2020 Democratic Debates Watch Thread

[Fozzz 152]

11 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

What would prevent you from saying these things on MSNBC?

This is what happens when Tulsi goes on MSNBC.  She has to practically yell over this fucking moron to try to make her points.  It's just the same tired cheap smears over and over and over and over from them.  

 

 

[Anastasis 23703]

16 minutes ago, retread said:

When you know you're getting your ass handed to you

Look up peckerwood in the dictionary and there is a pic of this guy. 

[Fozzz 152]

16 minutes ago, Js1 said:

The (((liberal))) media conspiracy apparently.

And fuck any Democrat who goes on Fox - like Liz Warren said, fuck legitimizing Fox's hate propaganda. 

lol yes it's inherently antisemitic to criticize the media.  this is why one of the best books critiquing western media was written by the infamous jewish antisemite Edward Herman.

[RomaVicta 30508]

26 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

This is what happens when Tulsi goes on MSNBC.  She has to practically yell over this fucking moron to try to make her points.  It's just the same tired cheap smears over and over and over and over from them.  

 

 

That sort of talking over each other is what keeps me from watching much news TV. Tulsi makes a valid point if she has indeed answered that question multiple times before, but has she? Serious question. Her pat answer seems to always start with her experience as a soldier.

Is there a quote on record about that meeting with Assad? I just looked it up and it seems rather recent that she has denounced Assad.

It's a valid question to ask even if I don't like the style of the person asking it. I don't think the MSNBC host was much different than hosts on a number of other news channels including FOX and CNN.

[Fozzz 152]

7 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

That sort of talking over each other is what keeps me from watching much news TV. Tulsi makes a valid point if she has indeed answered that question multiple times before, but has she? Serious question. Her pat answer seems to always start with her experience as a soldier.

Is there a quote on record about that meeting with Assad? I just looked it up and it seems rather recent that she has denounced Assad.

It's a valid question to ask even if I don't like the style of the person asking it. I don't think the MSNBC host was much different than hosts on a number of other news channels including FOX and CNN.

It's a stupid question as her meeting with Assad does not imply that she supports Assad murdering civilians.  To ask that is just meant to smear her by associating her with Assad and his crimes.  This bullshit is no different than when every critic of the Iraq war was smeared as being a closet Baathist.  What makes this even more absurd and nauseating is that there are no shortage of murderous thugs we actually do support, but since these people are our "friends" obviously no one is expected to disavow them.

Tulsi has explained in detail why she visited Syria.

 

[David Dennison 19441]

4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

It's a stupid question as her meeting with Assad does not imply that she supports Assad murdering civilians.  To ask that is just meant to smear her by associating her with Assad and his crimes.  This bullshit is no different than when every critic of the Iraq war was smeared as being a closet Baathist.  What makes this even more absurd and nauseating is that there are no shortage of murderous thugs we actually do support, but since these people are our "friends" obviously no one is expected to disavow them.

Tulsi has explained in detail why she visited Syria.

It's an easy question to answer.

[RomaVicta 30508]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's an easy question to answer.

So it seems to me as well.

I don't mind her going to Syria to check things out and even meeting with Assad so long as she's aligned with the State Department. 

"I went to Syria to see the real story. I talked to Assad. What he has done to his country is horrific, but I don't think we need to risk American soldiers there. I've seen the cost as a soldier myself. It's very high and should only be paid when necessary."

I'd applaud that.

[NowThis 931]

4 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

So it seems to me as well.

I don't mind her going to Syria to check things out and even meeting with Assad so long as she's aligned with the State Department. 

"I went to Syria to see the real story. I talked to Assad. What he has done to his country is horrific, but I don't think we need to risk American soldiers there. I've seen the cost as a soldier myself. It's very high and should only be paid when necessary."

I'd applaud that.

well that's exactly what she said in the Anderson Cooper interview.  The twitter video here cuts off the critical part where she doesn't dispute AC's characterization of Assad as a "brutal dictator who tortures people".   Confusion is the double negative where she is against US involvement against Assad -- does not mean a positive ( - - not a +) for Assad.  A minor point, US casualties in Syria have been almost nothing and ISIS has been wiped out there by local mercenaries.  Not sure wtf she's talking about in risking US lives in Syria specifically. 

[David Dennison 19441]

Just now, NowThis said:

well that's exactly what she said in the Anderson Cooper interview.  The twitter video here cuts off the critical part where she doesn't dispute AC's characterization of Assad as a "brutal dictator who tortures people".   Confusion is the double negative where she is against US involvement against Assad -- does not mean a positive ( - - not a +) for Assad.  A minor point, US casualties in Syria have been almost nothing and ISIS has been wiped out there by local mercenaries.  Not sure wtf she's talking about in risking US lives in Syria specifically. 

"Do you consider him a torturer or murderer?"

"That's not what this is about."

That is a bad answer no matter what you say after it.

[Js1 86964]

13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's an easy question to answer.

Very.

Also, this whole thing is fucking bullshit.  Tulsi, Biden and Warren all get passes for their record before now because "those things are in the past, I've evolved, they are irrelevant to the here and now." But Harris has to own her time as SF DA and California AG and can't have evolved on her any views?

And you have this Grey's Anatomy chick and Chris Cillizza calling her angry (DOG WHISTLE) and saying she "lost her cool?"  But it is totally acceptable for a man to get angry and yell. 

[David Dennison 19441]

Just now, Js1 said:

Very.

Also, this whole thing is fucking bullshit.  Tulsi, Biden and Warren all get passes for their record before now because "those things are in the past, I've evolved, they are irrelevant to the here and now." But Harris has to own her time as SF DA and California AG and can't have evolved on her any views?

And you have this Grey's Anatomy chick and Chris Cillizza calling her angry (DOG WHISTLE) and saying she "lost her cool?"  But it is totally acceptable for a man to get angry and yell. 

Tulsi Gabbard's run for president is going nowhere, so it's not a big deal. If people want to waste money on her campaign, they are free to do so.

[NowThis 931]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

"Do you consider him a torturer or murderer?"

"That's not what this is about."

That is a bad answer no matter what you say after it.

except that it makes perfect sense + the critical part of the video was omitted.  She's saying it's not worth US lives to take on an admittedly evil madman.  It's weird though, if she's so damn anti war, why the fuck did she serve for 16 years and continue to be in the Army reserve? Weird chick. 

[David Dennison 19441]

2 minutes ago, NowThis said:

except that it makes perfect sense + the critical part of the video was omitted.  She's saying it's not worth US lives to take on an admittedly evil madman.  It's weird though, if she's so damn anti war, why the fuck did she serve for 16 years and continue to be in the Army reserve? Weird chick. 

She flubbed the answer to a very easy question.

"Is Putin a murderer?"

"That's not what this is about."

That's a bad answer.

Edited August 2, 2019 by David Dennison

[Biff Tannen 46063]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Tulsi Gabbard's run for president is going nowhere, so it's not a big deal. If people want to waste money on her campaign, they are free to do so.

This.  Let's stop talking about her.

[NowThis 931]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

She flubbed the answer to a very easy question.

"Is Putin a murderer?"

"That's not what this is about."

That's a bad answer.

you need to actually read my replies 

[David Dennison 19441]

1 minute ago, NowThis said:

you need to actually read my replies 

I read them. They have no bearing on my opinion that her answer to the question was a missed opportunity to call out Bashar al-Assad for what he is.

[Fozzz 152]

 

10 minutes ago, NowThis said:

except that it makes perfect sense + the critical part of the video was omitted.  She's saying it's not worth US lives to take on an admittedly evil madman.  It's weird though, if she's so damn anti war, why the fuck did she serve for 16 years and continue to be in the Army reserve? Weird chick. 

I think in a populist sense she is a nationalist and she believes regime change wars do not serve the interests of the American people and thus are not worth pursuing.  When it comes to combating ISIS and AQ she can actually be pretty hawkish.  

[David Dennison 19441]

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

I think in a populist sense she is a nationalist and she believes regime change wars do not serve the interests of the American people and thus are not worth pursuing.  When it comes to combating ISIS and AQ she can actually be pretty hawkish.  

She's right about the first part. 

[F250 29180]

Tulsi's foreign policy views are outside the norm for Democrats, Democrats are not much different than Republicans when it comes to foreign policy, the D's like to be a little more formal than the Republicans is all. Anyway's anyone with non-interventionist views is going to be treated like a weirdo who is in bed with the enemy.

 

[American Swindle 102]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

It's a stupid question as her meeting with Assad does not imply that she supports Assad murdering civilians.  To ask that is just meant to smear her by associating her with Assad and his crimes.  This bullshit is no different than when every critic of the Iraq war was smeared as being a closet Baathist.  What makes this even more absurd and nauseating is that there are no shortage of murderous thugs we actually do support, but since these people are our "friends" obviously no one is expected to disavow them.

Tulsi has explained in detail why she visited Syria.

 

Great post.

She's genuinely anti-war and wants Peace.  Anyone claiming that she is an Assad apologist and a tool of Russia is just another NPC. 

[American Swindle 102]

45 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Tulsi Gabbard's run for president is going nowhere, so it's not a big deal. If people want to waste money on her campaign, they are free to do so.

Yeah but her message of anti-regime change wars is getting major publicity and many are happily donating because they believe so strongly in that message.  I wouldn't call the spreading of this idea a "waste."

 

 

[NowThis 931]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

 

I think in a populist sense she is a nationalist and she believes regime change wars do not serve the interests of the American people and thus are not worth pursuing.  When it comes to combating ISIS and AQ she can actually be pretty hawkish.  

good explanation. Regime change takes massive resources over a long period with a strong chance of failure. Having Special Ops help local Shia or SDF forces kill off Isis / AQ will succeed at very low costs to the US. 

 

edit -- still, Syrian regime change does not involve direct confrontation of US troops vs. Syrian troops (unlike US vs. Iraq directly)... so wtf is Tulsi complaining about specifically about Syria?

Edited August 2, 2019 by NowThis

[406W30th 1111]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

Very.

Also, this whole thing is fucking bullshit.  Tulsi, Biden and Warren all get passes for their record before now because "those things are in the past, I've evolved, they are irrelevant to the here and now." But Harris has to own her time as SF DA and California AG and can't have evolved on her any views?

And you have this Grey's Anatomy chick and Chris Cillizza calling her angry (DOG WHISTLE) and saying she "lost her cool?"  But it is totally acceptable for a man to get angry and yell. 

Who's giving Biden a pass about his record? He's getting hammered on it. Tulsi is irrelevant but her anti-LGBT stuff, her Assad stuff, etc has been called out plenty. And what exactly is so bad on Liz Warren's record? (If you're going to say her claim of Native ancestry, it doesn't feel like she's getting a pass at all, but rather it's something she's owned and continues to own.)

Harris has evolved, and continues to evolve. Every week she changes her views, except on her record as prosecutor, which she says she's proud of.

[Lurch 5949]

Maybe also when the Democratic party rigs their primary and the preferred candidate runs a shitshow of a campaign in the states that actually matter.  But meh Russia!

Both sides. Especially the side that didn’t make him their candidate

[F250 29180]

1 hour ago, 406W30th said:

Harris has evolved, and continues to evolve. Every week she changes her views, except on her record as prosecutor, which she says she's proud of. 

That's not evolving, it's going in which ever direction the wind takes her.

 

[Anastasis 23703]

Queued to relevant time mark:

 

 

[bad_teammate 13482]

Yep yep.

Kamala is pure shit.

[Js1 86964]

First to drop out post-debate #2?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bad_teammate 13482]

lol he'll win and vote against Medicare for All.

[RomaVicta 30508]

14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Queued to relevant time mark:

 

 

I only saw her making a different valid point about media and politicians celebrating a president who uses force as acting "presidential." Good point. Well said.

Isn't the Assad issue that she hadn't over quite a long time denounced him?

I can't imagine that she's pro-Assad, but I must agree with the posters above who say she fumbled the question for quite a long time.

[Anastasis 23703]

8 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I only saw her making a different valid point about media and politicians celebrating a president who uses force as acting "presidential." Good point. Well said.

Yes, that is the overarching point of relevance.

 

[bad_teammate 13482]

9 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I can't imagine that she's pro-Assad, but I must agree with the posters above who say she fumbled the question for quite a long time.

She never praised him, so the only "stumble" is her not being able to silence disingenuous shitlibs.

I'm not even really a Gabbard fan.

[American Swindle 102]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Queued to relevant time mark:

 

 

 

[tantric superman 4668]

So of the generic white guy non-front runners still running, who do we like?

Since Delaney is bald and unlikable, I  was thinking we conservatives should switch our support to Steve Bullock or Jay "Lookit" Inslee.

 

 

 

[NowThis 931]

25 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

So of the generic white guy non-front runners still running, who do we like?

Since Delaney is bald and unlikable, I  was thinking we conservatives should switch our support to Steve Bullock or Jay "Lookit" Inslee.

 

 

 

been seeing a lot of rich man Tom Steyer ads.   Seems like a good guy, no?

[NowThis 931]

40 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

 

lots of people have met with the Assads 

[tantric superman 4668]

Just spoke with my aunt in Missoula.  She doesn't like Bullock.  Says he likes the ladies a bit much.

So he's got that going for him.

Edited August 2, 2019 by tantric superman

[Anastasis 23703]

Asma could catch a piece. 

[cactusflinthead 27626]

On 8/1/2019 at 9:44 AM, Incredulity said:

 

I'm sure you guys are right.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/P20-582.pdf

 

73% of voters are white.

57% of white voters are non-degree

not a sizable portion of the electorate.  FUCK THEM!

Yep. Fuck'em 

The group's support for Trump may largely reflect their political leanings as much as their affinity for Trump, as currently, 59% of non-college whites identify as Republicans or say they are independents who lean toward the Republican Party.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/248525/non-college-whites-affinity-gop-trump.aspx

Didn't say anything about closing up shop in the rust belt. Nor did I mention abandoning them to the basket of deplorables that cling to guns. But, I'm not spending a damn dime trying to reach someone that's a long shot. 

Their wives on the other hand. They might be turnin.

[bad_teammate 13482]

Good opportunity for some 0%ers to drop out and say, "MY POWERS ARE NEEDED ELSEWHERE!"

 

[Js1 86964]

Beto should drop out and switch to Senate in response to Cornyn’s bullshit response. 

[Larry T. Spider 1747]

If Beto runs with cornyns response as a major theme of his campaign, he’s running against a republican incumbent on a gun control platform. In Texas. I would support the shit out of him but I just don’t see it working. Texans (for now) are more ok with their neighbors being mowed down by white nationalists than reducing the number of AKs out there.

[Js1 86964]

The platform would be so similar to 2018: why do we have 2 elected Senators who stand up for Trump, McConnell and special interests harder than they do for Texans? 

[Larry T. Spider 1747]

Cornyn is a buffoon but he’s somewhat more likable than Cruz. What makes beating him seem more likely than the last result? Beto has to come back with a win and he would be an underdog in this one. I actually would rather him go after a house seat that’s more winnable. The senate will always be there.

[bad_teammate 13482]

4 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

Cornyn is a buffoon but he’s somewhat more likable than Cruz. What makes beating him seem more likely than the last result? Beto has to come back with a win and he would be an underdog in this one. I actually would rather him go after a house seat that’s more winnable. The senate will always be there.

Cornyn is less well-known than Cruz. Beto could out-famous him.

[RayDog 682]

18 minutes ago, Larry T. Spider said:

What makes beating him seem more likely than the last result?

2 million more people voting with the vast majority of them coming from the 10 biggest counties.

[Biff Tannen 46063]

Beto's best chance, IMO, is to get a VP slot.  He may one day be a senator, but not in this climate.  It's fucked up, but it is what it is.  

[bad_teammate 13482]

Beto is a small fish in a big pond on the national scene, but he's HUGE in Texas. At the Houston kickoff rally we easily had 10k. It was an awesome and diverse crowd, too.

Oddly, I think Beto's quixotic (so far) presidential run has kept his profile higher.

[David Dennison 19441]

8 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Beto's best chance, IMO, is to get a VP slot.  He may one day be a senator, but not in this climate.  It's fucked up, but it is what it is.  

The only reason Beto would be on the ticket is if the DNC thought it could flip Texas.

Not sure if he could.

[Biff Tannen 46063]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

The only reason Beto would be on the ticket is if the DNC thought it could flip Texas.

Not sure if he could.

Maybe.  But it's a pretty damn attractive option.  I wouldn't base my candidacy on it, but still.  Beto needs to be somewhere in the pubic eye.  He stirs emotions in the right way.