Page 258 of 299 FirstFirst ... 158208248256257258259260268 ... LastLast
Results 2,571 to 2,580 of 2984

Thread: Democrats 2020

  1. Top | #2571
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Lebanon, OR
    Posts
    7,107
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    23,936
    Rep Power
    81
    Kamala Calls Out Tulsi, Biden’s Poor Word Choice and 4 Other Highlights From 5th Democratic Debate
    1. Kamala Harris and Tulsi Gabbard go head-to-head over Gabbard’s record
    After TG criticized the Democratic Party "is a party that has been and continues to be influenced by the foreign-policy establishment represented by Hillary Clinton, the military-industrial complex and other greedy interests," KH responded by asking how much of a Democrat she is, criticizing Obama on Fox News, then wanting to buddy up with Steve Bannon, and never criticizing Bashar Assad's regime's human-rights record. “What Senator Harris is doing is unfortunately continuing to traffic in smears and lies and innuendos because she cannot challenge the substance of the argument that I’m making, the leadership and the change I am seeking to bring in our foreign policy,” TG responded.

    2. Joe Biden’s poor word choice about violence against women - “punching at it.”

    3. Biden, forgetting about Harris, says he is endorsed by the “only” African American woman elected to the senate - Carol Mosley Braun

    4. Harris addresses white candidates’ outreach — or lack thereof — to black voters - only during election time, it seems, and ignoring them the rest of the time.

    5. Pete Buttigieg attacks Gabbard’s “judgment” for meeting with Bashar al-Assad

    6. Memorable one-liners:
    Amy Klobuchar: “‘If you think a woman can’t beat Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi does it every single day.”
    Pete Buttigieg: he is the “least wealthy person on this stage.”


    As to how they dressed, all the men wore business suits with Andrew Yang being the only tieless one. Kamala Harris wore a white pantsuit, Amy Klobuchar a blue skirtsuit or a blue dress with a blue jacket, Elizabeth Warren a dark purple jacket with her usual black shirt and pants, and Kamala Harris a light gray jacket and pants with a purple shirt.

  2. Top | #2572
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,620
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    9,009
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Well first, you'd need to actually present a plan in order for it to not be thought as fantasy or even imaginary.
    Are we talking about the same candidate here? The one with the website detailing all of his plans, the one who wrote the bill that half the people campaigning against it co-signed? That's a baseless smear.

    Yes, that's nice. You continue to pretend that the revolution is going to happen any time now. Anyone dumb enough to believe what you just wrote is grossfully ignorant of American history and the quasi-failure of the Socialists in the US. It ignores how and why the AFL (kind of socialist) won over the IWW (socialist). Such thinking is akin to libertarianism. It ignores human nature of not just the wealthy, but the not wealthy.
    Your reply has all the usual chestnuts, but it's not a total loss because you managed to include the word "grossfully". The AFL is a reactionary organization that won dominance like every other political force in the country: by assisting imperialism. In every instance, it has supported the US and capital over progressive or left-wing governments around the world. Its long and dirty history of being a cheerleader for the state department can be found here. Given that fact, what you're saying amounts to what centrists always say: in the past, socialists were not successful, therefore they can never be successful, because human nature. It's not even worth explaining why such a simplistic take is not only inaccurate but exactly what needs to be dismissed if we want to make any actual progress.

  3. Top | #2573
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    25,002
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    67,475
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    Well first, you'd need to actually present a plan in order for it to not be thought as fantasy or even imaginary.
    Are we talking about the same candidate here? The one with the website detailing all of his plans, the one who wrote the bill that half the people campaigning against it co-signed? That's a baseless smear.
    So you have nothing to provide then?
    Yes, that's nice. You continue to pretend that the revolution is going to happen any time now. Anyone dumb enough to believe what you just wrote is grossfully ignorant of American history and the quasi-failure of the Socialists in the US. It ignores how and why the AFL (kind of socialist) won over the IWW (socialist). Such thinking is akin to libertarianism. It ignores human nature of not just the wealthy, but the not wealthy.
    Your reply has all the usual chestnuts, but it's not a total loss because you managed to include the word "grossfully". The AFL is a reactionary organization that won dominance like every other political force in the country: by assisting imperialism. In every instance, it has supported the US and capital over progressive or left-wing governments around the world. Its long and dirty history of being a cheerleader for the state department can be found here. Given that fact, what you're saying amounts to what centrists always say: in the past, socialists were not successful, therefore they can never be successful, because human nature. It's not even worth explaining why such a simplistic take is not only inaccurate but exactly what needs to be dismissed if we want to make any actual progress.
    My glob your are deaf as a door knob. The note regarding human nature is important because it wasn't just the organization atop the AFL mountain that led to the AFL winning. The AFL started from nothing, much like the IWW. The IWW lost because it didn't have the enduring support of members. Yes, IWW membership would increase during strikes, but once people got concessions, they dropped back, they always drop back in order to maintain them. So IWW would grow and contract while the AFL would support labor, but not rock the boat too much.

    You can blame executives all you want, but if people aren't willing to fight it, you are foolish for suggesting that there is a fight to be had. A socialist noted in, I believe, the early 20th century 'There is something inherent in human nature that makes our cause a pathetic joke.' You are ready to go and wage a war with no army, or your Godot.

  4. Top | #2574
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,620
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    9,009
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    My glob your are deaf as a door knob. The note regarding human nature is important because it wasn't just the organization atop the AFL mountain that led to the AFL winning. The AFL started from nothing, much like the IWW. The IWW lost because it didn't have the enduring support of members. Yes, IWW membership would increase during strikes, but once people got concessions, they dropped back, they always drop back in order to maintain them. So IWW would grow and contract while the AFL would support labor, but not rock the boat too much.
    Which led to the thriving labor movement and strong working class we have today! Thanks AFL

    You can blame executives all you want, but if people aren't willing to fight it, you are foolish for suggesting that there is a fight to be had. A socialist noted in, I believe, the early 20th century 'There is something inherent in human nature that makes our cause a pathetic joke.' You are ready to go and wage a war with no army, or your Godot.
    Again, you commit the same fallacy: because people in the past were not willing to fight for something, people in general will never be willing to fight for it. The conditions in society that might affect people's willingness to fight for something are absolutely identical between today and 50 years ago, so instead of examining why they lost the fight we should conclude that homo sapiens is just not the kind of animal that should fight for something more than once. As of yesterday, the Sanders campaign broke the 4 million mark in individual donations, a first for any political campaign in history, and it's just getting started. If you want to talk about "no army", you're picking on the wrong movement.

  5. Top | #2575
    Administrator lpetrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Lebanon, OR
    Posts
    7,107
    Archived
    16,829
    Total Posts
    23,936
    Rep Power
    81
    The Fifth Democratic Debate In 6 Charts | FiveThirtyEight

    Klobuchar, Yang, Booker, and Buttigieg performed better than average, with Harris somewhat behind. Steyer, Sanders, and Warren performed close to average, and Biden and Gabbard worse than average.

    Warren talked the most, and Buttigieg mentioned the President the most.

    Pete Buttigieg: the latest polling surge, explained - Vox - he's doing well in Iowa.

  6. Top | #2576
    Veteran Member Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    'Merica
    Posts
    4,596
    Archived
    2,675
    Total Posts
    7,271
    Rep Power
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    The Fifth Democratic Debate In 6 Charts | FiveThirtyEight

    Klobuchar, Yang, Booker, and Buttigieg performed better than average, with Harris somewhat behind. Steyer, Sanders, and Warren performed close to average, and Biden and Gabbard worse than average.

    Warren talked the most, and Buttigieg mentioned the President the most.

    Pete Buttigieg: the latest polling surge, explained - Vox - he's doing well in Iowa.
    The more I see of Mayor Pete, the more I think "this guy's got the goods." He's obviously very intelligent. He's got some good answers for the "you're too young" and "you're just a small town mayor" challenges, but I've noticed something else that he does.

    All candidates nowadays have their talking points. The typical response to any question from a debate moderator or town hall participant is to say "that's a great question," and to fall back on their blurb which most often doesn't answer the question and is really just what the candidate wants to talk about. Sanders does this a lot. Buttigieg is a bit different. He actually answers the question. Does he do it in talking points form? Sure, but rather than redirect the discussion to something HE wants to talk about, he answers what the questioner brought up.

    Plus, he doesn't shout that much. Sanders is pretty much shouting at his audience all the time. Warren (whom I liked quite a bit before she got into politics) seems always strident. Harris is in combative mode all the time. Mayor Pete?

    Cool as a cucumber.

  7. Top | #2577
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    3,698
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Ford View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    The Fifth Democratic Debate In 6 Charts | FiveThirtyEight

    Klobuchar, Yang, Booker, and Buttigieg performed better than average, with Harris somewhat behind. Steyer, Sanders, and Warren performed close to average, and Biden and Gabbard worse than average.

    Warren talked the most, and Buttigieg mentioned the President the most.

    Pete Buttigieg: the latest polling surge, explained - Vox - he's doing well in Iowa.
    The more I see of Mayor Pete, the more I think "this guy's got the goods." He's obviously very intelligent. He's got some good answers for the "you're too young" and "you're just a small town mayor" challenges, but I've noticed something else that he does.

    All candidates nowadays have their talking points. The typical response to any question from a debate moderator or town hall participant is to say "that's a great question," and to fall back on their blurb which most often doesn't answer the question and is really just what the candidate wants to talk about. Sanders does this a lot. Buttigieg is a bit different. He actually answers the question. Does he do it in talking points form? Sure, but rather than redirect the discussion to something HE wants to talk about, he answers what the questioner brought up.

    Plus, he doesn't shout that much. Sanders is pretty much shouting at his audience all the time. Warren (whom I liked quite a bit before she got into politics) seems always strident. Harris is in combative mode all the time. Mayor Pete?

    Cool as a cucumber.
    Yea, I agree. I still like Kloubloucher, but really starting to like Pete more. He grows on you. Calm. Charismatic. Very smart. On the reverse, I like Tulsi less and less.

  8. Top | #2578
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,620
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    9,009
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Ford View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    The Fifth Democratic Debate In 6 Charts | FiveThirtyEight

    Klobuchar, Yang, Booker, and Buttigieg performed better than average, with Harris somewhat behind. Steyer, Sanders, and Warren performed close to average, and Biden and Gabbard worse than average.

    Warren talked the most, and Buttigieg mentioned the President the most.

    Pete Buttigieg: the latest polling surge, explained - Vox - he's doing well in Iowa.
    The more I see of Mayor Pete, the more I think "this guy's got the goods." He's obviously very intelligent. He's got some good answers for the "you're too young" and "you're just a small town mayor" challenges, but I've noticed something else that he does.

    All candidates nowadays have their talking points. The typical response to any question from a debate moderator or town hall participant is to say "that's a great question," and to fall back on their blurb which most often doesn't answer the question and is really just what the candidate wants to talk about. Sanders does this a lot. Buttigieg is a bit different. He actually answers the question. Does he do it in talking points form? Sure, but rather than redirect the discussion to something HE wants to talk about, he answers what the questioner brought up.

    Plus, he doesn't shout that much. Sanders is pretty much shouting at his audience all the time. Warren (whom I liked quite a bit before she got into politics) seems always strident. Harris is in combative mode all the time. Mayor Pete?

    Cool as a cucumber.
    You may have distilled the political vacuity of liberalism into a tincture so concentrated that single drop is capable of feeding an entire room full of people wearing Patagonia vests

  9. Top | #2579
    Veteran Member Ford's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    'Merica
    Posts
    4,596
    Archived
    2,675
    Total Posts
    7,271
    Rep Power
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Ford View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by lpetrich View Post
    The Fifth Democratic Debate In 6 Charts | FiveThirtyEight

    Klobuchar, Yang, Booker, and Buttigieg performed better than average, with Harris somewhat behind. Steyer, Sanders, and Warren performed close to average, and Biden and Gabbard worse than average.

    Warren talked the most, and Buttigieg mentioned the President the most.

    Pete Buttigieg: the latest polling surge, explained - Vox - he's doing well in Iowa.
    The more I see of Mayor Pete, the more I think "this guy's got the goods." He's obviously very intelligent. He's got some good answers for the "you're too young" and "you're just a small town mayor" challenges, but I've noticed something else that he does.

    All candidates nowadays have their talking points. The typical response to any question from a debate moderator or town hall participant is to say "that's a great question," and to fall back on their blurb which most often doesn't answer the question and is really just what the candidate wants to talk about. Sanders does this a lot. Buttigieg is a bit different. He actually answers the question. Does he do it in talking points form? Sure, but rather than redirect the discussion to something HE wants to talk about, he answers what the questioner brought up.

    Plus, he doesn't shout that much. Sanders is pretty much shouting at his audience all the time. Warren (whom I liked quite a bit before she got into politics) seems always strident. Harris is in combative mode all the time. Mayor Pete?

    Cool as a cucumber.
    You may have distilled the political vacuity of liberalism into a tincture so concentrated that single drop is capable of feeding an entire room full of people wearing Patagonia vests
    Ah yes, I forgot. The conservatives don't value things like intelligence and answering questions. They like their leaders to be stupid, loud, misogynistic pathological liars.

  10. Top | #2580
    Veteran Member PyramidHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    4,620
    Archived
    4,389
    Total Posts
    9,009
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Ford View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PyramidHead View Post

    You may have distilled the political vacuity of liberalism into a tincture so concentrated that single drop is capable of feeding an entire room full of people wearing Patagonia vests
    Ah yes, I forgot. The conservatives don't value things like intelligence and answering questions. They like their leaders to be stupid, loud, misogynistic pathological liars.
    My point is that Trump's badness is only tangentially related to his stupidity, loudness, misogyny, and lying. His badness is mainly in his fascist ideology and the policies he enacts. In the same way, what we need instead of Trump is not someone who is intelligent and good at answering questions. We need someone with a good ideology and good policy ideas who is aware of what it takes to enact them.

Similar Threads

  1. Republicans 2020
    By lpetrich in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 12-06-2019, 09:18 PM
  2. 2020: The Hamburger Election
    By ideologyhunter in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-06-2019, 09:07 AM
  3. Oprah Winfrey in 2020???
    By lpetrich in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 03-02-2018, 03:39 AM
  4. US Presidency 2020
    By lpetrich in forum US Presidential Politics
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 05-17-2017, 08:10 PM
  5. Replies: 141
    Last Post: 11-28-2016, 09:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •