Author Topic: Dem debates ...  (Read 617 times)

Offline Baruch

Dem debates ...
« on: July 31, 2019, 03:14:37 PM »
After the first half of the second debate ...

Dems support anti-Fa, MS-13 and rats.  Dems today are worse than Jefferson Davis ... he would have supported continue legality of slavery, but never those "bath salts" positions.  Prove me wrong.

"Before our party promises health care coverage to undocumented immigrants -- a position not even Ted Kennedy took -- let's help the more than 30 million Americans who are a single illness away from financial ruin. Before we start worrying about whether the Boston Marathon bomber can vote, let's stop states that are actively trying to curtail voting rights of citizens. And before we promise a guaranteed minimum income to healthy adults who prefer to stay home and play video games, let's increase the minimum wage and the earned income tax credit to the benefit of the millions of people who still work hard and live near poverty." - Rahm Emmanuel

Jews usually are smarter than Gentiles.  Prove me wrong.

Meanwhile ... Delaney was the only honest person on health care.  And he polls at 1%.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2019, 04:06:28 PM by Baruch »
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Cavebear

Re: Dem debates ...
« Reply #1 on: August 01, 2019, 04:21:59 AM »
I noticed I was watching discussions about the upcoming 2nd debates yesterday where everyone was predicting that MIGHT happen.  I decided that the predictions were completely useless since I would hear the discussion about what actually happened later today.

I didn't bother to actually watch them, though I am rather obviously politically-inclined.  Why?  Because I never pay attention to what politicians say during campaigns.  They say anything, even the ones I like.  What I do value though, is the analysis after the fact.  And I'll wait a couple days for the analysts to think about what they heard. 

Besides, I really don't care what 20 candidates have to say.   By the time I get to vote in a primary to choose anyone, there will only be 2 or 3 left standing and I'll have to chose among them on April 28th.  And before then, I will be looking to see what they have said and actually done about important issues to me in their past. 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: Dem debates ...
« Reply #2 on: August 01, 2019, 07:14:51 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I noticed I was watching discussions about the upcoming 2nd debates yesterday where everyone was predicting that MIGHT happen.  I decided that the predictions were completely useless since I would hear the discussion about what actually happened later today.

I didn't bother to actually watch them, though I am rather obviously politically-inclined.  Why?  Because I never pay attention to what politicians say during campaigns.  They say anything, even the ones I like.  What I do value though, is the analysis after the fact.  And I'll wait a couple days for the analysts to think about what they heard. 

Besides, I really don't care what 20 candidates have to say.   By the time I get to vote in a primary to choose anyone, there will only be 2 or 3 left standing and I'll have to chose among them on April 28th.  And before then, I will be looking to see what they have said and actually done about important issues to me in their past.

Yeah.  I have not watched any of the 4, just read the "highlights" the next day.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Cavebear

Re: Dem debates ...
« Reply #3 on: August 01, 2019, 07:19:38 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Yeah.  I have not watched any of the 4, just read the "highlights" the next day.

An interesting question would be which channels do you watch later for analysis?  I will say that I watch MSNBC and CNN and read 'The Washington Post' newspaper. 
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: Dem debates ...
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2019, 07:25:37 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
An interesting question would be which channels do you watch later for analysis?  I will say that I watch MSNBC and CNN and read 'The Washington Post' newspaper.

Your list is ... so YOU!  Those are not ones I watch.

My daughter liked Cory Booker after the first pair of debates.  Will be interesting to see how much she likes him after the second pair.  That is the greatest "finger on the heartbeat" I could wish for.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Cavebear

Re: Dem debates ...
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2019, 07:37:51 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Your list is ... so YOU!  Those are not ones I watch.

My daughter liked Cory Booker after the first pair of debates.  Will be interesting to see how much she likes him after the second pair.  That is the greatest "finger on the heartbeat" I could wish for.

10Q!  I am so me all the time.

Personally, I'm going for Joe Biden for the international and domestic experience needed, and to restore our international standing and alliances.  I am considering Elizabeth Warren for policy ideas and that she might well set Putin down on his heels.  And I want someone who can shove The Orange Menace out of office so that he can be charged with Federal crimes just because the jerk deserves it.

But there are months before the first party primary.  I supported Clinton in 2006 until I decided (with difficulty) that Obama was the better of 2 really good choices.  That might happen again.

I would still wish that Hillary Clinton could become President, but I accept that isn't going to happen...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: Dem debates ...
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2019, 07:39:02 AM »
You are really very conventional in your political tastes.  Like a McDonald's addict.

It is way too early for any Independent to pop up.  I have opposed the Dem party since 95, and it has gotten worse.  Will vote for individuals or policies only ... like Obama in 08 and 12.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 07:40:52 AM by Baruch »
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Cavebear

Re: Dem debates ...
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2019, 07:50:12 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are really very conventional in your political tastes.  Like a McDonald's addict.

It is way too early for any Independent to pop up.  I have opposed the Dem party since 95, and it has gotten worse.  Will vote for individuals or policies only ... like Obama in 08 and 12.

Haven't eaten at a fast food place like McDonald's for years.  But you are quite correct that I have conventional political tastes (to my mind).  I want professionalism, experience, and informed thought in a president.  And forward-looking.  You don't make improvements by retreating to the past.

And if I understand you, good decision on 08 and 12...  I would like to see a Republican I could consider.  Bill Weld maybe.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline SGOS

Re: Dem debates ...
« Reply #8 on: August 01, 2019, 09:21:41 AM »
I really wanted to see what candidates had to say about health care, and it was disappointing to see such disagreement, with so many including Biden, the front runner, wanting to continue on with some version of Obamacare.  But this is inline with what I predicted when Obama and Max Baucus made it clear that they were committed to further entrenchment in a failed system, which I think is the main purpose of Obamacare; Specifically to put off Universal for a long as possible, and hopefully forever.

I agree with Cavebear that the words of politicians are basically worthless, but I don't think their body language is worthless, which made watching the actual debate worth my time, at least to some extent, but the only sincerity I thought I saw in that regard was from those who had nothing to lose and are about to be excluded from the primary process.  Granted, I did not see the debate the night before.

I had to stream the debate which was very poor quality with an overlapping and re-lapping jerky sound track.  At one point in talking about Obamacare, Biden use the words and sounds "is," "la," "mmm," and "Obamacare," and what came out in the cut up sound track sounded like he was talking about something called "Islamacare."  The sounds merged so well than I thought Biden and just fumbled his brain and tongue, but then decided it was probably the sound track, which had been fumbling all night long, even worse than Biden himself.  Don't misunderstand; I don't think Biden is worse than any of the others, but I don't understand why he's the front runner either.  No one inspired me much.  And Democrats need an inspiring contender more than anything else.  Maybe the one that has the best bumper sticker.

And I keep thinking that guy that wants to give every American $1000/month is a plant trying to make the Democratic party look nuts, but I'd like to see a GAO analysis on that one, as well as on the various healthcare proposals.  I heard a lot of numbers thrown around last night, but no one cited any sources to support them.  They just had numbers that came from somewhere or other, and no one had any sources to actually attack an opposing plan either.  It's like no one actually knows what anything is going to cost.  And the most critical item is over looked; How much are the necessary increases in taxes for healthcare going to offset the actual out of pocket costs of our current private insurance?  That seems to be excluded from most debates.  I heard someone allude to that, but no one seems to have any data to show whether Universal is ultimately cheaper or more expensive than private insurance, which is really what matters, unless of course Universal is as bad as private insurance is now, but making it better should also be part of anyone's plan.  That was not addressed very well last night either.  Mostly it seemed to be about costs, which no one actually knows.

Overall, I think debates are not that helpful.  What they do is give people a kind of first impression sense of politicians, and most of all, give people a sense of who they think is better, but as to whether they will be actual assets to the country, I don't think we can tell.  Debates may be better than just a list of names of people with thumbnails of how they look, but I'm not sure about that either.

Offline Cavebear

Re: Dem debates ...
« Reply #9 on: August 01, 2019, 10:04:22 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I really wanted to see what candidates had to say about health care, and it was disappointing to see such disagreement, with so many including Biden, the front runner, wanting to continue on with some version of Obamacare.  But this is inline with what I predicted when Obama and Max Baucus made it clear that they were committed to further entrenchment in a failed system, which I think is the main purpose of Obamacare; Specifically to put off Universal for a long as possible, and hopefully forever.

I agree with Cavebear that the words of politicians are basically worthless, but I don't think their body language is worthless, which made watching the actual debate worth my time, at least to some extent, but the only sincerity I thought I saw in that regard was from those who had nothing to lose and are about to be excluded from the primary process.  Granted, I did not see the debate the night before.

I had to stream the debate which was very poor quality with an overlapping and re-lapping jerky sound track.  At one point in talking about Obamacare, Biden use the words and sounds "is," "la," "mmm," and "Obamacare," and what came out in the cut up sound track sounded like he was talking about something called "Islamacare."  The sounds merged so well than I thought Biden and just fumbled his brain and tongue, but then decided it was probably the sound track, which had been fumbling all night long, even worse than Biden himself.  Don't misunderstand; I don't think Biden is worse than any of the others, but I don't understand why he's the front runner either.  No one inspired me much.  And Democrats need an inspiring contender more than anything else.  Maybe the one that has the best bumper sticker.

And I keep thinking that guy that wants to give every American $1000/month is a plant trying to make the Democratic party look nuts, but I'd like to see a GAO analysis on that one, as well as on the various healthcare proposals.  I heard a lot of numbers thrown around last night, but no one cited any sources to support them.  They just had numbers that came from somewhere or other, and no one had any sources to actually attack an opposing plan either.  It's like no one actually knows what anything is going to cost.  And the most critical item is over looked; How much are the necessary increases in taxes for healthcare going to offset the actual out of pocket costs of our current private insurance?  That seems to be excluded from most debates.  I heard someone allude to that, but no one seems to have any data to show whether Universal is ultimately cheaper or more expensive than private insurance, which is really what matters, unless of course Universal is as bad as private insurance is now, but making it better should also be part of anyone's plan.  That was not addressed very well last night either.  Mostly it seemed to be about costs, which no one actually knows.

Overall, I think debates are not that helpful.  What they do is give people a kind of first impression sense of politicians, and most of all, give people a sense of who they think is better, but as to whether they will be actual assets to the country, I don't think we can tell.  Debates may be better than just a list of names of people with thumbnails of how they look, but I'm not sure about that either.

First, thank you for the agreement about words.  I won't push your agreement further than you meant.  I do agree that there is some value is watching body language, but I have little skill at that, so I don't try anymore (if I haven't learned it at 69 years I never will). 

Second, sorry the debate came through a bit garbled.  That can be worse than not at all.

Third, with 20 candidates trying to stay in the top 10, there is going to be some contention.  That's one reason I'm not paying daily attention to what any of them are saying.  By the time I get to vote in my State primary, there will be 1-3 and I'll make my decision then.  It's not like I could resurrect the 13th candidate I really liked.

Fourth, most of the candidates are supporting the AHCA, but adding voluntary like-medicare as an option.  We'll see where that goes.  I have private health care insurance and like it.  And, BTW (to everyone) the Dems should consider that one of the things unions have fought for and won is really good health care insurance for their members.  A Dem opposing that should be cautious.  I think Biden understands that more than the younger candidates.  Technically, it does not affect me, but I consider it for others when I vote.  Yeah, I'm a real Boy Scout...

Fifth, giving the poorest people $1,000/month is just a support system we already have.  Its not a new idea; we are already doing that with tax credits.  I'm not bothered by that.  I'm willing to help poor children be fed whether at home or school.  This idea is not a real problem.

Sixth, yeah the large debates aren't really very useful for understanding the candidates.  But (as the Reps did last time) the Dems have to have a winnowing process to remove the weaker and/or less funded candidates.  It shouldn't be that way, but I don't have ny better ideas on how to do that.  Do you?

Seventh (of Nine, LOL?), the basic question for the Democratic Party (of which I am a de facto member having been a Progressive Republican before we were cast out) is whether to go for an ideological nominee to satisfy their base or whether to go for a nominee best suited to beat Trump. 

My personal opinion is that I would vote for nearly anyone best suited to rid us of Trump, as almost any of the Democratic candidates would be better.  But I temper that with the hope the nominee could also stand up to Putin and  Kim Jong-un.  China is negotiable.

I can see Biden calmly refusing Putin and demanding a back-down from Kim Jong-un.  I can see Warren doing that.  I can see Harris doing that.  I can't see them taking Sanders seriously.  It's possible that other candidates might, but I'll want to see some proof.  But the Soviets didn't take Kennedy seriously either, so you never know.

Sometimes presidents rise to the office.  And even surprise you when they do.  I think well of Truman, and (don't spread it around) Nixon and Reagan.  Clinton did well internationally.

So, everything is still up in the air for me.  I'm not buying any lawn signs yet...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline SGOS

Re: Dem debates ...
« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2019, 10:42:19 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sixth, yeah the large debates aren't really very useful for understanding the candidates.  But (as the Reps did last time) the Dems have to have a winnowing process to remove the weaker and/or less funded candidates.  It shouldn't be that way, but I don't have ny better ideas on how to do that.  Do you?
It's probably irrelevant because it's not going to happen, but I'd like to see free TV time for candidates to address the public one to one limiting their pitch to what they think they can offer.  Then I can assess them on my own, instead of listening to one liar telling me the other liar is a liar.  Current debates have a snappy confrontational setting about as useful as that old program Crossfire.  Remember that idiotic diversion from years ago?  Two sets of opposing moderators grilling two sets of opposing party members.  That program, as like the debates, are/were noise to draw in conflict junkies to watch ads for hemorrhoid ointments, as near as I can tell.

Offline Baruch

Re: Dem debates ...
« Reply #11 on: August 01, 2019, 11:58:50 AM »
Health care is hard.  And a vital interest for the elderly (most of us here).  Giving trillions to immigrants is a non-starter.  You can reprioritize the existing budget to better support Medicare and Medicaid ... and develop better delivery than they provide (and much more competently than a borrowed Republican plan wrapped in Democrat rhetoric).  But you can't have war and peace at the same time.  Choose peace, then you can do more domestically.  It may be objectively true, for instance, that the Canadian system is better than the US system, though imperfect as all systems are.  But that is because Canada is peaceful, not war mongering.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Re: Dem debates ...
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2019, 12:59:25 PM »
I missed the live showings of the Democratic debates, so I tried to find them on YouTube and...of course. The media, instead of focusing on the issues and giving each candidate equal time to give their perspectives, they instead focus on two candidates, arguing back and forth. I hate the ways these debates are structured. This is why we got Trump, because the media wouldn't shut the fuck up about him. They're all about the drama. I swear to god, if Biden gets the nomination because he's getting most of the attention, I'm out.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville

Re: Dem debates ...
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2019, 04:56:38 PM »
I have no interest in the debates because all that matters is that they nominate a functioning adult. The red-hatted mob has set the bar very low.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! -- President Merkin Muffley

My mom was a religious fundamentalist. Plus, she didn't have a mouth. It's an unusual combination. -- Bender Bending Rodriguez

Offline Baruch

Re: Dem debates ...
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2019, 09:13:14 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I missed the live showings of the Democratic debates, so I tried to find them on YouTube and...of course. The media, instead of focusing on the issues and giving each candidate equal time to give their perspectives, they instead focus on two candidates, arguing back and forth. I hate the ways these debates are structured. This is why we got Trump, because the media wouldn't shut the fuck up about him. They're all about the drama. I swear to god, if Biden gets the nomination because he's getting most of the attention, I'm out.

An interpretation of an interpretation and pretty soon you have chaos.  Yes, I am sorry, it is probably true for any candidate, whoever gets the most MSM attention, for whatever reason, gets the nomination, and usually the office.  Remember how Lilliput chooses PMs ... they have to walk a tightrope in front of the court.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk