The Democratic Candidates

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

GTFO white dude? Are you mental? Nice fucking message. Racism and sexism cuts all ways.

Yes, please explain All Lives Matter to me while we're at it. There are plenty of candidates qualified up there that are not this, so all things equal I'll take any of them over the vanilla up there. Talk about triggered, christ. Also, please tell me more about white man grievance while we're at it - to me, a white man - that's who we need to hear from right now in this world.

Ok so my color and sex disqualifies me from being president.  How very tolerant of the progressives.

OnWis97 said:

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.

But if it is in the category of "random white dude". Then it is just a random white dude.

Bernie is not a random white dude. Not even Biden is. Inslee got his eyes. But some dudes just happen to be random.

And then some people want them to GTFO.

Inslees answer to the question of what the biggest threat to the US is: Trump. 

Was the biggest moment of night 1.

I think it was this point - or pretty much Castro wiping the floor with Beto regarding immigration:

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/castro-to-beto-o-rourke-i-think-you-should-do-your-homework-on-immigration-laws-62753861843

I had two problems with Chuck Todd, who sucks, and the moderators last night: first, couching the issue/question of firearms in a way of "would you take away people's guns?", which, uh, has never been the case. And it's a shitty narrative that feeds into the garbage people. The other was the question that was posed about immigration in a way about "what would you do to address border crossing? (sic) or would it be a civil offense?" It's already a civil offense! Inform people in a way that's not dumb - it should be worded: "Crossing the border illegally is a civil offense. Would you do more or less in regards to penalty?" and not feed into some false narrative.

The Juggler said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

The Juggler said:

AMY FOR AMERICA!

She came off as the most sensible candidate last night. I wish she had more of a chance. And I wish about 5 of those guys were not even on the stage. 

Why didn't they pick the top polling candidates in the polls to have them all go at each other? Wouldn't it have been more productive to have Biden, Pete, Kamela and Sanders on the same state as Warren, Booker, Beto, and Amy?

They drew the lineup for both nights at random....and you end up with this. Good part is the funding requirements doubles for the September debate so we should lose close to half the field......hopefully.

I like Klobuchar a little bit, somewhat pragmatic.

Really liked the format last night, too. The moderators held them to the question posed, or at least in the beginning it was this way. Also, I liked that they left some room for some back-and-forth.

If I'm ranking my personal preference it's:
1) Warren by a mile
2) Castro 
3) Harris
4) Klobuchar
5) Yang
6)  Buttigieg
7) Sanders
8) Inslee
9) Biden
10) Gillibrand 
That's more than enough ranking

I'd be surprised if it was truly random. I know that's what they said but....how convenient! You end up with an equal amount of top tier candidates on both nights so on both nights they are all right smack in the middle of the stage. 

It isn't equal?

Night 2
Kamala
Biden
Bernie
Pete

Night 1
Warren

Jearlpam0925 said:

I think it was this point - or pretty much Castro wiping the floor with Beto regarding immigration:

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/castro-to-beto-o-rourke-i-think-you-should-do-your-homework-on-immigration-laws-62753861843

I had two problems with Chuck Todd, who sucks, and the moderators last night: first, couching the issue/question of firearms in a way of "would you take away people's guns?", which, uh, has never been the case. And it's a shitty narrative that feeds into the garbage people. The other was the question that was posed about immigration in a way about "what would you do to address border crossing? (sic) or would it be a civil offense?" It's already a civil offense! Inform people in a way that's not dumb - it should be worded: "Crossing the border illegally is a civil offense. Would you do more or less in regards to penalty?" and not feed into some false narrative.

Yes, a shifty way to word the question but you can almost always turn any wording to your advantage. Depending on how you want to come across, you can come right out and say “it’s never been about taking guns away” or be more subtle about it.  

oftenreading said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

I think it was this point - or pretty much Castro wiping the floor with Beto regarding immigration:

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/castro-to-beto-o-rourke-i-think-you-should-do-your-homework-on-immigration-laws-62753861843

I had two problems with Chuck Todd, who sucks, and the moderators last night: first, couching the issue/question of firearms in a way of "would you take away people's guns?", which, uh, has never been the case. And it's a shitty narrative that feeds into the garbage people. The other was the question that was posed about immigration in a way about "what would you do to address border crossing? (sic) or would it be a civil offense?" It's already a civil offense! Inform people in a way that's not dumb - it should be worded: "Crossing the border illegally is a civil offense. Would you do more or less in regards to penalty?" and not feed into some false narrative.

Yes, a shifty way to word the question but you can almost always turn any wording to your advantage. Depending on how you want to come across, you can come right out and say “it’s never been about taking guns away” or be more subtle about it.  

Like I pointed out in this thread before with the Face the Nation interview with Bernie - there is something wrong with american journalists. At least on cable news shows. But they are shit all over. Leading questions. Heavily loaded questions etc.

It's really surprising seeing how journalists behave. Or "hosts" or whatever they want to call themselves.  

The Juggler said:

oftenreading said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

I think it was this point - or pretty much Castro wiping the floor with Beto regarding immigration:

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/castro-to-beto-o-rourke-i-think-you-should-do-your-homework-on-immigration-laws-62753861843

I had two problems with Chuck Todd, who sucks, and the moderators last night: first, couching the issue/question of firearms in a way of "would you take away people's guns?", which, uh, has never been the case. And it's a shitty narrative that feeds into the garbage people. The other was the question that was posed about immigration in a way about "what would you do to address border crossing? (sic) or would it be a civil offense?" It's already a civil offense! Inform people in a way that's not dumb - it should be worded: "Crossing the border illegally is a civil offense. Would you do more or less in regards to penalty?" and not feed into some false narrative.

Yes, a shifty way to word the question but you can almost always turn any wording to your advantage. Depending on how you want to come across, you can come right out and say “it’s never been about taking guns away” or be more subtle about it.  

Well the other way of looking at it is some people out there (none watching these debates, I suspect) need to hear that the answer is a "no" to that question.

Right, as they clutch their fallic symbol closely. They'll also be the first when hearing "no" as a response to also not believe said response.

Chuck Todd is trash - like what kind of question is this?
https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/1144068747000504321