Event The Democratic Debates

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Harris/Warren

"Either sleep your way to the top, or claim you are an underrepresented minority when it's clear you a cracka ass cracka"
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
Harris/Warren

"Either sleep your way to the top, or claim you are an underrepresented minority when it's clear you a cracka ass cracka"
Click to expand...
clearly an upgrade over probably the biggest cracka ass cracka to ever sell snake oil....claiming he's a stable genius when it's clear he's just a fake and a liar...yup...when you reach the bottom of the barrel there's nowhere to go but up
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
Harris/Warren

"Either sleep your way to the top, or claim you are an underrepresented minority when it's clear you a cracka ass cracka"
Click to expand...

Is that all you got. Weak
 
If the Dems support open borders and free healthcare for illegals, they are probably going to lose.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
If the Dems support open borders and free healthcare for illegals, they are probably going to lose.
Click to expand...
first...the borders have never been "open" ….they just haven't been managed properly in places and didn't need to look like prison yards ..and the other is well.....infowars stuff dude free healthcare for ?
 
riverman said:
then they're not leading any "free world" duh
Click to expand...

It'll start that way. Building infrastructure around the world to underserved areas. They are like crack dealers by getting them hooked on free shit.

They are smarter and more ruthless than anyone else. Russians? Please. The Chinese is who we need to be cognizant about. It's too late though.
 
I only liked Kamala, Yang and Bernie from last night's debate. Though I have a feeling that Yang's presidential run isn't going anywhere.

I truly didn't care for anyone in the first night despite a lot of good stuff being said. Booker and Castro, either might make good VP's but that's about it for me. O'Rourke just plain stumbled over his dick the first debate so I couldn't get on board. I so want to like Warren but after her supporting Hillary in 2016 I just can't bring myself to.
 
Yang said he tried to talk at various points throughout the night and his mic was turned off/malfunctioning.

I'd like to chalk it up as a mishap, but seems a little too convenient.
 
Chris Craig said:
Kamala won the debate

Joe was Joe, Bernie was Bernie

Buttigeg was strong

Gilabrand was alright.

I liked Hickenlooper and Bennet.

Yang's $1,000 bucks a month sounded cool. I think he would fit well in the cabinet somewhere...as president I don't know

Eric Swalwell looked like he was going to cry everytime he spoke. He had interesting things to say. Some good moments. I don't think he goes much further.

Marianne Williamson....how in the hell did she get in the debate
Click to expand...
I like Hickenlooper also, he seems to have objectively accomplished many of the issue that that were talking about last night, on a State level.
I still think a proven accomplished Governor has more hands on experience than senators or reps that don't seem to get anything done on a national level. Those that buy into the extreme left ideas without room for balance, only isolate themselves from the ability to bring people together in order to lead.
 
barfo said:
My wrapup from Part B:

Williamson: Parody account, like Trump. If the Dems want to pick the silliest possible candidate, she's your man.
Hickenlooper: I'm sure he's a nice guy. He doesn't belong in this race. If your big idea is "socialism=bad", you don't have any big ideas.
Yang: Sorry, Yang fans. If he's got it, he didn't show it. I guess he needs to be more of an interrupting asshole like everyone else.
Buttigieg: Wilted a bit when the 1%'ers attacked him. Might have a Beto problem in that way - might not be good in a clinch. Solid night otherwise.
Biden: Started strong, but as the hits piled up, lost his feet. I'm not sure anyone really cares about busing in 2019, but a frontrunner has to defend.
Bernie: Combed his hair. Kinda went downhill from there. Made a few good points, but his answer on M4A implementation was ridiculously lame.
Kamala: Clear winner of the night.
Kirsten the Friendly Ghost: had some good moments but nothing like what she needed to break out. I think she's toast.
Bennet: Kind of likeable in a quirky way, but didn't swim nearly far enough upstream to spawn.
Swalwell: Looked a bit constipated. He's clearly not in it to win it, he just wants to raise his profile for future races. As such he's a distraction.

Overall, these two days didn't change a lot for me. I'm still in Mayor Pete's camp, as far as who I'm leaning towards. The other 5-6 leaders are all acceptable to me, as are several of the 1%'ers.

barfo
Click to expand...
I know predict that Hillary jumps in the race knowing that women are now leaping her. LOL JK...there was a time I though for sure she would run again.
 
My take on night 2:

Good:

Harris, clearly the winner, wove her story and policies together. The pic of her as a young girl has gone viral. Knocked Biden off his pins. A lot of people left hoping to see her use her prosecutorial skills against Trump.
Swalwell, some good answers, especially on gun control, won't get nomination but possibly seek open Senate seat from California
Buttigieg, acknowledged without glossing over or excusing problems between police and Black community, willing to say he needs to work on a problem, refreshing after current occupant of White House who praises himself for everything and blames everyone else.

Bad:

Biden, started well, parried Swalwell's comment about passing the torch, but fell apart when Harris got going. Saying desegregation should be left to local authorities was exactly the segregationist position, no one from the government should tell us in Mississippi how to treat "our n-----s". If Harris got under his skin, what would Trump do?
Sanders, nothing wrong with showing passion but he is permanently stuck on 11. I don't like being constantly yelled at. When candidates were asked about one signature issue he went into a rant about political revolution no one understood.
Yang, chance to introduce himself, underwhelmed, others who proposed national income put an income limit on it but he did not. Should Bill Gates get $12,000 a year in taxpayer money?
Williamson, trying to sell books
Hickenlooper, a good governor but had to say "I am not a socialist" every sentence
Gillebrand, I agree on campaign finance reform but it is not the answer to every question
Bennet, did he say anything?
 
Why does it matter if Gates gets $12,000 a year? Everyone gets the dividend so everyone feels invested in America. That's the theory anyway. Excluding them will cause more resentment. Bottom line is it's still progressive anyways.

$12,000 a year for someone at the poverty level is big for them.

$12,000 a year for middle class means they can pay for tuition for their child, pay off their house sooner, spend it on stupid shit, or put it away for savings.

$12,000 a year for Gates, he will wipe his ass with it.
 
Also, you get to choose whether you want the $12,000 a year OR whether you want to keep your current welfare benefits/social security.

Younger people are going to choose the $12,000 now because there probably won't even be Social Security for us later. Gates would probably just keep his social security.
 
Not a single candidate is exhibiting any honesty, or maybe they are all truly as ignorant of economic theory as their statements make them appear.
$12,000 per year “free” simply raises the cost of living for everyone $12,000 a year. A tax on Wall Street transactions comes directly out of your pension and other retirement accounts. There’s no way to tax anyone in America without the tax ultimately being a further burden on the poor. All poverty in America is the result of over-taxation, all wealth in America is the result of Capitalism.
 
MARIS61 said:
Not a single candidate is exhibiting any honesty, or maybe they are all truly as ignorant of economic theory as their statements make them appear.
$12,000 per year “free” simply raises the cost of living for everyone $12,000 a year. A tax on Wall Street transactions comes directly out of your pension and other retirement accounts. There’s no way to tax anyone in America without the tax ultimately being a further burden on the poor. All poverty in America is the result of over-taxation, all wealth in America is the result of Capitalism.
Click to expand...

Hint: it wouldn’t raise the cost of living on everyone by 12000. I think the plan (which I think is somewhat crazy) is to tax the wealthy. Maybe you’re new to the Democratic Party
 
SlyPokerCat said:
Why does it matter if Gates gets $12,000 a year? Everyone gets the dividend so everyone feels invested in America. That's the theory anyway. Excluding them will cause more resentment. Bottom line is it's still progressive anyways.

$12,000 a year for someone at the poverty level is big for them.

$12,000 a year for middle class means they can pay for tuition for their child, pay off their house sooner, spend it on stupid shit, or put it away for savings.

$12,000 a year for Gates, he will wipe his ass with it.
Click to expand...

On an unrelated note, the new iphone is expected to cost $12,000.
 
calvin natt said:
Hint: it wouldn’t raise the cost of living on everyone by 12000. I think the plan (which I think is somewhat crazy) is to tax the wealthy. Maybe you’re new to the Democratic Party
Click to expand...
Much of it comes from a value added tax on the corporations saving money by automating jobs. Yang has been going around to these companies for years talking to them about it.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
On an unrelated note, the new iphone is expected to cost $12,000.
Click to expand...
FYI, this is Yang's response to the inflation idea.

WOULDN’T THAT CAUSE RAMPANT INFLATION?
December 28, 2017 by Leave a Comment

The federal government recently printed $4 trillion for the bank bailouts in its quantitative easing program with no inflation. Our plan for a Universal Basic Income uses mostly money already in the economy. In monetary economics, leading theory states that inflation is based on changes in the supply of money. Our UBI plan has minimal changes in the supply of money because it is funded by a Value-added Tax.

It is likely that some companies will increase their prices in response to people having more buying power, and a VAT would also increase prices marginally. However, there will still be competition between firms that will keep prices in check. Over time, technology will continue to decrease the prices of most goods where it is allowed to do so (e.g., clothing, media, consumer electronics, etc.). The main inflation we currently experience is in sectors where automation has not been applied due to government regulation or inapplicability – primarily housing, education, and healthcare. The real issue isn’t Universal Basic Income, it’s whether technology and automation will be allowed to reduce prices in different sectors.
Click to expand...

https://www.yang2020.com/blog/ubi_faqs/wouldnt-cause-rampant-inflation/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

HailBlazers
Commission on Presidential debates
Replies
15
Views
766
HailBlazers
HailBlazers
MARIS61
THIRD PARTY(S) 2012 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE - OCT. 23
Replies
24
Views
2K
Denny Crane
Denny Crane
SlyPokerDog
Politics Republican Party’s fear of debate highlights our slide toward authoritarianism
Replies
5
Views
552
crandc
crandc
Phatguysrule
Politics Political Debate Proposal
Replies
9
Views
399
Lanny
Lanny
magnifier661
Politics GOP candidates excludes RNC in negotiations with networks
Replies
2
Views
436
jlprk
jlprk

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top