2020 Democratic Debates Watch Thread

[Jack 51]

2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I think it's pretty easy to state your case that Tulsi shouldn't be taken seriously without the "Russian agent" nonsense. 

 

Tulsi should absolutely be taken seriously because she exposed a significant weakness in the Media's favorite candidate.  If Harris can't handle the heat from Tulsi, she has no business sharing the stage with Trump.  Whoever faces him needs to be able to defend themselves which Harris completely failed to do.  Don't think for a second that one of those exonerated death row inmates Tusli brought up last night wont be one of Trump's special guests during the debates.

[Dirk X West 772]

24 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Ideas are great, but one of the things I look for in a candidate is whether or not they seem Presidential.  Bernie doesn't fit the bill for me...Warren does. 

To me, Bernie is the left's version of Ron Paul.

 

Yeah, because advocating for socialized healthcare is totally the left wing version of buddying up with the KKK.

[GRHorn 105]

 

[DixonHur 11074]

5 minutes ago, Dirk X West said:

Yeah, because advocating for socialized healthcare is totally the left wing version of buddying up with the KKK.

Reading comprehension isn't your forte I see.  

I was talking about personality...vis-a-vis being presidential, but whatevs

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20342]

29 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

What does this even mean?

presidential  [ prez-i-den-shuh l ]SHOW IPA

adjective

of or relating to a president or presidency.

of the nature of a president.

[Dirk X West 772]

7 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

presidential  [ prez-i-den-shuh l ]SHOW IPA

adjective

of or relating to a president or presidency.

of the nature of a president.

No descriptor could be possibly be more vague or subjective.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Dirk X West

[suddenly shaggy 929]

4 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Kamala's National Press Secretary chimes in. Oof.

Not sure her campaign has the discipline to win this primary. 

 

There are a number of scholars on Twitter that track how these fake movements get pushed. @rvawonk and @katestarbird are good ones to read if you want a sense of how this disinformation spreads and who is ultimately behind them. @rvawonk, in particular, is a prolific twitter poster, she often posts about white supremacist groups like the Proud Boys and has repeatedly drawn their ire. @katestarbird posts far less, but her research is fantastic.

So far, it's not Russians directly, but predominately US accounts using the same tactics Russia trolls and bots used. Look at our own board to see this. Several of the same people who are pushing Tulsi on here are the same people that have been lying on here for years, claiming there was no Russian interference in 2016, or that it was trivial and ineffective.

An example from the last couple of pages, Fozzz has been one of her most vocal supporters on here since Tulsi first started to draw attention, well before any of the debates. That should give anyone who knows his posting history serious reasons to doubt whether Tulsi has any organic support even among the meager 1-2% she polls.

Here's what @rvawonk has to say about it. 

 

Here's why Tulsi should be unelectable by any political party in the United States. Being a homophobe as shown earlier in the thread and giving propaganda wins to a dictator, murderer, torturer and war criminal is spectacularly bad judgement at a minimum and indicates she is dishonest and an especially shitty human being. This in no way should be viewed as me endorsing Kamala. I think she's a shitty human being as well. 

 

 

[Hank Kingsley 20635]

Tulsi’s attacks on Kamala stand on their own merit and have nothing to do with Assad. They don’t look different at all. 

People’s brains are turning to mush.

[Js1 85056]

Tulsi won the Breitbart and Drudge polls for last night.

Democrats who support Tulsi have brain worms. 

[Doc Sam Beckett 5781]

9 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Tulsi won the Breitbart and Drudge polls for last night.

Democrats who support Tulsi have brain worms. 

Of course she did because the pubs are scared shitless of facing Harris. 

[NowThis 931]

remembering the late great Ross Perot and his 30 minute infomercials which were a new sensation in politics , pre internet. 

The candidates would do well by having their plans explained with charts/pie charts in 15-30 minute detail on Youtube.  It's free! Anyone can do it and would be extremely helpful when compared to 20-30 seconds on stage.  If someone catches on, answers the FAQ, they'll have a massive advantage. As with Perot, the graphs broke it down for regular folks and with no political machine got 19% of the vote.  Warren / Bernie need this .

[Hank Kingsley 20635]

Very few Democrats support Gabbard. She did all of us a favor by exposing major weaknesses in Harris’ candidacy: Her record and career as a prosecutor and inability to handle criticism.

Now let’s see how Kamala responds.

[Fozzz 152]

1 hour ago, suddenly shaggy said:

There are a number of scholars on Twitter that track how these fake movements get pushed. @rvawonk and @katestarbird are good ones to read if you want a sense of how this disinformation spreads and who is ultimately behind them. @rvawonk, in particular, is a prolific twitter poster, she often posts about white supremacist groups like the Proud Boys and has repeatedly drawn their ire. @katestarbird posts far less, but her research is fantastic.

So far, it's not Russians directly, but predominately US accounts using the same tactics Russia trolls and bots used. Look at our own board to see this. Several of the same people who are pushing Tulsi on here are the same people that have been lying on here for years, claiming there was no Russian interference in 2016, or that it was trivial and ineffective.

An example from the last couple of pages, Fozzz has been one of her most vocal supporters on here since Tulsi first started to draw attention, well before any of the debates. That should give anyone who knows his posting history serious reasons to doubt whether Tulsi has any organic support even among the meager 1-2% she polls.

Here's what @rvawonk has to say about it. 

 

Here's why Tulsi should be unelectable by any political party in the United States. Being a homophobe as shown earlier in the thread and giving propaganda wins to a dictator, murderer, torturer and war criminal is spectacularly bad judgement at a minimum and indicates she is dishonest and an especially shitty human being. This in no way should be viewed as me endorsing Kamala. I think she's a shitty human being as well. 

 

 

keep this up suddenly shaggy and i'm gonna have to tell my GRU handler that you need to be silenced.  is that what you want?

[bad_teammate 13125]

If you don't like cop candidates and you think the Russia thing is overblown, you're a Russian spy!!!!!!!!!!!

[suddenly shaggy 929]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Tulsi’s attacks on Kamala stand on their own merit and have nothing to do with Assad. They don’t look different at all. 

People’s brains are turning to mush.

Kamala sucks and her record is horrible. I'm glad Tulsi went after her on it. 

Tulsi sucks and her record is horrible. I'm glad Kamala is going after her for it. 

They both suck independently of each other and I hope both Kamala and Tulsi are out of the race as soon as possible. 

 

8 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

keep this up suddenly shaggy and i'm gonna have to tell my GRU handler that you need to be silenced.  is that what you want?

You have issues with reading comprehension, or are intentionally misstating what I posted.  

So far, it's not Russians directly, but predominately US accounts using the same tactics Russia trolls and bots used. Look at our own board to see this. Several of the same people who are pushing Tulsi on here are the same people that have been lying on here for years, claiming there was no Russian interference in 2016, or that it was trivial and ineffective.

[Anastasis 23375]

1 hour ago, Hank Kingsley said:

People’s brains are turning to mush.

"The Mush Pit" would be a pretty good and accurate name for the politics board.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

It's a huge problem that Russia and other enemies are continuing to fuck with our election process, and it's a disgrace that Trump and the Republicans are supporting them in that effort.   The Twitter bot deployment against Harris is another disturbing data point on this issue that needs to be recognized and addressed. 

That said, how does Kamala not have an answer to Tulsi's criticism?   It's a huge problem that Kamala could only muster "I'm proud of my record," rather than something like "that's complete nonsense, I didn't do anything like that, I took over one of the largest prosecutor's office in the country and instituted these reforms: x, y, z.   You're misrepresenting things that I actually took the lead in fixing."   Even on CNN post-debate, she had no answer, just dismissed Tulsi as a loser.

What else does the audience conclude but that Kamala did withhold evidence that exonerated someone, did oppose the release of prisoners to exploit their labor, and was extremely harsh on pot offenders.   Not just that, but that she's proud of it today and has no regrets! 

Even if she fixes this, what does it say about her that she wasn't prepared to address her biggest vulnerability during the second debate?     What's she going to do when Trump just makes up shit about her during a debate?

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Just clarifying again, I think Kamala Harris' record is horrid. I think she has super thin skin and cannot tolerate criticism. I'm glad she's gone after Biden and Tulsi, but she is single-handedly responsible for putting countless poor and minority people in prison for non-violent drug offenses, ruining their life and their family's lives forever. The gaping holes this left has rippled through their communities and will take decades to heal, if not generations. That should permanently disqualify her for consideration for becoming the Democratic presidential candidate.

That said, the #KamalaHarrisDestroyed WAS started by a Trump supporter and was propagated by his 509K followers, now 510K.

His tweet has been viewed 493,000 times, it's been retweeted 15,233 times and been liked 41,797 times. Almost all of them have been by actual accounts, not bots. 

I happen to agree with him, but it is a fact that this particular hashtag was initiated and propagated by Trump supporters. 

 

[Anastasis 23375]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

keep this up suddenly shaggy and i'm gonna have to tell my GRU handler that you need to be silenced.  is that what you want?

Fozz, get your shit together.  You are behind schedule on production of the LGBTQ Tulsi surfing pictures coloring book.  That shit is pivotal to the movement. Don't make me report you to the Directorate for slacking off. 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

This is the guy that started the hashtag. Not a lot of ambiguity on who he supports. 

[Fozzz 152]

oh noes!

[Hank Kingsley 20635]

1 hour ago, suddenly shaggy said:

That said, the #KamalaHarrisDestroyed WAS started by a Trump supporter and was propagated by his 509K followers, now 510K.

His tweet has been viewed 493,000 times, it's been retweeted 15,233 times and been liked 41,797 times. Almost all of them have been by actual accounts, not bots. 

I happen to agree with him, but it is a fact that this particular hashtag was initiated and propagated by Trump supporters. 

 

Is there supposed to be something surprising or shocking about this? Trump supporters on Twitter are trolls.

This is nothing. Wait until the general election and they can focus their attention on 1 candidate.

Edited August 1, 2019 by Hank Kingsley

[Anastasis 23375]

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Tulsi won the Breitbart and Drudge polls for last night.

Democrats who support Tulsi have brain worms. 

Marianne Williamson won the Drudge poll the first night. 

[suddenly shaggy 929]

18 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

Is there supposed to be something surprising or shocking about this? Trump supporters on Twitter are trolls.

This is nothing. Wait until the general election and they can focus their attention on 1 candidate.

For many of us, it's not surprising in the slightest. If someone is paying close attention, it's been obvious on here for some time. The Tulsi thread on here was started by a Trump/"GJ" troll and almost all of the "support" for her on there is from Trump/"GF" trolls, especially on the third, most recent page. 

For other people, yes, it is important to point out Astroturfing. Astroturfing is effective. A huge portion of this country is not paying attention. The only way someone like Trump becomes president is if most Americans aren't paying attention, or are overwhelmed and tune out.  

Trump literally wouldn't be President right now if Astroturfing and dominating the online info space in 2015 didn't work. For that reason, it's important to point out Astroturfing while it's happening, even if I agree with the point they are spreading.

I agree with you that their trolling and Astroturfing will go to 11 once they can focus on a single candidate. The consequences will be much more pronounced. @rvawonk and @katestarbird will be analyzing who is responsible then as well. 

[Incredulity 11532]

13 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

For many of us, it's not surprising in the slightest. If someone is paying close attention, it's been obvious on here for some time. The Tulsi thread on here was started by a Trump/"GJ" troll and almost all of the "support" for her on there is from Trump/"GF" trolls, especially on the third, most recent page. 

For other people, yes, it is important to point out Astroturfing. Astroturfing is effective. A huge portion of this country is not paying attention. The only way someone like Trump becomes president is if most Americans aren't paying attention, or are overwhelmed and tune out.  

Trump literally wouldn't be President right now if Astroturfing and dominating the online info space in 2015 didn't work. For that reason, it's important to point out Astroturfing while it's happening, even if I agree with the point they are spreading.

I agree with you that their trolling and Astroturfing will go to 11 once they can focus on a single candidate. The consequences will be much more pronounced. @rvawonk and @katestarbird will be analyzing who is responsible then as well. 

You absolutely LOVE the smell of your own farts.

lighten up, Francis.

 

[Anastasis 23375]

21 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

The only way someone like Trump becomes president is if most Americans aren't paying attention, or are overwhelmed and tune out.  

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!

[Doc Sam Beckett 5781]

3 hours ago, Mojo Hand said:

 

That said, how does Kamala not have an answer to Tulsi's criticism?    It's a huge problem that Kamala could only muster "I'm proud of my record," rather than something like "that's complete nonsense, I didn't do anything like that, I took over one of the largest prosecutor's office in the country and instituted these reforms: x, y, z.   You're misrepresenting things that I actually took the lead in fixing."   Even on CNN post-debate, she had no answer, just dismissed Tulsi as a loser.

 

 

She did exactly that earlier in the debate. The Surl doesn't like her, and I don't blame anyone cause she has significant problems, but the dislike is clouding judgment. It was hilarious to see her talk about her health care plan separating employment from medical insurance and nobody says shit. Yang says the same thing less than a minute later and god dammit he's right! She wasn't terrible last night, aside from taking the tulsi shot right in the kisser. 

I want Warren, but after her I don't see much hope. As of now, if it's not Warren, then I want the candidate who has the best chance to beat Donald and that would be Harris then Uncle Joe. 

[Anastasis 23375]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

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!

Oh wait how did I forget.  Maybe also if the virtue signalling director of the FBI didn't totally fucking shithole the election in weeks before votes were cast. 

 

Always easier to externalize the shit show than it is to come to grips with the real root causes. 

Edited August 2, 2019 by Anastasis

[TexArcher 37455]

6 hours ago, Zavala said:

 

As opposed to the fat hands they're in now??

[UTDD 362]

I have to admit -- when this all started, I thought Warren might be one of the weakest foils for Trump as I felt she lacked the right charisma to command/dominate where it mattered.  The more I watch everyone, I am becoming more convinced she might be the only one that can actually stand toe to toe with Trump and battle at a high level.  I still worry about her strength in the Midwest a little, but I really can't even imagine how Sanders/Harris/Biden could stand up to Trump properly, and no others are real contenders to me.

[bolverk 29360]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Oh wait how did I forget.  Maybe also if the virtue signalling director of the FBI didn't totally fucking shithole the election in weeks before votes were cast. 

 

Always easier to externalize the shit show than it is to come to grips with the real root causes. 

You seem to be forgetting the 4.5 million Gary Johnson voters that gave us this melted pumpkin president who lost the popular vote. If we're going to rehash history for the umpteenth time and not address what's happening now, that group of culpable regards is a very ripe target for blame shaming as well.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5781]

Just now, UTDD said:

I have to admit -- when this all started, I thought Warren might be one of the weakest foils for Trump as I felt she lacked the right charisma to command/dominate where it mattered.  The more I watch everyone, I am becoming more convinced she might be the only one that can actually stand toe to toe with Trump and battle at a high level.  I still worry about her strength in the Midwest a little, but I really can't even imagine how Sanders/Harris/Biden could stand up to Trump properly, and no others are real contenders to me.

Seriously? Warren is awesome for many reasons, and I think she would be fine standing up to Trump, but Kamala would absolutely eviscerate Donald and he would be terrified to attack her like he attacks Warren. The problem with Kamala isn't her ability to stand up to Donald, it's her checkered past and a swampy feel to her. She's the one I'm least worried about when it comes to trading blows with trump. 

[Anastasis 23375]

1 minute ago, bolverk said:

You seem to be forgetting the 4.5 million Gary Johnson voters that gave us this melted pumpkin president who lost the popular vote. If we're going to rehash history for the umpteenth time and not address what's happening now, that group of culpable regards is a very ripe target for blame shaming as well.

Yes, lets address those fucking idiots. Before I start @ calling out posters, maybe they can self identify here for ridicule. 

[Anastasis 23375]

Oh, and the notion that GJ voters (whose perspective I can actually appreciate) had a greater impact than the actions of James Comey on teh election is totally without any basis. 

[gmr548 16463]

8 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Warren

Bernie

That's it for me. Everyone else can drop out.

Yep. Warren is in front by quite a bit for me, but the fact is those two are the only ones serious about the kind of change needed in this country.

[Message Board User 12389]

If next week's polls show Biden's lead to be steady, this forum may combust.

[texastough 1128]

Eh, only 8 million people watched these debates so there won't be drastic movement for anyone including Biden. But his lead will continue to slowly and steadily erode. At some point in the next few months he'll fall behind and it will be clear he is not the best bet for beating trump, and then his remaining support will drop off a cliff.

[bad_teammate 13125]

8 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

If next week's polls show Biden's lead to be steady, this forum may combust.

Biden winning the primary is the only thing that makes sense from a narrative perspective given the direction of the nation and world.

[UTDD 362]

25 minutes ago, Doc Sam Beckett said:

Seriously? Warren is awesome for many reasons, and I think she would be fine standing up to Trump, but Kamala would absolutely eviscerate Donald and he would be terrified to attack her like he attacks Warren. The problem with Kamala isn't her ability to stand up to Donald, it's her checkered past and a swampy feel to her. She's the one I'm least worried about when it comes to trading blows with trump. 

Maybe, but I was seriously unimpressed that Tulsi (who I know very well and how strong and weak she really is for this kind of thing) could hit her so hard and so effectively.  I'm even more unimpressed she could not effectively attack Biden this time around when she really had to take him down to get more traction.  Biden survived the night fine (except maybe his own self-induced meme worthy error) and probably suffers no real setback from this debate.  Tulsi is also not nearly the foil Trump would be when it counts.  I think Trump will attack everyone hard without any holding back no matter who it is that runs on the other side.  I guess we will see.

[bolverk 29360]

29 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Oh, and the notion that GJ voters (whose perspective I can actually appreciate) had a greater impact than the actions of James Comey on teh election is totally without any basis. 

It's all conjecture over historical what-ifs and my primary point was that it's time to move on. We're in a new electoral cycle now. Let's make asses of ourselves prognosticating about the present and future rather than the past. If your point was that we shouldn't be concerned with electoral influence by malevolent outsiders like Putin -- along with MBS, Iran, and China -- then I don't know what to tell you.

[Message Board User 12389]

Maybe this has something to do with why Biden's poll numbers are so resilient...and why attacking anything that has to do with Obama is downright foolish.

 

[bad_teammate 13125]

Delaney!!

[Js1 85056]

Both Delaney and Tulsi immediately went to Fox News after the debates to cry about their treatment by Warren (Delaney) and CNN (Gabbard). 

 

[Fozzz 152]

I don't think there is anything wrong with going on FNC - it's just another media outlet where you have the chance to say things that you can't really say on MSNBC.  The reasons why people like Tulsi and Greenwald go on FNC are far different from the reasons Delaney does.  

[Js1 85056]

Klobuchar has qualified for debate #3 

[Anastasis 23375]

Just now, Js1 said:

Klobuchar has qualified for debate #3 

[RomaVicta 29756]

33 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I don't think there is anything wrong with going on FNC - it's just another media outlet where you have the chance to say things that you can't really say on MSNBC.  The reasons why people like Tulsi and Greenwald go on FNC are far different from the reasons Delaney does.  

What would prevent you from saying these things on MSNBC?

[retread 2951]

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

[Js1 85056]

2 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

What would prevent you from saying these things on MSNBC?

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

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

[406W30th 1111]

56 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Klobuchar has qualified for debate #3 

Great news for people who like to hear her drone on about how Trump is bad and that we shouldn't try to do anything ambitious.