1) It was really annoying having so many candidates on stage 2) NBC/MSNBC really did blow it with their mic issues. I was having a hard time trying to concentrate on Chuck's question and then realized why when he mentioned it. They took too long to go to commercial to fix and it really did slow things down so that I lost interest. 3) Winners: Castro, Delaney 4) Hold fast/slight bump: Warren, Booker 5) See ya: Beto. Awful, just awful, What do you people see in this guy? 6) There were a few comments here and there from others that were solid, but mostly didn't move the needle.
I suspect that this debate ended Beto's campaign and kickstarted Castro. I think Warren and Booker are likely the only other ones that could hold on longer and still have a shot. The rest? Adios
1) It was really annoying having so many candidates on stage 2) NBC/MSNBC really did blow it with their mic issues. I was having a hard time trying to concentrate on Chuck's question and then realized why when he mentioned it. They took too long to go to commercial to fix and it really did slow things down so that I lost interest. 3) Winners: Castro, Delaney 4) Hold fast/slight bump: Warren, Booker 5) See ya: Beto. Awful, just awful, What do you people see in this guy? 6) There were a few comments here and there from others that were solid, but mostly didn't move the needle.
I suspect that this debate ended Beto's campaign and kickstarted Castro. I think Warren and Booker are likely the only other ones that could hold on longer and still have a shot. The rest? Adios
I don't think anybody saees anything in Beto as a presidential candidate, do they? He was fairly well suited for his race in Texas, but I think most Dems probably know he's not what anyone is looking for for POTUS. The poll numbers seem to show that too. Last I saw, he only had 2%.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I love that cartoon...because it's apt so frequently.
I'm not sure this is one of those times. I understand that white dudes are over-represented, but case-by-case, I don't like the idea of not voting for a good candidate because he's a white dude. You want a good candidate and if that happens to be a white dude, fine. If not, also fine.
Generally I'm with you, but with 20+ candidates they do qualify as random white dudes to me. Nothing about them stands out or is compelling. It's less about their gender or colour of their skin and more about their life stories (of which their gender and race play a part). I would also put Amy in that bunch.
I think it would also be appropriate to add OLD to the random white dude description.
Regardless, all 20+ of them are leagues better than the giant A-hole who currently occupies The White House.
What about the random chicks? Should they gtfo? I think so.
If that's how you feel.
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,684
As a (nearly old) white dude I do tend to find us boring. Have no issues with voting for an old white dude, just as long as they do not behave like the old white dude who dislikes everyone and yells a lot about how things were back in the "good old days" and, well, pretty much everything.
Wait....I changed my mind. That sounds like @Wobbie for pwesident! (An idea I can get behind.)
If the Democrats have any spine, they'll nominate Elizabeth Warren to take on Trump: Neil Macdonald
Donald Trump poses as a populist, while rewarding the rich. Warren is the real thing
It's easy to feel the Democrats' obsession with electability, even from this distance. Put up the wrong candidate, and you get four more years of the big boorish boob.
But then U.S. President Donald Trump himself blew the notion of electability to smithereens three years ago. It was foolish, in retrospect, to confidently predict, just because he behaved like a coarse, bragging, race-baiting serial liar and misogynist, that he would lose.
It is just as foolish right now to assume that someone too far to the left, or a woman, or a woman on the left, cannot pull off the same feat Trump managed.
That sort of thinking inevitably leads to only one place: Joe Biden. And sorry, fellow aging white men, but that amounts to offering up one rather conservative septuagenarian with surgically created hair to replace another. This is 2019.
I've seen former vice president, and now Democratic leadership candidate Joe Biden up close. He seemed a pleasant fellow. But I'm damned if I can remember anything he said, besides how much he loves everybody. He says that a lot, when he isn't reassuring rich donors that he won't really change the system.
I've also seen Senator Elizabeth Warren up close. It was in a union hall in Kentucky in 2014. She was stumping for Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democrat who was trying to unseat Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, but Grimes might as well not have been in the room once Warren — the tiny, intense former Harvard professor — took the stage.
Elizabeth Warren fully intends to change the system, and says so.
When she said how good it felt to be with working people in a workers' hall, you knew it wasn't a platitude. When she talked about taking on the venality of corporate America, you knew she meant it. As she talked, plainly and without the usual dumbed-down patronizing, the small talk in the crowd died. People stared. When she finished, they roared.
The only speaker I have ever seen hold a crowd like that was Lucien Bouchard, speaking to audiences of Quebecers in 1990 about the betrayal of the Meech Lake Accord.
Both politicians burned with intelligence, and radiated principle. Neither gave a toss for political triangulation. Both left their listeners convinced they meant what they said and would do it, and that to them, only the people mattered.
It didn't work out for Bouchard; Quebec remains in confederation. But Elizabeth Warren is ascendant, and watching her at centre stage in last night's Democratic debate, it was impossible not to imagine and relish the prospect of Warren versus Trump in 2020.
Yes, there were nine other accomplished candidates on stage with her. And there will be another 10 tonight, Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders included.
But Warren is the standout, and one suspects Trump recognized that a long time ago. Why else would he have singled her out, tagging her with one of his juvenile nicknames, "Pocahontas," long before she'd declared any interest in running for president?
Actually, he suckered her into responding. It was foolish of her to have had her DNA tested to prove her tiny sliver of Indigenous ancestry. She played into Trump's sweaty little hands, and it's a safe bet she won't do it again.
In fact, Warren has assiduously avoided talking about Trump, denying him the oxygen he derives from small-minded bickering. (When she has talked about him, it's mostly been to say that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should proceed with impeachment, now).
Rather, she's stuck to policies. Her campaign has outlined 23 detailed policy proposals so far this year.
'A plan for that'
Warren's approach is to "have a plan for that" — which has become her catchphrase — and trust that Americans want substance. It's paid off; she now effectively shares second place with Sanders, with only Biden, the dedicated triangulator, out ahead.
Warren would reduce the size of the U.S. military. She would break up mega-companies and monopolies. She would strengthen antitrust enforcement. She would prosecute senior managers of companies that violate the law. She would extend Medicare to all Americans, and banish private health insurance.
"People go broke," she told the debate last night, because of the private-insurance business model: "They bring in as many dollars as they can in premiums, and pay out as little as possible in benefits."
It's impossible to argue with that formulation. Like many of Warren's arguments, it is populist, which is why Trump almost certainly fears her. He poses as a populist, while rewarding the rich. She's the real thing.
While Trump, and, yes, Biden spend time with wealthy donors, Warren refuses big money. She also refused to participate in a Fox News town hall, wanting nothing to do with what she calls Fox's "hate for profit" business plan. She is unafraid to name her enemies.
And while her poll numbers rise, Trump's are flat. It's a lovely thing to see intelligent argument, unbending principle and policy go up against demagoguery, nativism and vulgar name-calling. To see a seriously brainy woman go toe to toe with a self-proclaimed "stable genius."
And those Democrats still worried about the things Warren might not bring to the race, should not worry that integrity will be one of them:
Warren has not been accused of sexual misconduct and rape by 16 men. Nor has she bragged about being so famous she can grab penises without asking;
She has not watched one former staffer after another head off to prison for lying to investigators and other assorted crimes.
Nor has a former director of the FBI effectively said, in a roundabout way, she's obstructed justice;
She is not responsible for locking up children in filthy cells without proper sanitation or medical care, and has not dispatched lawyers to court to argue that the government has no obligation to provide them with toothpaste or soap;
And she's posted a decade's worth of her tax returns online. (There has been no credible reporting that she's engaged in complicated tax evasion schemes).
President Barack Obama preached bridge-building and hope. In vain, as it turned out. Warren, refreshingly, doesn't bother with talk about reconciliation. She wants to fight.
Yes, she is prickly. But Trump obliterated any notion that a polarizing candidate cannot win. They will be natural opponents, if Democrats can find some spine.
I love that cartoon...because it's apt so frequently.
I'm not sure this is one of those times. I understand that white dudes are over-represented, but case-by-case, I don't like the idea of not voting for a good candidate because he's a white dude. You want a good candidate and if that happens to be a white dude, fine. If not, also fine.
Generally I'm with you, but with 20+ candidates they do qualify as random white dudes to me. Nothing about them stands out or is compelling. It's less about their gender or colour of their skin and more about their life stories (of which their gender and race play a part). I would also put Amy in that bunch.
I think it would also be appropriate to add OLD to the random white dude description.
Regardless, all 20+ of them are leagues better than the giant A-hole who currently occupies The White House.
What about the random chicks? Should they gtfo? I think so.
If that's how you feel.
How can one not? The most charitable explanation for telling a white dude to gtfo is 'irrelevancy'. And I would love irrelevant candidates to exit so we can hear fewer voices, more deeply. I could care less of a person's color, creed, sexuality. Let me hear the ideas. Seems straightforward.
I love that cartoon...because it's apt so frequently.
I'm not sure this is one of those times. I understand that white dudes are over-represented, but case-by-case, I don't like the idea of not voting for a good candidate because he's a white dude. You want a good candidate and if that happens to be a white dude, fine. If not, also fine.
Generally I'm with you, but with 20+ candidates they do qualify as random white dudes to me. Nothing about them stands out or is compelling. It's less about their gender or colour of their skin and more about their life stories (of which their gender and race play a part). I would also put Amy in that bunch.
I think it would also be appropriate to add OLD to the random white dude description.
Regardless, all 20+ of them are leagues better than the giant A-hole who currently occupies The White House.
What about the random chicks? Should they gtfo? I think so.
If that's how you feel.
How can one not? The most charitable explanation for telling a white dude to gtfo is 'irrelevancy'. And I would love irrelevant candidates to exit so we can hear fewer voices, more deeply. I could care less of a person's color, creed, sexuality. Let me hear the ideas. Seems straightforward.
I love that cartoon...because it's apt so frequently.
I'm not sure this is one of those times. I understand that white dudes are over-represented, but case-by-case, I don't like the idea of not voting for a good candidate because he's a white dude. You want a good candidate and if that happens to be a white dude, fine. If not, also fine.
Generally I'm with you, but with 20+ candidates they do qualify as random white dudes to me. Nothing about them stands out or is compelling. It's less about their gender or colour of their skin and more about their life stories (of which their gender and race play a part). I would also put Amy in that bunch.
I think it would also be appropriate to add OLD to the random white dude description.
Regardless, all 20+ of them are leagues better than the giant A-hole who currently occupies The White House.
What about the random chicks? Should they gtfo? I think so.
If that's how you feel.
How can one not? The most charitable explanation for telling a white dude to gtfo is 'irrelevancy'. And I would love irrelevant candidates to exit so we can hear fewer voices, more deeply. I could care less of a person's color, creed, sexuality. Let me hear the ideas. Seems straightforward.
A book I read called it a meritocracy of thought.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I thought Castro was the best. He’ll never get the nomination though I don’t think. He seemed the most prepared. Warren the Indian fraud did good as well but that didn’t surprise me, I assumed she’d do alright. I was surprised Beto sucked so bad since I watched a lot of his local stuff against Cruz and thought he was better then.
1) It was really annoying having so many candidates on stage 2) NBC/MSNBC really did blow it with their mic issues. I was having a hard time trying to concentrate on Chuck's question and then realized why when he mentioned it. They took too long to go to commercial to fix and it really did slow things down so that I lost interest. 3) Winners: Castro, Delaney 4) Hold fast/slight bump: Warren, Booker 5) See ya: Beto. Awful, just awful, What do you people see in this guy? 6) There were a few comments here and there from others that were solid, but mostly didn't move the needle.
I suspect that this debate ended Beto's campaign and kickstarted Castro. I think Warren and Booker are likely the only other ones that could hold on longer and still have a shot. The rest? Adios
I don't think anybody saees anything in Beto as a presidential candidate, do they? He was fairly well suited for his race in Texas, but I think most Dems probably know he's not what anyone is looking for for POTUS. The poll numbers seem to show that too. Last I saw, he only had 2%.
He’s the Bernie of Texas and the only reason he did so well in TX was the massive amount of funding his campaign got...and Cruz really is a dipshit...I’ve never seen so many bumper stickers “Beto 2020”. He really just reminds me of Napoleon Dynamite, though.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,792
Right now, I'm thinking the whole democratic party is a bunch of dumb asses. In the first debate, out of two hours, less than 10 minutes devoted to the most pressing issue of our time- global warming? Unforgivable and inexcusable.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Right now, I'm thinking the whole democratic party is a bunch of dumb asses. In the first debate, out of two hours, less than 10 minutes devoted to the most pressing issue of our time- global warming? Unforgivable and inexcusable.
Give it time though. I don’t focus on particular issues really these first few, they’re all going to say the same thing.
Right now, I'm thinking the whole democratic party is a bunch of dumb asses. In the first debate, out of two hours, less than 10 minutes devoted to the most pressing issue of our time- global warming? Unforgivable and inexcusable.
Give it time though. I don’t focus on particular issues really these first few, they’re all going to say the same thing.
Could be. We shall see.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,792
Being a native Californian (others living in the south west, I appreciate the Hispanic heritage that is a big part of this part of the country (Texas etc. could say the same). I can understand why a governor or representative from these states would want to know a little Spanish. But why is this such a big deal for a presidential candidate? If it's about immigration, then why don't they also show off their prowess in Arabic and some of the African languages, etc.
Meanwhile, they spend 7 minutes (ONLY) talking about global warming. Politics is becoming more and more a crock of shit in this country. Geee- suss!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Being a native Californian (others living in the south west, I appreciate the Hispanic heritage that is a big part of this part of the country (Texas etc. could say the same). I can understand why a governor or representative from these states would want to know a little Spanish. But why is this such a big deal for a presidential candidate? If it's about immigration, then why don't they also show off their prowess in Arabic and some of the African languages, etc.
Meanwhile, they spend 7 minutes (ONLY) talking about global warming. Politics is becoming more and more a crock of shit in this country. Geee- suss!
In Canada about 20% of the population (almost all of them in one province) speak French. It is literally unheard of for a PM not to be fluent in both English and French, and they literally always switch between French and English for official announcements and speeches, and there is always a french language debate as well. This is not simply because French is one of our two official languages (the USA doesn't have an official language). It is simply out of respect for the fact that 20% of the population speaks French. 18% of Americans speak Spanish (spread out across several states), which easily makes it the second most spoken language in America (only about 0.3% speak Arabic). Doesn't it make sense that the presidential hopefuls all show a similar sign of respect for all those people? I think any respectable POTUS nominee should be fluent in Spanish, and that they really do need to do parts of all the debates in Spanish, or have a Spanish-only debate. If English were actually the official language of the country, I might not say that, although it certainly would still be appropriate. But English isn't the official language. So the fact that these people all made an effort to speak Spanish is quite meaningful IMO - it's about inclusion. That doesn't mean climate change isn't important. Of course it is. And yes, more time should have been spent on it. But it is the moderator who really could have changed that...
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Being a native Californian (others living in the south west, I appreciate the Hispanic heritage that is a big part of this part of the country (Texas etc. could say the same). I can understand why a governor or representative from these states would want to know a little Spanish. But why is this such a big deal for a presidential candidate? If it's about immigration, then why don't they also show off their prowess in Arabic and some of the African languages, etc.
Meanwhile, they spend 7 minutes (ONLY) talking about global warming. Politics is becoming more and more a crock of shit in this country. Geee- suss!
You know the answer intuitively. This primary season will be about identity politics. There are lots of reasons this troubles me, but losing sight of one of the biggest issues of our times, one that won't discriminate, is a big one. I hope we come to our collective senses
Comments
1) It was really annoying having so many candidates on stage
2) NBC/MSNBC really did blow it with their mic issues. I was having a hard time trying to concentrate on Chuck's question and then realized why when he mentioned it. They took too long to go to commercial to fix and it really did slow things down so that I lost interest.
3) Winners: Castro, Delaney
4) Hold fast/slight bump: Warren, Booker
5) See ya: Beto. Awful, just awful, What do you people see in this guy?
6) There were a few comments here and there from others that were solid, but mostly didn't move the needle.
I suspect that this debate ended Beto's campaign and kickstarted Castro. I think Warren and Booker are likely the only other ones that could hold on longer and still have a shot. The rest? Adios
I don't think anybody saees anything in Beto as a presidential candidate, do they? He was fairly well suited for his race in Texas, but I think most Dems probably know he's not what anyone is looking for for POTUS. The poll numbers seem to show that too. Last I saw, he only had 2%.
If the Democrats have any spine, they'll nominate Elizabeth Warren to take on Trump: Neil Macdonald
Donald Trump poses as a populist, while rewarding the rich. Warren is the real thing
It's easy to feel the Democrats' obsession with electability, even from this distance. Put up the wrong candidate, and you get four more years of the big boorish boob.
But then U.S. President Donald Trump himself blew the notion of electability to smithereens three years ago. It was foolish, in retrospect, to confidently predict, just because he behaved like a coarse, bragging, race-baiting serial liar and misogynist, that he would lose.
It is just as foolish right now to assume that someone too far to the left, or a woman, or a woman on the left, cannot pull off the same feat Trump managed.
That sort of thinking inevitably leads to only one place: Joe Biden. And sorry, fellow aging white men, but that amounts to offering up one rather conservative septuagenarian with surgically created hair to replace another. This is 2019.
I've seen former vice president, and now Democratic leadership candidate Joe Biden up close. He seemed a pleasant fellow. But I'm damned if I can remember anything he said, besides how much he loves everybody. He says that a lot, when he isn't reassuring rich donors that he won't really change the system.
I've also seen Senator Elizabeth Warren up close. It was in a union hall in Kentucky in 2014. She was stumping for Alison Lundergan Grimes, the Democrat who was trying to unseat Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, but Grimes might as well not have been in the room once Warren — the tiny, intense former Harvard professor — took the stage.
Elizabeth Warren fully intends to change the system, and says so.
When she said how good it felt to be with working people in a workers' hall, you knew it wasn't a platitude. When she talked about taking on the venality of corporate America, you knew she meant it. As she talked, plainly and without the usual dumbed-down patronizing, the small talk in the crowd died. People stared. When she finished, they roared.
The only speaker I have ever seen hold a crowd like that was Lucien Bouchard, speaking to audiences of Quebecers in 1990 about the betrayal of the Meech Lake Accord.
Both politicians burned with intelligence, and radiated principle. Neither gave a toss for political triangulation. Both left their listeners convinced they meant what they said and would do it, and that to them, only the people mattered.
It didn't work out for Bouchard; Quebec remains in confederation. But Elizabeth Warren is ascendant, and watching her at centre stage in last night's Democratic debate, it was impossible not to imagine and relish the prospect of Warren versus Trump in 2020.Yes, there were nine other accomplished candidates on stage with her. And there will be another 10 tonight, Biden and Senator Bernie Sanders included.
But Warren is the standout, and one suspects Trump recognized that a long time ago. Why else would he have singled her out, tagging her with one of his juvenile nicknames, "Pocahontas," long before she'd declared any interest in running for president?
Actually, he suckered her into responding. It was foolish of her to have had her DNA tested to prove her tiny sliver of Indigenous ancestry. She played into Trump's sweaty little hands, and it's a safe bet she won't do it again.
In fact, Warren has assiduously avoided talking about Trump, denying him the oxygen he derives from small-minded bickering. (When she has talked about him, it's mostly been to say that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi should proceed with impeachment, now).
Rather, she's stuck to policies. Her campaign has outlined 23 detailed policy proposals so far this year.
'A plan for that'
Warren's approach is to "have a plan for that" — which has become her catchphrase — and trust that Americans want substance. It's paid off; she now effectively shares second place with Sanders, with only Biden, the dedicated triangulator, out ahead.
Warren would reduce the size of the U.S. military. She would break up mega-companies and monopolies. She would strengthen antitrust enforcement. She would prosecute senior managers of companies that violate the law. She would extend Medicare to all Americans, and banish private health insurance.
"People go broke," she told the debate last night, because of the private-insurance business model: "They bring in as many dollars as they can in premiums, and pay out as little as possible in benefits."
It's impossible to argue with that formulation. Like many of Warren's arguments, it is populist, which is why Trump almost certainly fears her. He poses as a populist, while rewarding the rich. She's the real thing.
While Trump, and, yes, Biden spend time with wealthy donors, Warren refuses big money. She also refused to participate in a Fox News town hall, wanting nothing to do with what she calls Fox's "hate for profit" business plan. She is unafraid to name her enemies.
And while her poll numbers rise, Trump's are flat. It's a lovely thing to see intelligent argument, unbending principle and policy go up against demagoguery, nativism and vulgar name-calling. To see a seriously brainy woman go toe to toe with a self-proclaimed "stable genius."
And those Democrats still worried about the things Warren might not bring to the race, should not worry that integrity will be one of them:
Warren has not been accused of sexual misconduct and rape by 16 men. Nor has she bragged about being so famous she can grab penises without asking;
She has not watched one former staffer after another head off to prison for lying to investigators and other assorted crimes.
Nor has a former director of the FBI effectively said, in a roundabout way, she's obstructed justice;
She is not responsible for locking up children in filthy cells without proper sanitation or medical care, and has not dispatched lawyers to court to argue that the government has no obligation to provide them with toothpaste or soap;
And she's posted a decade's worth of her tax returns online. (There has been no credible reporting that she's engaged in complicated tax evasion schemes).
President Barack Obama preached bridge-building and hope. In vain, as it turned out. Warren, refreshingly, doesn't bother with talk about reconciliation. She wants to fight.
Yes, she is prickly. But Trump obliterated any notion that a polarizing candidate cannot win. They will be natural opponents, if Democrats can find some spine.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/democratic-debate-1.5190801
Are you saying you’re in the Neil Diamond for President camp, F Me?
"I thought Trump was gonna deport him"
Joy is lovely.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Hear Elizabeth Warren's response to question about debating Bernie Sanders
https://youtu.be/VnFmTtFlHDk