The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: ScottF on June 29, 2019, 10:07:44 AM

Title: Dem debates
Post by: ScottF on June 29, 2019, 10:07:44 AM
I watched as much as I could stomach on both nights and I’m convinced the dems are taking a page from Trumps playbook. That is: message hard to the edges of your base, prove your woke-ness chops to secure the nomination, then soften and backtrack in the general to gather more middle support.

Maybe I’m being charitable? If not, these debates are almost locking in Trump's chances at term 2.

Couple other notes:

1. The entire format is horrible. 10 people is 6 too many. The whole thing should be taken online and given long form treatment to truly get to know the candidates. Think Tulsi doing 2.5 hrs on Joe Rogan and you're getting closer to something worthwhile.
2. Yang (one of the few I genuinely want to hear more from) literally had his mic cut when he tried to comment. Thank God, otherwise it may have reduced the amount of delightful Spandering we got from Beto and Booker.
3. The old guys just can’t keep pace. Sorry Joe, Bernie.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: DJQuag on June 29, 2019, 03:08:20 PM
Bernie ride or die lol.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Crunch on June 30, 2019, 09:20:26 AM
Too early to tell much of anything but I do think it would be awesome for Marianne Williamson and her love harness to get the nomination.

She’s the perfect person to run against Trump.

Bonus would be AOC as running mate. Dumb and dumber.

FYI, don’t google “love harness”. You end up in some really weird places.

Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: D.W. on September 12, 2019, 11:03:03 PM
So I get that he's the DNC fave... but Biden doesn't perform well in debates, at all.   :-\

As much as I love Sanders, he seems fueled on 100% outrage.  I'd like to see some more calm responses from him than calls to urgency to fight the evils of the status quo.  :P

Warren did pretty well I thought.  And a lot of the peanut gallery did as well or better than expected, given the deck stacked against them in the way these things are structured. 

Harris I think could have done better.  Booker did well but looked like a deer in headlights until he started to answer.  Which, he then did quite well. 

I liked a lot of what Yang had to say but don't think I can get past that bonkers game he made out of his opening statement. 

I liked that the non-front runners are mostly green enough to actually answer questions posed to them, rather than answering somewhat related questions that nobody asked about.  At least, more so than is standard...
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Crunch on September 13, 2019, 07:52:40 AM
Social media is chewing them up, I don’t think any of them showed well.

Most were watching to see what new gaffe Biden was serving up or if he was gonna bleed to death this time. Honestly, he’s not looking like he’s up for this. Everyone but him did a presser after the debate

Yang announced a lottery for donors. 10 families get $120K, buy a ticket by donation. Is that legal? I don’t know.

Kamala went flirty. Remember that weird chick that offered BJ’s for votes last election? I think Kamala may be considering that strategy. Worked for her before...

Beto is a complete nut, about what you expect from a furry. He’s gonna force buyback the scary guns. Good luck with that. Mine’s $10,000,000. Cash only, up front.

Booker still look like Wynona Ryder the night of the awards show where stranger things won. Constantly mystified. He’s way better solo, not a group project kind of guy.

Castro comes off as totally unlikable.

Was there a single word about the economy? I didn’t hear one thing about it. Weird.

Overall, way too many people. The moderator tried to mainstream the nuts but there was no reigning those guys in.

Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: D.W. on September 13, 2019, 10:37:45 AM
Quote
Was there a single word about the economy? I didn’t hear one thing about it. Weird.
Not hardly enough.  Touched trade I guess.  But no policy/leadership.

Nothing on infrastructure either?  WTF.  Trump's inaction on this one should be a big deal.  Maybe they're afraid they'd remind him about it and he'd pounce to work on it before the election?  And the political loss is somehow more important than him doing something good for the country?  I, just don't know why they'd avoid that.

Maybe they just all agree, and no division means no sparks and that's not sexy tv...

Glad it's not just me on the "OMG they're not gonna call on me, are they?!" look I kept seeing on Booker's face.   :D
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Crunch on September 13, 2019, 12:04:58 PM
I thought the whole “Biden’s teeth falling out” thing was just a dig at his age but, holy *censored*, it really looks like he nearly dropped his teeth right out on the stage. Barely kept them in his mouth.

Seriously now, is Biden really up for this physically? He’s coming off as more than a little doddering.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: rightleft22 on September 13, 2019, 01:17:57 PM
I think the polls are wrong. Biden can't beat Trump

He doesn't get it as he continues the old style politics. Sure it reminds people of home, how things used to be done but those days have passed.

The Dem's need to wake up
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Crunch on September 13, 2019, 02:11:58 PM
I literally put no credence in any poll now. They were poor before 2016 and were proven to be complete bull*censored* since then. Polls are nothing more than propaganda pieces designed to shape perceptions in order to drive decisions. The polls showing Biden could beat Trump are designed to get the left behind Biden and pick him as nominee - no doubt part of some deal he cut to step aside for Hillary’s run (which in turn was payback for her stepping aside for Obama’s).

If the deep state left decides Biden can’t win, you’ll suddenly see new polls that show someone else can beat Trump. I hope it Beto or Marianne, that would be awesome.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Seriati on September 13, 2019, 02:22:04 PM
So I get that he's the DNC fave... but Biden doesn't perform well in debates, at all.   :-\

If that's your concern, I wouldn't worry he'd be going against Trump and to my recollection he has yet to "win" a debate with anyone.  My bigger issue is that he's being pulled way to the left, and with his age, if he has to pick a hard left VP, it'll mean the choice is absolutely between Trump and a hard left agenda.

Which is largely the problem I have with everyone else who is still on the stage.  They're too far out, to the point that objectively, they'll be worse for the country than leaving Trump in place.  In my view, Biden running a moderate campaign is the only way to create a choice situation where people in the middle will have more than one option.

Quote
As much as I love Sanders, he seems fueled on 100% outrage.  I'd like to see some more calm responses from him than calls to urgency to fight the evils of the status quo.  :P

Sanders is a terrible candidate, with bad ideas.  If you could guarantee a Republican Congress he might be someone we could suffer through, but I'd shudder to see what he'd try to appoint to the judiciary.

Quote
Warren did pretty well I thought.  And a lot of the peanut gallery did as well or better than expected, given the deck stacked against them in the way these things are structured.

I get the appeal of Warren, she's the reality of which Hillary was only the image, in a lot of ways.  She's clearly wicked smart, but I just can't wrap my head around how she's gotten so far into the wrong policies.  I can't forgive her for being the driving force behind the recklessly authoritarian creation of the CFPD.  Her ideas of a wealth tax and some of her policies would result in the death of the US as an economic power, and would bankrupt our retirement plans (massively hurting the middle and lower class) and unwind virtually all advances in jobs and wages.  I get hating Trump, but I'd hope people like themselves, their families and their friends more than they hate Trump.

Everyone else?  I'm imagining that for those on the left its pretty much exactly the feeling I've had in the last 3 Presidential campaigns watching the candidates with the ideas I thought were the best getting eliminated by the media or not holding up to the demands of the party.  It's frustrating when your options come down to people with crazy ideas/reprehensible (e.g. Cruz and Trump), or the impossibly unelectable (Kasich, McCain), and even when you get a candidate that could win they media tears them apart (Romney).  Oh whoops, forget about that last one, I forgot your Dems and the media will never do that to you.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: D.W. on September 13, 2019, 05:49:34 PM
True, the only equivalent is just ignoring candidates into oblivion. 
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: ScottF on September 13, 2019, 06:49:47 PM
Ironically Biden is the only realistic person to beat Trump but won’t get the chance to do so. Doddering but safe beats Trump all day every day.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Crunch on September 13, 2019, 07:55:43 PM
I dunno, his teeth falling out and bleeding through eye is a hard sell to the American voter I would think. Add in the amusing and often bizarre gaffes, I don’t see how he’s even remotely electable at this point.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: D.W. on September 13, 2019, 08:36:46 PM
I was reading other stuff while I had it on so missed anything to do with his teeth.  First I heard of the eye bleeding? 

But even just focusing on what he said, it was underwhelming. 
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: cherrypoptart on September 13, 2019, 09:22:10 PM
I could go for a Marianne-Yang ticket and would support it 100%. I wouldn't actually vote for it but I'd tell everyone how much I like it just like I did with Jill Stein. And I do like Marianne and Yang. I like that I don't smell the stench of deep corruption from them that is coming off of most of the rest of the Dem field. Their platforms are also... what's the kind word for it... oh yeah... interesting.

Apparently Biden's eye bleed is no cause for alarm and was caused when he tried to should rub and hair smell the wrong little girl who wasn't having it. The same thing could happen to any of us if we went around doing that.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Crunch on September 13, 2019, 09:25:49 PM
The eye bleed was something to do with his medication. Apparently it’s not uncommon nor a big deal but it looks pretty damn serious. If I’d seen it right in front of me, I’d have though he was having a stroke or something.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: D.W. on September 13, 2019, 10:09:55 PM
Umm, when "bleeding from the eye" is a possible side effect, WTF are you treating?   :o

I'm normally pretty dismissive of the, "is so and so healthy / young enough to run this country?" speculation but, yikes! 

I mean, that one bond villain kinda made it look creepy/intimidating, but it's pretty gross.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Fenring on September 14, 2019, 02:36:01 AM
I'm watching the debate now, and boy this is a bad group. It reminds me of the GOP debates that involved Trump. However the gravitas of the GOP debates was much higher because (a) Jeb Bush was involved, who needed to be taken down and looked like an early favorite, and (b) there seemed to be a race for who could sound most aggressive with foreign policy. This one was more of a wet noodle fight, although despite what the others said above I actually think Booker looked pretty good up there. Warren is used to public speaking so I figured she'd look as good as she did. But I wouldn't compare her to Hillary, other than they're both smart ladies! Warren spent years practically on the opposite side of the party talking about things like taking on Wall Street, somewhat like Sanders. And of course Bernie looked great, although it was too bad his voice was hoarse. The rest of the candidates looked horrible. Actually O'Malley from 2016 looked a lot more reasonable as a candidate than most of this crop does. And I must say I'm bummed that Gabbard wasn't a part of this because she's 10 times the candidate most of them are, putting aside her polling (whatever that's worth). She's probably right that Google conspired to bury her search results.

Biden can't beat Trump; I think he would be steamrolled. I think a tenable candidate might be Bernie with a running mate like Warren or Gabbard, or maybe even Warren with a running mate like Booker. Those could work. The Dems just need to avoid propping anyone up who's going to look outright stupid when Trump walks all over them. I suspect that Warren would stick to her guns and not be drawn into his schtick, while Bernie may be the only candidate here who could actually go toe to toe with Trump's humor attempts. He has a gift for making people laugh easily with offhand comments that could disarm Trump's monopoly on seeming like the fun one. Going after Trump with ad hominems isn't the way, but Bernie has a good humored sort of joking that could keep him in there with Trump.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Crunch on September 14, 2019, 09:28:34 AM
Biden says it’s a contact lens issue that caused a subconjunctival hemorrhage. That can happen. I also read somewhere that he’s on blood thinners and such a thing can happen as a side effect. It’s not supposed to be a major concern but it looked pretty bad. But when you put this with all his gaffes, misremembering, and other stuff, it’s not a great picture from a health standpoint. Definitely something he will need to get in front of but the official campaign response is to act like these things aren’t happening.

Bernie is a full on socialist. I really don’t see Americans embracing socialism. The DNC didn’t either and knee capped him last time. I don’t think anything changed since then. If Bernie gets the nomination, it really helps Trump.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: ScottF on September 14, 2019, 11:37:42 AM
Not that he really has a chance anyway, but Castro did himself no favors by attempting to belittle Biden via old-man attack. Castro came across as a smarmy little twerp.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Crunch on September 14, 2019, 03:47:45 PM
It’s nit the first time he’s come across that way. I think that’s who he really is.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Crunch on September 15, 2019, 09:30:47 AM
Just saw a clip of Bernie promising to end all deportations, free healthcare for everyone including illegal aliens, and free college for everyone including illegal aliens. 

Does anyone realistically think this could win a national election?
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: DonaldD on September 15, 2019, 10:06:02 PM
In most first world countries, those things are a given (for a certain value of "end all deportations")
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Crunch on September 15, 2019, 10:36:30 PM
So?
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Fenring on September 16, 2019, 12:45:31 AM
So?

You know that expression that if everyone you ever meet is an a-hole then you're the a-hole? Consider the same proposition in terms of every country around you being crazy.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: D.W. on September 16, 2019, 01:28:56 AM
Quote
Does anyone realistically think this could win a national election?
Against Trump?  Ya.  I think Trump correctly diagnosed (or got lucky?) that the nation was looking for anything but the same-ol'-same-ol'.  Sanders would fit right into that niche as well.  And do so by scapegoating the super wealthy instead of scapegoating the super marginalized / desperate. 

I think he would have absolutely won last go round, and has a good shot this time.  Though I think the better play would be for two of the front runners to share a ticket.  (and announce that sooner rather than later)
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Crunch on September 16, 2019, 07:30:11 AM
So?

You know that expression that if everyone you ever meet is an a-hole then you're the a-hole? Consider the same proposition in terms of every country around you being crazy.

Or alternatively, just because others are doing it doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do. There are some countries in the world doing terrible things, should we apply this logic to them and emulate thise acts?
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Crunch on September 16, 2019, 07:38:05 AM
Quote
Does anyone realistically think this could win a national election?
Against Trump?  Ya.  I think Trump correctly diagnosed (or got lucky?) that the nation was looking for anything but the same-ol'-same-ol'.  Sanders would fit right into that niche as well.  And do so by scapegoating the super wealthy instead of scapegoating the super marginalized / desperate. 

I think he would have absolutely won last go round, and has a good shot this time.  Though I think the better play would be for two of the front runners to share a ticket.  (and announce that sooner rather than later)

I don’t see an avowed socialist getting much traction by proposing trillions in new spending. I suppose TDS could get virulent enough to make it seem that way as the media goes all in for the Democrat nominee again but socialism is a hard sell. Especially coming from a guy that looks and sounds like the crazy uncle in your basement.

If the economy continues this historic success through 2020, how does Bernie or anyone else convince people it’s time to change that? The general election won’t be like these debates where the Democrats can pretend the economy doesn’t even exist. Throw in some gun grabbing that’s all the rage right now and it’s a very uphill battle.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Seriati on September 16, 2019, 09:41:41 AM
Just saw a clip of Bernie promising to end all deportations, free healthcare for everyone including illegal aliens, and free college for everyone including illegal aliens. 

Does anyone realistically think this could win a national election?

In most first world countries, those things are a given (for a certain value of "end all deportations")

So?

You know that expression that if everyone you ever meet is an a-hole then you're the a-hole? Consider the same proposition in terms of every country around you being crazy.

Out of curiosity Fen, before you move past the odd statement of fact and chastise Crunch, don't you think you should examine it?

DonaldD asserted, if I read that correctly, that First world countries don't deport people (open lie, and even worse because the US has been the most open of First World countries for most of its history), most of Australian has very immigration laws, most of Europe does as well (and almost no tolerance for local policies that go against national, or even EU level policy).

Free college for everyone?  Sure, if you "qualify" to go, otherwise you're paying your own way and often doing so out of country.

Healthcare is the only one, and that's more just a function of their systems, which as discussed on here endlessly, have their own flaws that the advocates just ignore (and you may want to check into the stories from refugees in places like Europe before you take it whole heartedly that they get equal medical care).

And generally it is flawed to think that because the remora and the pilot fish outnumber the shark, the shark is doing something wrong and would be wish to emulate them.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Fenring on September 16, 2019, 10:46:08 AM
DonaldD asserted, if I read that correctly, that First world countries don't deport people (open lie, and even worse because the US has been the most open of First World countries for most of its history), most of Australian has very immigration laws, most of Europe does as well (and almost no tolerance for local policies that go against national, or even EU level policy).

Honestly I was replying more about the healthcare side than the open immigration part. But even then it's hard to compared the U.S. (solitary immigration policy) to the EU with its own broad and yet individual setup.

Quote
Free college for everyone?  Sure, if you "qualify" to go, otherwise you're paying your own way and often doing so out of country.

I didn't fact check whether Bernie promised free health care for illegals, and in fact that would surprise me. I guess a direct quote would be good to see because I've never heard him say that in any showing I've ever seen, so I more or less ignored that part of Crunch's comment.

Quote
Healthcare is the only one, and that's more just a function of their systems, which as discussed on here endlessly, have their own flaws that the advocates just ignore (and you may want to check into the stories from refugees in places like Europe before you take it whole heartedly that they get equal medical care).

And generally it is flawed to think that because the remora and the pilot fish outnumber the shark, the shark is doing something wrong and would be wish to emulate them.

I like your analogy, although there's a question of whether it's true that their universal healthcare systems can only exist *because* the U.S. doesn't have one. But even granting your point as a given, Americans would then be in the position of saying "boy it's great what they have, and we'd be happy with it too except it's impossible because we don't have a shark to feed us." The outlook of universal healthcare ought to be a positive one other than the fact that it's hard to implement in the U.S., if you're right. And yet the prevailing arguments about don't just include questions of who'll pay for it, but more often questions about people being *made* to give up their private plans, or other variants of "Americans don't like being told what to do and having their choice taken away." So it seems like the problem is psychological more so than financial, because if it was *just* financial you'd think the question would be how to make such a thing work, rather than arguing about whether it's desirable at all.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Seriati on September 16, 2019, 11:08:30 AM
Fen, there's a million ways to approach healthcare, and I'm willing to bet 95% would be better in some or many ways than what we have today.  I'd love an open and honest discussion on it.  But I'm not conceding to a mixed use plan, by which I mean a government take over that is far more about increasing statist power than helping people, that in my view generates and will generate worse health outcomes, and that largely is only needed to fix the problems the government itself created.

I agree neither you, or anyone else, has to agree with my assertion that the US system is generating the hyper advancement of medical technology, but I've yet to hear any reasonable answer about what would replace the enormous financial incentives that the US system generates to create that motivation.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: NobleHunter on September 16, 2019, 11:22:31 AM
An open and honest discussion where you start by assuming your opponents are more interested in power than in helping people?
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: DonaldD on September 16, 2019, 12:07:38 PM
Quote
the US has been the most open of First World countries for most of its history
Hmmm... it certainly is not true presently, nor for the past decade at the least:
https://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359963625/dozens-of-countries-take-in-more-immigrants-per-capita-than-the-u-s (https://www.npr.org/2014/10/29/359963625/dozens-of-countries-take-in-more-immigrants-per-capita-than-the-u-s)

As for it being an "open lie", since I can't speak to the context of what was written, or whether it was even accurate;y paraphrased, I did qualify the statement with "for a certain value of".  Are we talking about deporting refugee claimants with hearings? Deporting refugee claimaints while the process is underway? Claimants that have broken local laws?
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: D.W. on October 16, 2019, 12:11:02 PM
Anyone watch last night?  I missed it and haven't done any reading last night.  Looking for spoilers.  :) 
Can we write off Biden yet, or he still hanging on?
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: ScottF on October 16, 2019, 01:38:29 PM
I didn't watch them but saw comments and snippets online. It sounds like Joe is all but toast. I also heard that it's clear CNN wants Warren and acts accordingly. Yang and Gabbard appear to be the lone middle/rational ones. Highlight apparently was Gabbard ripping CNN (host and moderators of the actual debate) for calling her a Russian asset and other such nonsense.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: TheDrake on October 16, 2019, 01:47:00 PM
Quote
Just saw a clip of Bernie promising to end all deportations, free healthcare for everyone including illegal aliens, and free college for everyone including illegal aliens.

Does anyone realistically think this could win a national election?

Yes, it could. As has been pointed out many nations have elected people with such policies.

Whether it is a good idea is not relevant to the question of whether one thinks it could be a winning platform. You wouldn't even have to follow through on the campaign promises to get elected on them.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Fenring on October 16, 2019, 02:48:12 PM
Quote
Just saw a clip of Bernie promising to end all deportations, free healthcare for everyone including illegal aliens, and free college for everyone including illegal aliens.

Does anyone realistically think this could win a national election?

Yes, it could. As has been pointed out many nations have elected people with such policies.

Whether it is a good idea is not relevant to the question of whether one thinks it could be a winning platform. You wouldn't even have to follow through on the campaign promises to get elected on them.

Another thing worth noting is that these platform issues should not be confused with "I promise to accomplish this while in office", which is often the fake promise that's made and reneged on. I think it's quite clear that for some of these grandiose projects that all that could be done initially would be to take steps to move America in that direction, and hope the next administration doesn't take it apart again. Pretty much nothing can stop that happening and so "he couldn't do it!" doesn't have to mean he didn't fulfill the campaign promise. Even if one day there is a uniquitous UBI for all Americans, it might still take a series of discrete steps spanning several administrations to actually get there in full.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: scifibum on October 16, 2019, 05:15:58 PM
I'm not sure Sanders isn't promising to accomplish these things, although I agree he (and everyone else making promises) probably doesn't expect to get everything promised through Congress and it would be wrong of people to anticipate total success.

This is more or less typical of all presidential candidates.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: rightleft22 on October 16, 2019, 05:24:44 PM
I view a politicians platform as the direction and target their aiming at, not necessary a promise they will or can keep.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: LetterRip on October 16, 2019, 05:57:59 PM
So apparently Warren has promised to 'ban all fracking' by executive order.  Almost certainly not something she could do.  Also seems a spectacularly bad idea if she could do it.  Also seems a strategically (election wise) bad idea.

Definitely losing some respect for her.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: LetterRip on October 16, 2019, 06:12:32 PM
Regarding Medicare for all.  Right now we have taxes spent via Medicaid, Medicare, Military, Federal and State Employees, Federal and State contractors.  We also have tax expenditures via employee provided healthcsre being tax deductible and hospitals able to triple overcharge the uninsured and the deduct it from taxes.

So all of the money 'medicare for all' would cost is already being spent directly (via programs and providing coverage for government employees and dependents) and via tax deductions by corporations and hospitals.

What it would change is eliminating most insurance middlemen saving over a trillion over 10 years; allow government  price negotiation (just getting the same price as insurance companies would save trillions); and provide more preventative care again with huge savings.

Most of the expanded coverage would be for those who are cheap to insure, since the elderly are covered by Medicare already.

Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: TheDrake on October 16, 2019, 06:44:54 PM
Warren's quote:

"sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere."

This doesn't say that she would ban fracking by the same executive order.

Quote
Warren's campaign suggested she would focus on getting a bill through Congress, though that would be difficult if the Republicans maintain their majority in the Senate.
"Elizabeth will fight for legislation to ban fracking nationwide," Saloni Sharma, Warren's deputy national press secretary, told CNN. "She'll build on the Obama administration's methane rule and use executive authorities to regulate contaminants to our air and water as a result of fracking and other natural gas operations."
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: TheDeamon on October 22, 2019, 11:42:23 AM
Quote
Just saw a clip of Bernie promising to end all deportations, free healthcare for everyone including illegal aliens, and free college for everyone including illegal aliens.

Does anyone realistically think this could win a national election?

Yes, it could. As has been pointed out many nations have elected people with such policies.

Whether it is a good idea is not relevant to the question of whether one thinks it could be a winning platform. You wouldn't even have to follow through on the campaign promises to get elected on them.

Another thing worth noting is that these platform issues should not be confused with "I promise to accomplish this while in office", which is often the fake promise that's made and reneged on. I think it's quite clear that for some of these grandiose projects that all that could be done initially would be to take steps to move America in that direction, and hope the next administration doesn't take it apart again. Pretty much nothing can stop that happening and so "he couldn't do it!" doesn't have to mean he didn't fulfill the campaign promise. Even if one day there is a uniquitous UBI for all Americans, it might still take a series of discrete steps spanning several administrations to actually get there in full.

The issue you guys are forgetting here is that while it may work in other nations, one of the things Trump capitalized on in 2016, and still holds true today I'm pretty sure. Is that polling, particularly among minority voters, shows they are strongly opposed to illegal immigration. They may take issue with the specifics of how immigration laws are enforced(such as Hispanic's needing to worry about harassment by ICE and others), but Bernie's position is an albatross.

It plays well to liberal elites and White Liberals, and the activists. It would likely sour every other voter out there if he continued to float that as a campaign platform plank. Trump is probably absolutely giddy at the idea that other Dems may adopt that item into their own platforms.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Crunch on January 15, 2020, 07:46:24 AM
CNN: “Sen. Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?"
SANDERS: "That is correct."
CNN: “Sen. Warren, what did you think when senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?"


The DNC really doesn’t want Bernie to got the nomination.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Fenring on January 15, 2020, 10:49:20 AM
The DNC really doesn’t want Bernie to got the nomination.

As long as the money rolls in they will never care what happens when they corrupt the nation's politics. The same goes for both sides, though.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Pete at Home on January 15, 2020, 11:29:36 AM
CNN runs the DNC now?
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: NobleHunter on January 15, 2020, 11:30:22 AM
I think the argument is that the DNC runs CNN.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: TheDeamon on January 15, 2020, 12:15:13 PM
I think the argument is that the DNC runs CNN.

Although that's not quite right either, the more typical refrain is they're the Clinton News Network, and while the Clinton's are Democrats, and sometimes pretend to be the DNC, they aren't quite the same thing.  8)
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: rightleft22 on January 15, 2020, 02:51:11 PM
Quote
I think the argument is that the DNC runs CNN.

Money runs CNN.
Where Fox aims for the GOP audience CNN aims for the DNC audience.
Both the GOP and DNC manipulate that business plan as best they can for their own ends.
The majority of air time on both CNN and Fox does not qualify as news
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Fenring on January 15, 2020, 03:50:43 PM
Money runs CNN.

Probably a safe bet, but in what manner money runs it is the question.

Quote
Where Fox aims for the GOP audience CNN aims for the DNC audience.

Definitely.

Quote
Both the GOP and DNC manipulate that business plan as best they can for their own ends.

This implies a separation, which is doubtful. It would take an enormous amount of proof to convince me that the parties are not directly in contact and deliberations with the owners and directors of both companies. Ditto with the White House. I do not believe there is a clear boundary of where the 'news organizations' end and their affiliates and government contact begin. It's a network, not a private company. Some of what they do is separate, but not all.

Quote
The majority of air time on both CNN and Fox does not qualify as news

Check.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: ScottF on January 15, 2020, 05:43:43 PM
Quote
I think the argument is that the DNC runs CNN.

Money runs CNN.
Where Fox aims for the GOP audience CNN aims for the DNC audience.
Both the GOP and DNC manipulate that business plan as best they can for their own ends.
The majority of air time on both CNN and Fox does not qualify as news

If it was purely money they would simply shift their perspective to the right to try and get within sniffing distance of Fox ratings (ie advertising $).
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: TheDeamon on January 15, 2020, 11:08:34 PM
If it was purely money they would simply shift their perspective to the right to try and get within sniffing distance of Fox ratings (ie advertising $).

Yes, but no. Left-wits have enough boycott threats against Fox News that they don't rely overly much on "traditional advertising" models like every other network out there, be it news, sports, TNT, or TLC. That's why you see so many ads offering to sell you gold on Fox News, but rarely see a major airline or companies like GE advertising on Fox. But will find them on CNN, MSNBC, etc without even trying.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Crunch on January 16, 2020, 07:34:48 AM
It’s not that the DNC runs CNN but that they are deeply aligned with CNN willingly assisting the DNC in achieving the DNC’s goals.

This can be seen in CNN’s leaking of debate questions to Hillary, helping her prepare for a debate to the recent debate where it tried to take down Bernie yet again. Last nights reveal of the “off mike” conversation between Bernie and Warren cements that effort. The DNC doesn’t want Bernie to get the nomination, that is very clear. CNN has always been willing to help.

Look at any of the CNN talent’s social media output and you’ll see they are lockstep in line with the DNC.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Pete at Home on January 16, 2020, 09:51:45 AM
It’s not that the DNC runs CNN but that they are deeply aligned with CNN willingly assisting the DNC in achieving the DNC’s goals.

This can be seen in CNN’s leaking of debate questions to Hillary, helping her prepare for a debate to the recent debate where it tried to take down Bernie yet again. Last nights reveal of the “off mike” conversation between Bernie and Warren cements that effort. The DNC doesn’t want Bernie to get the nomination, that is very clear. CNN has always been willing to help.

Look at any of the CNN talent’s social media output and you’ll see they are lockstep in line with the DNC.

I thought that the private convo after made Warren look bad and Bernie look honest and friendly.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: ScottF on January 16, 2020, 10:18:43 AM
It’s not that the DNC runs CNN but that they are deeply aligned with CNN willingly assisting the DNC in achieving the DNC’s goals.

This can be seen in CNN’s leaking of debate questions to Hillary, helping her prepare for a debate to the recent debate where it tried to take down Bernie yet again. Last nights reveal of the “off mike” conversation between Bernie and Warren cements that effort. The DNC doesn’t want Bernie to get the nomination, that is very clear. CNN has always been willing to help.

Look at any of the CNN talent’s social media output and you’ll see they are lockstep in line with the DNC.

I thought that the private convo after made Warren look bad and Bernie look honest and friendly.

Honestly that, along with Warren's no-hesitation response in the original exchange where the CNN moderator ignored Bernie's denial looked 100% scripted. Bernie doesn't stand a chance when his own party's state-sponsored media wants him gone.

I thought Van Jones had some interesting comments when he said that none of them looked compelling and that the DNC was missing the boat by excluding Yang.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: rightleft22 on January 16, 2020, 11:18:32 AM
Quote
If it was purely money they would simply shift their perspective to the right to try and get within sniffing distance of Fox ratings (ie advertising $).

Fox owns the market of the right and assuming a 50 50 right/left split in politics going after the left makes money sense

The real issue is why we allow 'News' stations to operate this way.

It’s not that the DNC runs CNN but that they are deeply aligned with CNN willingly assisting the DNC in achieving the DNC’s goals.
It’s not that the GOP runs Fox but that they are deeply aligned with Fox willingly assisting the GOP in achieving the GOP goals.

So lets let this go and agree that both FOX and CNN have betrayed the peoples trust
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Seriati on January 16, 2020, 11:39:50 AM
Quote
If it was purely money they would simply shift their perspective to the right to try and get within sniffing distance of Fox ratings (ie advertising $).

Fox owns the market of the right and assuming a 50 50 right/left split in politics going after the left makes money sense

In what way does it "make sense" to let one player dominate half the market to enter into competition with multiple players going after the other half?  Heck even just being fair gives more potential market share than playing on the over crowded left.

Face it, you can't have journalists be overwhelming leftists and not expect that's how they're going to roll.  Money is a consideration, but it's not remotely the prime consideration in their political balance.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: rightleft22 on January 16, 2020, 02:37:40 PM
Quote
n what way does it "make sense" to let one player dominate half the market to enter into competition with multiple players going after the other half?  Heck even just being fair gives more potential market share than playing on the over crowded left.

Face it, you can't have journalists be overwhelming leftists and not expect that's how they're going to roll.  Money is a consideration, but it's not remotely the prime consideration in their political balance

If you look at the history of Fox news the decision to cater to the right was politically and economical. As you know people are attracted to information they already 'know' and want to be true. And it worked, Fox prospered and CNN faltered. CNN could have gone after Fox viewers (right) and hire right leaning journalists or they could adopt the new practice and go after the left.

Does it make business sense?  Fox had one half of the population locked in why compete when the other half the population is up for grabs.  Low hanging fruit verses fruit hard to get at.

Lets all just forget about the self righteousness indignation we have for Fox or CNN. Any stance favoring one over the other is hypocritical

Just stop it
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: rightleft22 on January 16, 2020, 02:52:02 PM
anyone defending CNN or Fox news are playing the fool and role of useful idiot
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: ScottF on January 16, 2020, 02:55:35 PM
CNN could have gone after Fox viewers (right) and hire right leaning journalists or they could adopt the new practice and go after the left.

Does it make business sense?  Fox had one half of the population locked in why compete when the other half the population is up for grabs.  Low hanging fruit verses fruit hard to get at.

Except clearly it doesn't make business sense. The "low hanging fruit" has resulted in getting their asses kicked for years. Unless you're suggesting that they'd be doing even worse by catering, even in part, to the Fox audience?
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: ScottF on January 16, 2020, 02:56:17 PM
And to be clear, I'm not defending/deriding any of them. Just looking at it from a commercial perspective.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: TheDrake on January 16, 2020, 03:22:12 PM
You're looking for engagement. You're better off having 10 people watch 20 hours a week than to have 100 people watch 1 hour. I think you'd find that an even handed approach would pick up the casual viewer.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: TheDeamon on January 16, 2020, 03:38:34 PM
If you look at the history of Fox news the decision to cater to the right was politically and economical. As you know people are attracted to information they already 'know' and want to be true. And it worked, Fox prospered and CNN faltered. CNN could have gone after Fox viewers (right) and hire right leaning journalists or they could adopt the new practice and go after the left.

They actually did make that effort, anyone remember the days when Glenn Beck worked for CNN?

The problem was CNN's staff leaned so strongly to the left even by then that the environment was consistently described as being "hostile" with respect to any openly conservative person who worked at CNN.

Quote
Does it make business sense?  Fox had one half of the population locked in why compete when the other half the population is up for grabs.  Low hanging fruit verses fruit hard to get at.

While there was a business motive to make the effort, there was a solidly established culture in place at CNN by the end of the Bush(43) Administration which made any attempt to remain in the center, never mind moving to the right, untenable in the views of those who worked there.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: rightleft22 on January 16, 2020, 03:48:30 PM
Quote
Except clearly it doesn't make business sense. The "low hanging fruit" has resulted in getting their asses kicked for years. Unless you're suggesting that they'd be doing even worse by catering, even in part, to the Fox audience?

True it hasn't worked for CNN but it was understandable that they try to adopt Fox news successful model - the right.
Perhaps the left is more discerning then the right when it comes to what news they are willing to watch. who knew :)
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: TheDeamon on January 16, 2020, 05:06:53 PM
True it hasn't worked for CNN but it was understandable that they try to adopt Fox news successful model - the right.
Perhaps the left is more discerning then the right when it comes to what news they are willing to watch. who knew :)

It's been awhile, but a number of years ago, Fox had almost as many self-identified Democrats watching it, and preferring to watch it, over viewing CNN.

I imagine Fox News still has a very substantial Democratic viewership, something that CNN cannot appreciably claim at this point I'd suspect when it comes to Republicans.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Pete at Home on January 16, 2020, 05:19:12 PM
Quote
Except clearly it doesn't make business sense. The "low hanging fruit" has resulted in getting their asses kicked for years. Unless you're suggesting that they'd be doing even worse by catering, even in part, to the Fox audience?

True it hasn't worked for CNN but it was understandable that they try to adopt Fox news successful model - the right.
Perhaps the left is more discerning then the right when it comes to what news they are willing to watch. who knew :)

Here’s how I remember things. CNN carved out a niche of panic news addicted white closet authoritarians. Ran ram shot over us during the Rodney King riots, but there afterward FOX chewed off the right wing of the arthoritarian group and then the left fractioned off what was left. So CNN is like the point of impact from which all things “not right” proceed lefwardly like the empty corona of the leftward Big Bang.  . Right?
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: wmLambert on January 17, 2020, 07:47:35 AM
...CNN carved out a niche of panic news addicted white closet authoritarians. Ran ram shot over us during the Rodney King riots, but there afterward FOX chewed off the right wing of the arthoritarian group and then the left fractioned off what was left. So CNN is like the point of impact from which all things “not right” proceed lefwardly like the empty corona of the leftward Big Bang.  . Right?

Not exactly. The owners of the media made a decision of which way to go. When Murdoch's children took over at Fox, they were Left of center and did much to put the brakes on the Rightward lean of the Fox hosts. It was the investors on the board who liked the money coming in and kept the News side and hosts side different. The Fox-pejorative media are so alienated that it is hard for Fox to get decent Leftist contributors to provide truly balanced opinions. The same purportedly Leftward leaning contributors appear on all the shows trying mightily to provide balanced views.

The real problem on CNN, MSNBC, and all the others is the lack of national journalism to hold rabid bloviating in check. Research after research has shown major breaking stories that are negative toward the Left are not covered at all. All the bulk of the nation ever see is Progressive reinforced chatter, which is never balanced, even when proved wrong. The air is filled with disinformation which is reinforced by a complicit media. It is not just the networks.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: ScottF on January 17, 2020, 11:35:13 AM
The idea that there's ever been such a thing as objective news reporting is a fallacy but back when TV was the dominant medium (say up until the mid-90's) there seemed to be less of a reflex to blatantly inject opinions.

Now that all of these networks are on the endangered species list, they've signed a virtual pact to ratchet everything up to 10 and make sure they aren't just relaying information but assigning opinions to their audience. The model is doomed but I don't think anyone has figured out what v2 should look like, or if TV v2 is even possible.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: TheDrake on January 17, 2020, 11:38:54 AM
...CNN carved out a niche of panic news addicted white closet authoritarians. Ran ram shot over us during the Rodney King riots, but there afterward FOX chewed off the right wing of the arthoritarian group and then the left fractioned off what was left. So CNN is like the point of impact from which all things “not right” proceed lefwardly like the empty corona of the leftward Big Bang.  . Right?

Not exactly. The owners of the media made a decision of which way to go. When Murdoch's children took over at Fox, they were Left of center and did much to put the brakes on the Rightward lean of the Fox hosts. It was the investors on the board who liked the money coming in and kept the News side and hosts side different. The Fox-pejorative media are so alienated that it is hard for Fox to get decent Leftist contributors to provide truly balanced opinions. The same purportedly Leftward leaning contributors appear on all the shows trying mightily to provide balanced views.

The real problem on CNN, MSNBC, and all the others is the lack of national journalism to hold rabid bloviating in check. Research after research has shown major breaking stories that are negative toward the Left are not covered at all. All the bulk of the nation ever see is Progressive reinforced chatter, which is never balanced, even when proved wrong. The air is filled with disinformation which is reinforced by a complicit media. It is not just the networks.

Most of the stories pushed by breitbart and hard right outlets don't deserve attention, but I'm willing to be convinced. Let me know which stories you think are being suppressed.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Pete at Home on January 17, 2020, 12:22:31 PM
Well, there’s one member of SCOTUS who has been stalking the news critiquing the hard right while going on about how GOP senators x y and z have disqualified themselves from participating in the impeachment trial. Funny that no one is examining whether any DNC members may have by the same set of principles and assumptions disqualified themselves.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: TheDrake on January 17, 2020, 01:08:21 PM
Quote
Well, there’s one member of SCOTUS who has been stalking the news critiquing the hard right while going on about how GOP senators x y and z have disqualified themselves from participating in the impeachment trial. Funny that no one is examining whether any DNC members may have by the same set of principles and assumptions disqualified themselves.

Is there some reason why you're being cagey about this? Hard for me to respond to vague allusions. And by definition, if they are stalking the news, then its not really being ignored is it? So maybe you mean to say that you don't like how they are reporting, not that they are ignoring?

Let's go back to your assertion.

Quote
Research after research has shown major breaking stories that are negative toward the Left are not covered at all.

If there is research after research, I'm sure you can name at least one study?
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Pete at Home on January 18, 2020, 06:25:28 PM
Quote
Well, there’s one member of SCOTUS who has been stalking the news critiquing the hard right while going on about how GOP senators x y and z have disqualified themselves from participating in the impeachment trial. Funny that no one is examining whether any DNC members may have by the same set of principles and assumptions disqualified themselves.

Is there some reason why you're being cagey about this? Hard for me to respond to vague allusions. And by definition, if they are stalking the news, then its not really being ignored is it? So maybe you mean to say that you don't like how they are reporting, not that they are ignoring?

Let's go back to your assertion.

Quote
Research after research has shown major breaking stories that are negative toward the Left are not covered at all.

If there is research after research, I'm sure you can name at least one study?

Huh? That’s not my assertion.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: TheDrake on January 18, 2020, 06:33:12 PM
Sorry, I shouldn't have connected those two comments. It's confusing.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: ScottF on February 20, 2020, 02:03:32 PM
I didn't watch the debate last night but thought Bloomberg's video edit (below) was amusing. Of course the crack media immediately jumped into fact-checking mode to see if there were actually crickets on the stage.

https://twitter.com/ccadelago/status/1230542511506063364
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: Fenring on February 21, 2020, 02:43:52 PM
Came across an article today about Bloomberg, proposing that Bloomberg may have as his primary intent to take down Bernie, not Trump. You may take this to be editorialized, but I think it's a reasonable assumption:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/michael-bloomberg-trying-take-bernie-sanders-not-trump/265026/

If anything it shows that the powers that be behind the DNC are much more threatened by Bernie than by Trump. It's not that they don't want a D in office, but I suspect that would rather have Trump than Sanders if forced into that choice. This suggests to me that on the subject of 'draining the swamp' vs maintaining the status quo, Trump is probably closer to status quo than his followers believe, whereas Sanders would actually make changes that upset certain people.

It would be up to you to decide whether those "certain people" are correct or not. For instance a big money interest, even if motivated purely by personal greed and lust for power, may have an intersection between their interests and those of the public if, say, a candidate was coming forward who would tank the economy. On the other hand, if the economy or culture is currently suffering under various types of corruption, then a vanguard candidate would be poised to chip away at that part of their self-interest not intersecting with the general public's welfare. In Bernie's case I feel it is the latter, but I am well aware that some posters here view it very much as the former.

Either way, in my book, if big money wants Sanders to lose this is all the more reason to hope he wins. These people should not be running America as a political oligarchy, except that at present they pretty much are, and many experts seem to say the same thing.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: wmLambert on March 27, 2020, 03:10:33 PM
This thread is quite passé at this time, but the contemporaneous belief is that Biden will have the hard majority votes to win nomination unless he voluntarily steps down, due to mental decline. Many in the DNC wanted him over Bernie, but never thought he couild defeat Trump because of the great economy and successes of his administration. Rush Limbaugh corrected his earlier thoughts that the DNC would never back a loser, but reconsidered that they were more concerned with personal power, and Bernie and the ultra-Left would threaten that. He said they would gladly allow Trump a second turn if they could retain the House and maybe pick up votes in the Senate.

With the Wuhan Flue affecting the economy, the Left is now Hell-bent to use the crisis against Trump. They still don't think Biden or Bernie can overcome Trump's metrics - but much now hinges upon what happens nearer November. Any Presidential comments now about how the economy will quickly rebound is aimed at the election up the road.

The attenuating factor is Biden's perceived mental decline. This makes his announced naming of a woman VP even more important. Tulsi Gabbard would probably be his strongest pick, but the DNC will lean to Amy Klobucher over Gabbard, Elizabeth Warren, or Hillary. If it is possible, Hillary will call in all her chits to be named - but then we'd have two with the same attenuating factor.

The next focus must be on the one-on-one debates against Trump and Pence. Most will get creamed, as the moderators cannot save bad debaters from themselves (which is why Gabbard has an edge.) The main fear is the tail-coat effect and the lack of votes down-ticket. Biden with Hillary may not win a single state.

...But everything will be seen through the lens of the economy in November. Pelosi and Schumer are fixated on Kevin McCarthy and McConnell, so Covid-19 doesn't seem real to them except as a foil to tarnish the GOP. They will have the complicit media whatever happens, so they are throwing out sheet anchors to latch onto depending on the rebound. If the containment efforts ease late, then the debates are less important, but as we see now, even virtual town halls with Biden are coming apart.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: yossarian22c on March 27, 2020, 03:23:30 PM
...
The next focus must be on the one-on-one debates against Trump and Pence. Most will get creamed, as the moderators cannot save bad debaters from themselves (which is why Gabbard has an edge.) The main fear is the tail-coat effect and the lack of votes down-ticket. Biden with Hillary may not win a single state.
...

I'm in the boat thinking Biden is going to get creamed, however our society is simply too polarized for them not to pick up a significant number of states. Covid is still a wild card right now could go either way for Trump, but I expect Trump would win more states than he did in 2016 if Biden is his opponent. But Biden would still hold the democratic stalwarts. There just aren't enough swing voters anymore for a Nixon-McGovern type victory again.
Title: Re: Dem debates
Post by: TheDeamon on March 27, 2020, 03:51:42 PM
...
The next focus must be on the one-on-one debates against Trump and Pence. Most will get creamed, as the moderators cannot save bad debaters from themselves (which is why Gabbard has an edge.) The main fear is the tail-coat effect and the lack of votes down-ticket. Biden with Hillary may not win a single state.
...

I'm in the boat thinking Biden is going to get creamed, however our society is simply too polarized for them not to pick up a significant number of states. Covid is still a wild card right now could go either way for Trump, but I expect Trump would win more states than he did in 2016 if Biden is his opponent. But Biden would still hold the democratic stalwarts. There just aren't enough swing voters anymore for a Nixon-McGovern type victory again.

Agreed, I don't see a scenario where New York or California flips Republican on a presidential race anytime in the foreseeable future.