sanders’ voters — and that if they try to ignore those issues and snow those voters, they will definitely pay the price sooner or later.
The important part is, honestly, really obvious part and we don’t say it enough: Bernie Sanders and his supporters have driven the Democratic Party to confront issues and policies and internal conflicts it had deliberately avoided for an entire generation. He may never become the Democratic nominee or the president — indeed, both of those outcomes remain unlikely. But his legacy will go beyond the inevitable renaming of the Burlington airport and whatever federal building exists in Vermont. He has dragged universal health insurance and a living wage and the crushing unfairness of student debt and the Green New Deal and the general rapaciousness of late-stage vulture capitalism into mainstream political discourse, against the vigorous pushback of nearly the entire elite class — and has made clear that most Americans agree with him, and not with them.
Furthermore, the always-dubious premise that Sanders’ supporters are overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male has been exposed as a blatant falsehood. A recent Pew Research survey suggests, in fact, that Sanders has the most diverse supporter mix of any 2020 candidate: Slightly more than half are people of color and slightly more than half are women, which is a combination no other candidate can claim.
His supporters are not just disproportionately young (which we all understood) but disproportionately working-class and disproportionately non-college-educated. According to the Sanders campaign, the No. 1 occupation among his 750,000 or so individual donors is teacher. The No. 1 employer among his donors is Walmart, with Amazon, Target and UPS not far behind. (No other candidate comes within 300,000 of that donor number.) The early-campaign assumption that Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were competing for the same left-progressive voters also appears untrue: In general terms, Warren dominates among affluent, educated, middle-aged white people who identify as “very liberal,” while Sanders dominates among left-leaning people of color, lower-income white folks and younger voters.
To say this again even more clearly, I’m not arguing that Sanders is likely to win the Democratic nomination. Whether his negatives are “perceived” or not, they exist. Despite his shambling campaign and erratic public statements, Joe Biden retains a significant lead in most primary polls, as well as in head-to-head, swing-state polls against Donald Trump. Which should definitely not be viewed as significant 14 months ahead of the general election — but the entire Democratic electorate is driven by Trump-centric fear and PTSD, and there’s not much you or I can do about that.
In terms of primary-season arithmetic, Biden’s advantage among African-American voters — a core Democratic constituency whose support is essential to victory, and who dominate the Democratic electorate in several crucial Southern states — is even more important. Bernie Sanders is in fact well-liked and well-respected in the black community, according to favorability surveys, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s going to win their votes in large numbers. (Salon’s Chauncey DeVega wrote an excellent primer on this question earlier this year.)
For either Sanders or Warren — who have different but aligned hypothetical paths to being the last non-Biden candidate in the race — that’s an extremely steep hill to climb. (It might be steeper for Sanders, because of the aforementioned “white women problem.”) A Bernie victory might require the primary-season equivalent of drawing an inside straight in one of Donald Trump’s casinos, although you’d have to say — in a bit of a 2016 flashback — that the prospect doesn’t seem as far-fetched as it did even a few weeks ago. Recent polls show a tightening three-way race overall, and suggest that Sanders may be leading Biden in New Hampshire (which he won convincingly in 2016).
So I’m not, like, “Watch out for Bernie, y’all,” because it’s not as if anyone even remotely associated with left-liberal politics doesn’t know he’s there. People are completely freaking obsessed with Bernie Sanders, sometimes to the level of batshit-craziness — people who love him, people who can’t stand him, people who are kind of whatever-neutral about him … except, wait, there are no such people.
I’m also not claiming that there’s an anti-Bernie conspiracy in the mainstream media, designed to drive down his poll numbers and crush his chances. It’s unquestionably true that Sanders’ 2020 campaign has been subjected to an almost hilarious series of slights, oversights and distortions: Polls that list him third when he finished second, headlines that omit his name and focus on candidates with far less popularity, news stories and analyses and panel discussions that lean hard into the argument that he is fading or failing or no longer relevant.
None of that requires a conspiracy theory, because the anti-Sanders bias in the media is baked into the pie, and has a more or less “innocent” explanation. There was no need for a nefarious conference call in which the corporate overlords at CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times agreed to order their minions to take out the dangerous socialist.
First of all, many people in the mainstream media just don’t like Bernie Sanders, for personal, professional and political reasons. He is undeniably a gruff, irascible person who doesn’t kiss up to reporters in off-the-record conversations, and who generally views the large media corporations as his adversaries. You can argue that’s not good strategy, and that it has permanently alienated a significant number of mainstream liberals who might otherwise be willing to consider him. But I don’t think you can argue that Bernie’s view of the media is categorically false.
Sanders also represents a wide range of policy positions that remain outside what many or most commentators and reporters view as responsible, mainstream politics — despite mounting evidence that actual voters do not share that view. It’s funny how the head-to-head polls that show Biden defeating Trump are seen as evidence of electability, while similar polls that show Sanders defeating Trump are seen as something else — snowflake-driven flukes that fail to anticipate how badly the Trump war machine will eviscerate the socialist, or whatever. (Whereas bumbling, grasping, terminally vague Joe Biden is somehow considered a fearsome opponent.)
More to the point, mainstream journalists are like magpies, easily distracted by shiny objects and ever-eager to disobey Joan Didion’s famous dictum to “observe the observable.” Bernie Sanders wasn’t supposed to be the story of 2020: This was the Year of the Woman or the Year of Generational Change or the Year of Getting Back to Normal or the Year of Some Other Narrative That Explains Everything. At various moments, Buttigieg and Harris and Biden and Beto O’Rourke and whoever the hell else — there have been longing glances cast at Howard Schultz and Amy Klobuchar and John Hickenlooper and Steve Bullock — have appeared to supply “news hooks” for such narratives.
In that context, it was easy to sideline Sanders and his supposed “bros” to the margins, not quite out of malice — although, OK, there was some of that — but because, ha ha, we did “socialism is back” already and that didn’t happen, so that’s boring and let’s move on. Laziness and Trump-trauma took over and a whole lot of people in the political and media class neglected to observe the observable facts.
Those facts are that Bernie Sanders has built and nourished an important, likely transformative, political movement. He stands for critically important policies that the Democratic Party must engage, even though it conspicuously doesn’t want to. He represents a rising progressive generation that it desperately needs — but that also threatens the party’s governing assumptions and institutions on a fundamental level. Democrats almost certainly won’t nominate him, but they can’t possibly win without him. Leading Democrats and their supporters in the media — guardians of a regular-order politics that no longer exists — keep hoping that if they close their eyes Bernie Sanders will go away. It’s not working.
Not that I would be happy about it, but yes. I can't watch a lying lunatic run this nation for another four years without doing whatever is within my power to help stop him.
Not that I would be happy about it, but yes. I can't watch a lying lunatic run this nation for another four years without doing whatever is within my power to help stop him.
If The Dems select someone like Bernie, it’s likely we get another four years of this, I’m afraid.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) announced Wednesday that she is quitting the 2020 Democrat presidential primary after failing to qualify for a third debate in September.
She isn't the first; she won't be the last. KGilly needs to place her efforts where it will actually help her crew. Running for POTUS isn't that.
She needs to solidify her current position in the Senate, and lock down her role within the Powerflow.
Dems live to 'fall in love.' Pubs live by 'falling in line.'
The moment Dems learn to play the game like Pubbies have, they'll sweep elections for the next 30-50 years.
For the foreseeable future, Pubbies have nothing to fear, because pragmatism isn't hardwired into Dems' DNA. The instant that Dems start playing The Game as Pubbies have played it for the past 50 years- raw numbers, public sentient, and common sense will compel the public to take up brooms and dustpans.
If Dems ever tap someone who thinks like me to help them run their game, it's "checkmate- in three moves."
And yet candidates like E Warren and B Sanders are ridiculed as 'whackos' by the very class of voters who have been hurt the most by lobbyists, Wall Streeters and deep-pocket fat cats dangling politicians from their strings.
This is the part I really don't get. Look at Kentucky, they are in horrible shape,, horrible. But they keep staying red.. I don't get it. Their own representative let them flounder and they keep voting for them.. Look at Mississippi and Louisanna? Same thing.. And someone please explain Florida to me.
If you go to places like the Villages or other retirement (over 55) type communities where people live (partially) on Social Security and they receive the benefits of Medicare, they vote republican..
If you listen to Mitch McConnell he is constantly talking about how we need to cut those programs. Programs I might add are paid for by us and our employers and has to direct effect on the Debt.
I just don't get it.. Are they that worried about Guns and Abortion?
Not that I would be happy about it, but yes. I can't watch a lying lunatic run this nation for another four years without doing whatever is within my power to help stop him.
If The Dems select someone like Bernie, it’s likely we get another four years of this, I’m afraid.
I feel the exact same way. The Yutes, ( Joe Pesci/My Cousin Vinny reference ) are screaming the loudest, but in the end it seems Biden is walking away with it to this point. Hopefully some moderation will prevail to pull in the voters needed to win the election.
My reasoning is that even if a guy like Bernie gets elected, by the time all is said and done, most know that his most liberal policies will never get through the senate without being torn to pieces or getting torn apart via the pen.
Even four years of nothing would be an improvement.
I'm liking Warren and Bernie about the same. Pete is my third choice followed by a group of Ryan, Steyer, and Harris. Biden gets my vote if he's the nominee, but I'm hoping one of my top three win the nomination.
I don't mind Pete's more centrist stance on most things mostly because I think he is one of the smartest running. Close between him and Liz for that title.
Mayor Pete’s Evangelical Brother-In-Law Deconstructs Buttigieg’s ‘Absurd And Outlandish’ Abortion Position
South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg’s evangelical brother-in-law, Pastor Ryan Glezman, appeared on Tuesday night’s edition of “Tucker Carlson Tonight” to discuss the 2020 Democratic presidential candidate’s use of Scripture to justify third-trimester abortions.
Glezman had earlier called on his brother-in-law to “repent” for claiming that the Bible teaches that life begins when an infant takes it first breath.
Like I said, he's too smart. I mean look at the Republicans. They had a field of almost 20 candidates to choose from in 2016. Some very intelligent people that actually followed the parties platform. Instead of nominating a qualified person to be president that had at least an ounce of moral fiber, they nominated Trump.
I expect the Democrats to follow a similar path and nominate someone whose platform won't sell to middle America.
Both parties seem to favor stupidity over substance.
Because most people like having smoke blown up their a$$. He's not doing that and that's not popular.
I'd rather him be honest and run a decent campaign than to make a bunch of promises that can never come true like a lot of the Dems who are running seem to be doing right now. But you're right, that won't get him the nomination.
Like I said, he's too smart. I mean look at the Republicans. They had a field of almost 20 candidates to choose from in 2016. Some very intelligent people that actually followed the parties platform. Instead of nominating a qualified person to be president that had at least an ounce of moral fiber, they nominated Trump.
I expect the Democrats to follow a similar path and nominate someone whose platform won't sell to middle America.
Both parties seem to favor stupidity over substance.
Yep Pit, unless you are a cenrist you are stupid... Bernie and Liz are more than smart enough and their platform is PROGRESSIVE like the majority of dems now.
And your man love is all: Order the cheeseburger, with all the toppings, a side of fries, coleslaw, and a drink. Someone else will pay for it at the same time they are paying for your health education, and your rent, and your electric.
Biden is trying to be like Hillary and adopt a soft 'sounds like the progressive stance' on issues that are popular. But he really ain't gonna change a damn thing because the corps/big money owns him.
Taxes will go up, but premiums will go away. This is just a word trap. Insurance companies don't provide healthcare, they manage the financial transactions and take 30% for themselves. So frustrating the the stupid can't figure that out.
Taxes will go up, and so will premiums. Face the facts.
Medicare is not self sufficient as it is, and it only covers some 50-75 million? And it is a year after year loss. Imagine having some 300 million covered....... wanna see taxes increase? Bam - there you have it.
But, I know you are self employed and don't report your income.
See they start calling them 'extremes' likening them to terrorist! Bullcrap MSM centrist production. Klobuchar stealing some thunder by stealing Bernie's line.
Pete playing a damn word game too. He just wants to take baby steps but that won't solve the issue and screws the attempt at single payer by weakening the tax base for it.
That made no sense! He's trying to win the middle and trying to say people who like their insurance won't have to change! Obamacare proved that it's all or nothing. You have to take the money grabs out of the system. Period.
It would be nice if libs could at least learn the basics about guns, that would be great.
Nobody is shooting a .223 semi on a battlefield.
That’s true about the difference.
However, conservatives need to admit that they buy AR 15’s because it replicates the M16/M4.
So you can fire 223 rounds in a 556 caliber chamber.
You also don’t need a AR 15 to defend your home. And that’s why conservatives are slowly losing this battle. Other than to feel like a badass and simply admit you want an AR 15 just to have one, the majority of the world see that weapon as the weapon of choice for mass shootings in America.
That’s why there’s a movement to take the weapons. Nobody cares about getting the specifics right because getting the specific rights isn’t stopping people’s kids from getting shot.
It would be nice if libs could at least learn the basics about guns, that would be great.
Nobody is shooting a .223 semi on a battlefield.
That’s true about the difference.
However, conservatives need to admit that they buy AR 15’s because it replicates the M16/M4.
So you can fire 223 rounds in a 556 caliber chamber.
You also don’t need a AR 15 to defend your home. And that’s why conservatives are slowly losing this battle. Other than to feel like a badass and simply admit you want an AR 15 just to have one, the majority of the world see that weapon as the weapon of choice for mass shootings in America.
That’s why there’s a movement to take the weapons. Nobody cares about getting the specifics right because getting the specific rights isn’t stopping people’s kids from getting shot.
I'm not for taking peoples guns. I'd be for not allowing new ones to be sold, some kind of upgraded licensing system to own them so they are all registered and traceable. By making them collectable, they won't be in the streets long.
Nobody gave a damn about immigration in 2009. We was worried about jobs and losing our damn houses. Immigration was not the priority during the Great Recession.
It would be nice if libs could at least learn the basics about guns, that would be great.
Nobody is shooting a .223 semi on a battlefield.
That’s true about the difference.
However, conservatives need to admit that they buy AR 15’s because it replicates the M16/M4.
So you can fire 223 rounds in a 556 caliber chamber.
You also don’t need a AR 15 to defend your home. And that’s why conservatives are slowly losing this battle. Other than to feel like a badass and simply admit you want an AR 15 just to have one, the majority of the world see that weapon as the weapon of choice for mass shootings in America.
That’s why there’s a movement to take the weapons. Nobody cares about getting the specifics right because getting the specific rights isn’t stopping people’s kids from getting shot.
Oh boohoo my plastic gun looks scary.
That's not a legit reason.
Increased background checks regarding mental health and criminal history is a legit reason.
And if you notice not one single of them mentioned it. They rely on fear mongering.
I think Yang may also be out soon. I don't think he talks about much other than the economy or his $1000 gimmick. He didn't chime in on the gun debate nor did they ask him.
That said, his $1000 gimmick may keep some people intrigued.
Well I'm a soft racist... They introduce Pooja Alodia and I expected an indian accent. smh. She would not have survived my high school with that name, not that it's indian but for what it sounds like.
Warren Mayor Pete Booker Bernie Beto Harris Biden Castro Yang Klobuchar
I have no problem with this. I think Beto came across really good tonight (as did Pete & Cory). I have read Booker is in bed with big Pharma, which is worrisome (if true). I think if Warren won the nomination, strategically Beto could really help as he did very well in Texas. But, Booker would be good too as he understands the voices and perspectives of the black & brown communities. I think Pete is a stand up dude. He really comes across as a decent guy with a lot of knowledge and brings with him the LGBTQ & military vet lens.
The unfortunate reality is that into today’s country of citizens united, it’s gonna be tough to find a candidate who isn’t in bed with some questionable people.
Unfortunately that’s how the game has to be played now.
I like Bernies message. He is right about many things. I just dont agree with his methods of solving it.
I agree on all but your third sentence. What I think is, sadly, he is too old AND, more importantly, he doesn't connect with POC. I really think we need to hand that torch on and there are Gen Xers as well as Millennials amongst them.
I like Bernies message. He is right about many things. I just dont agree with his methods of solving it.
That's why I give him props for bringing these topics to the Dem platform. He made the idea medicare for all popular across the country. like a broken record everywhere he goes.
CNN constantly rails on Fox as being under the wing of the GOP. They are no better as they are clearly under the wing of the moderate DNC. CNN analysts are saying Biden WON the debate! I swear to god they want Biden as their candidate just as they wanted HRC and they will do anything to ensure it happens even if it means manipulation (people will read their praise on Biden and assume he is the frontrunner and vote blindly). Let this thing play out fairly!
i think CNN is folding to the ratings pressure now.
they have most certainly fallen off the wagon. when it comes to the big 3 (Fox, CNN, MSNBC) there are no unbiased sources.
i guess now its simply about the level of bias one is willing to put up with. CNN still isnt as biased as fox or msnbc so i gotta roll with that.
Dude...as I don't live in a swing state I will vote for the Green Party if the DNC and their media push this. Obviously if I were in a swing state I would vote Dem no matter what, but as it stands I have the luxury to use my vote that way and I will.
im voting for whoever is on the main ticket against trump.
except biden, especially because i set such a high standard when it comes to draft dodgers.
You're in a swing state. I get that and I would do the same if I were still in Ohio. But, I am saying the same thing...of the top 5/6 I don't think Biden is a good candidate nor do I think he can win and if the DNC pushes/forces him on us as they did HRC I am voting Green.
But...what will you do as you're in Ohio if it is Biden? Ohio is much more important than Oregon (and Oregon isn't going back to Red anytime soon).
normally i would just vote biden and be done with it. but again, i railed against trump and the draft dodging, i have to keep that same energy when it comes to biden.
so im just hoping i wont even have to worry about it.
Warren isn't leading polls, but at debate she looks like front-runner
Former Vice President Joe Biden stood at center stage Thursday night, leading in the polls and earning the most attention from ABC’s debate moderators and his rivals alike.
But Biden acted less like the front-runner than Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the candidate emerging as Biden’s chief rival from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
While many of the other candidates competed for audience attention with practiced zingers and dad jokes, Warren once again set much of the early agenda, defending her "Medicare for All" health care plan and swatting away the few attacks that came her way.
For weeks, the debate seemed to promise a much-anticipated showdown between Biden, who has led polls from the beginning of the race, and Warren, the upstart progressive who is slowly chipping away at his lead.
Tellingly, when Biden was prompted to critique the Medicare for All plan that both Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) have made cornerstones of their campaigns, Biden turned to Warren first — even though Sanders is the measure’s prime sponsor in the Senate.
But Biden, in the language of the Senate, barely poked at Warren, whom he called “my distinguished friend, the senator on my left.”
Through the more than two and a half hours that followed, that was the extent of their interaction, less a throw-down than a detente.
Many of the other candidates took direct shots at Biden, including the night’s most aggressive attacks, from former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro. Castro both questioned Biden’s mental capacity and his ability to build on the Affordable Care Act.
“I’m fulfilling the legacy of Barack Obama, and you’re not,” Castro said.
“That’ll be a surprise to him,” Biden shot back.
“Come on guys,” businessman Andrew Yang sighed.
Warren, by contrast, was one of four candidates who did not attack one of her onstage rivals. And, reflecting a frustration among some other Democratic campaigns who have failed either to match Warren’s steady rise or to land a jab on her, she was one of the few who was not attacked herself, with the lone exception of Biden’s gentle poke.
Through three rounds of debates, where others have found momentary success in lobbing broadsides at their rivals on stage, Warren has not. She has emerged as the most confident in her own agenda, and the most capable of setting the agenda to which the rest of the field responds.
On Thursday, where Biden consulted his notes and corrected himself, Warren parried skepticism over Medicare for All when a rival or a moderator raised a question. Where Biden studiously obeyed the time limits, Warren barreled through the yellow and red warning signs to land her final points.
Warren still trails Biden in most state and national polls, though many of those surveys show Biden’s advantage narrowing. Where Biden played defense, the other candidates seemed unable or unwilling to take on Warren directly.
That included Sanders, who stands the most to lose to his longtime friend as they both compete for votes among the most progressive set within the Democratic electorate. Sanders routinely turned to Biden, finger waving, nearly shouting. The one time he mentioned Warren, it was to amplify her point about the political power of the gun lobby.
Biden seemed pleased with the chance to contrast himself with Sanders, who began his second bid for president as something of a front-runner himself. Biden said Sanders was misguided for thinking an employer would give employees the savings they would reap from Medicare for All.
“For a socialist, you've got a lot more confidence in corporate America than I do,” Biden quipped.
“Let us be clear, Joe, in the United States of America, we [are] spending twice as much per capita on health care as the Canadians or any other major country on earth,” Sanders said.
“This is America,” Biden responded.
“Yeah, but Americans don't want to pay twice as much as other countries,” Sanders shot back.
Three hours later, when ABC moderators said goodnight, Warren walked off stage, once again unscathed by rivals who barely attempted a shot at the woman who is acting like the front-runner.
Twitter takes down Texas GOP lawmaker's AR tweet about O'Rourke
Twitter took down a tweet from a Republican state lawmaker in Texas who wrote that his “AR is ready” for Beto O'Rourke, the presidential candidate who at Thursday night's debate said "Hell yes we're going to take your AR-15s."
Twitter told The Hill the tweet from Texas state Rep. Briscoe Cain violated its rules against making violent threats, and that it had removed the tweet on Friday morning.
“The Tweet was in violation of the Twitter Rules, which prohibit violent threats,” a Twitter spokesperson said.
Cain tweeted, “my AR is ready for you Robert Francis” after the debate.
O'Rourke's birth name is Robert Francis O'Rourke.
Cain’s tweet came in response to another post shared from O’Rourke’s account on Thursday that quoted remarks he made during the debate in Houston when he declared, "Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15."
O’Rourke responded by calling Cain’s tweet a “death threat.”
“Clearly, you shouldn't own an AR-15—and neither should anyone else,” O’Rourke added.
Cain tweeted in response to O'Rourke, calling the Democratic presidential hopeful "a child."
In an interview with CNN after the debate, O’Rourke praised Twitter for taking down the tweet from someone “with a weapon of war threatening to use it against somebody who is talking about gun violence in this country.”
A spokesperson for O'Rourke said that his campaign reported the post to the FBI.
“Anytime you have somebody threatening to use violence against somebody in this country to resolve a political issue — or really for any reason — that’s a matter for law enforcement,” O’Rourke said.
FBI- Representative Cane, Robert Francis says you threatened his life.
Cane- Wha? By calling him a child???
FBI- We believe it was when you said your AR is ready for him, sir.
Cane- Wha? It is ready for him, to pick up any time. He did say he was gonna take them away didn't he?
FBI- You didn't mean to threaten him with that AR?
Cane- Wha? Lord no! People named Briscoe don't hurt nobody!
FBI- Have a good day sir, sorry to bother you on the false accusations. Just because Beto says its a death threat doesn't make it one. We do have Due Process in this Country.
The thing you guys don't understand about America is...
1- What your candidates espouse as "our" values are only "your" values.
Finally admitting you have deplorable values. 1st step.
This cracks me up.
A union can endorse anyone they want.
The problem is, they aren't the people that work there. They aren't each individual that will be voting.
You're not going to win over working people by saying, "We're taking away your choice in healthcare. You're going to take what we give you and you're going to like it!"
You're not going to win with people like Beto saying, we're going to take away your guns.
Wanting what you want is fine. It's funny how you all call realists, centrists. Some of us are more concerned with winning the election that trying to go all left stream extremist.
40 is 100% correct. Acting like a common sense approach to winning an election and making strides forward is some kind of bad thing is what will help Trump get re-elected of you're not careful.
Taking away people's guns and taking choices away from Americans is not a winning strategy.
Most people in America want everyone to have healthcare. They just don't want you to tell them or force them into what healthcare they have to have.
Most people want things like better background checks and closing some loopholes in the gun laws.
But sanity isn't a bad thing and going off the deep end won't win you the presidency.
Serious fear mongering for the sheep from the party that brought fascist nationalism to the White House! Give me socialism any day over that, Bernie or Liz Warrens brand. And burning AOC's pic is disturbing as hell, who thinks this way other than fascist?
Actually, Bernie voted against the Brady Bill five times. Once this becomes a national campaign issue, it's not going to go well.
What are you talking about? When dems take the WH in 2020, BETO will be named gun czar and will personally be out confiscating all the Trump loyalists guns! Don't you know that? That's what they'll be saying on fox for the next 12 months +.
And the centrist 'realist' have been puting corporatist dems in power long enough bro, time to switch it up. The republicans cry about dems needing to be more center to win an election because it makes it easier to take the country to the right. What you call extreme left is really just course correction at this point.
Trump supporters are not going to vote for the dem no matter who it is. That leaves the undecided center and independants. With Trump the hate is strong. You either love him or hate him, there won't be enough 'late deciders' to matter in 2020.
A much larger deciding factor will be those in the center helping the right spread misperceptions, lies and propaganda because they've been trained to expect only what their corporate master will allow, like dogs on a short chain.
And the centrist 'realist' have been puting corporatist dems in power long enough bro, time to switch it up. The republicans cry about dems needing to be more center to win an election because it makes it easier to take the country to the right. What you call extreme left is really just course correction at this point.
I know. Anyone who isn't giving everything away is a corporatist. Which isn't even a word. And we all know Obama was in league with big business.
Real Democrats like JFK and Obama wouldn't stand a chance in your world. Unfortunately, your world won't get a Democrat in the White House.
And it isn't Republicans who are crying. Actually nobody is crying. A lot of us are just trying to give you fair warning before you shoot yourself in the ass.
And the centrist 'realist' have been puting corporatist dems in power long enough bro, time to switch it up. The republicans cry about dems needing to be more center to win an election because it makes it easier to take the country to the right. What you call extreme left is really just course correction at this point.
I know. Anyone who isn't giving everything away is a corporatist. Which isn't even a word. And we all know Obama was in league with big business.
Real Democrats like JFK and Obama wouldn't stand a chance in your world. Unfortunately, your world won't get a Democrat in the White House.
And it isn't Republicans who are crying. Actually nobody is crying. A lot of us are just trying to give you fair warning before you shoot yourself in the ass.
I'd vote for both, just like I'll vote for Biden if he wins the nomination. The primary is about ideas from all over the left. The best will shine. smh
And I did vote for Obama twice. He just didn't deliver. He did well, but couldn't get the big things done right for the obstruction.
"The Left likes everyone to think that they are the mainstream, but they are the Left. They are the far-left, radical, malcontents, always trying to cause trouble when there is no trouble."
"The Left likes everyone to think that they are the mainstream, but they are the Left. They are the far-left, radical, malcontents, always trying to cause trouble when there is no trouble."
-Laura Ingraham
Yes Laura, you are correct.
Another thing is these Dems running for President, with all their excuses for open borders, must think they are running for President of Mexico!
40, is this guy related or do you know him somehow? Because he says the same kind of things you do... Is he the other member of your Trump fan club? I'm pretty sure that he and I would not be able to talk politics.
'Untouchable in the black community': Fresh scrutiny of Biden tale of harrowing confrontation with gang leader ‘Corn Pop’
by Julio Rosas
| September 15, 2019 10:55 AM
A prominent black journalist has expressed extreme skepticism about a story Joe Biden told, in which the former vice president said he stood up to a local gang leader at a swimming pool in 1962.
Biden has regaled audiences with parts of the story several times, which he claims took place when he was a lifeguard at a predominantly black pool in Wilmington, Delaware. He remembers how when he kicked a local gang leader named "Corn Pop" out of the pool for violating the rules, Biden was warned that Corn Pop was going to be waiting for him after work with a switchblade.
Biden said he prepared himself by wrapping a metal chain around his arm. Corn Pop was waiting by Biden's car "with three guys and straight razors. Not a joke.”
“And I looked at him, but I was smart then, I said first of all, I said when I tell you to get off the board you get off the board, and I’ll kick you out again, but I shouldn’t have called you Esther Williams, I apologize for that," Biden said, revealing Corn Pop was stunned by the apology and decided to not attack him.
Michael Harriot, a writer for the Root, said via Twitter that Biden's story was not believable.
So, that summer, Biden was the only white lifeguard at Prices Run swimming pool in Brown-Burton Winchester Park. He says he did it—y'all, I SWEAR this is true—"in hopes of learning more about the black community."
Yes, that's an actual quote. — michaelharriot (@michaelharriot) September 14, 2019
Now I don't know how it works where you live, but in my hood, you don't actually get a laminated street credential card from the neighborhood thug council but, then again, I've never been on the mean streets of Wilmington. — michaelharriot (@michaelharriot) September 14, 2019
Parts of Biden's story have been corroborated by some of the people who frequented the pool. Former state NAACP President Richard “Mouse” Smith said Corn Pop was the leader of the Romans gang and had threatened Biden. Smith said Biden “stood his ground" against Corn Pop after he threatened to "cut him."
Warren wins backing of progressive group that supported Sanders in 2016
After supporting Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont in 2016, the Working Families Party on Monday endorsed Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The backing by the progressive organization that’s aligned with the labor movement gives Warren a boost as she and fellow populist Sanders battle for the mantle of progressive standard-bearer among the record-setting field of Democratic White House hopefuls.
“We’re committed to helping Elizabeth Warren win — and to organizing in our communities and online to make sure that the issues that matter to working families remain at the center of this primary campaign,” the group emphasized on Twitter.
I’m bothered by how shallow people are regarding how people look. It’s really sad to me. When it comes to women, it’s far worse. The misogyny on this board couldn’t be cut with a knife, it’s so thick. That includes those that are members of the party that pretend to care about women. You guys are so hypocritical.
We could make a board rule against sexist nonsense?
How in the world would they unforce that? It’s been ingrained forever on this board, with very little, to no outcry, from you and those that would pretend to care. A lot of the people you might align with would be caught up in your “rules”. If you don’t see that, you are part of the problem.
And sometimes, some of us are simply trolling after the first salvos have been launched.
Itis hypocrisy. I'll own it. Every once in awhile, I really don't mind slopping around in the mud. This was one of those times, Jules. Means to an end. The original mudwallower hasn't been back for more since he took the conversation to this place.
I'm willing to endure a somewhat tarnished reputation for the privilege of 2 days free of his sophomoric posts, shallow reasoning, poor spelling, and grammar that's worse than most who own English as a second language.
I mean this sincerely, when I say it to you: I'm sorry that my post effected you this way. You see me elsewhere, so you know this isn't me on the everyday tip. There are simply times when taking the high road gets nowhere. This felt like one of those times.
My friend, you and I know each other well enough that we will let each other slide when one of us makes a mistake, or strays off of character a bit. I know your intent. I just continue to be disappointed by many here who pretend to be something they are not.
