Are You Going to Watch the Debates?

[Socrates99]

Nobody is claiming it was Russian bots?
Huh?! Strange...

This actually seems to be up for debate.

There is an endless row of instances of Representative Gabbard being implicitly excluded from the label of womanhood by smarmy woke pundits.
This was notably on display on the May cover of The New Republic.
But in more subtle form this is so common it's basically reliable.

You may also notice that Representative Gabbard is in the general habit of rarely if ever bringing up her sex or relative complexion and typically womanhandles questions on any such datum or related topics with redirection or - at times blunt - sidestepping.
You saw that in action with her opening remarks in the debate.

So she's deliberately not running a Hillary style campaign. Probably a good idea since it went so poorly in 2016.

 

[Berzerker]

Jimmy Dore ripped into Kamala, I'll paraphrase:

Kamala said Trump is the greatest threat to the USA

Jimmy Dore: and thats why Kamala voted to give him $200 billion more to bomb the hell out of the world

Kamala: Putin and Un are evil and Trump embraces them

Dore: so she says Trump is a traitor and the biggest threat, but why isn't he more bellicose and sabre rattling with a nuclear power like NK.

Kamala's donors lose money with peace, Dore proceeded to run down a list of them and called her a puppet and tool of the military industrial complex.

Dore is a Sanders fan, he's also a Tulsi backer.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Dore (whoever that is... never heard of him) isn't very persuasive... lots of non-sequiturs and nonsensical arguments... I'll add that you seem to be particularly triggered by Harris for some reason... Rather than guess the reason I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Rashiminos]

Marianne vs the rest of the dems:



This will be fun.

***
Booker's recent publicity stunt is positively killing his chances at nomination. It's not that hard to avoid motivating more people to vote whoever the, ..., next Republican nominee will be.

The moderators were not even close to giving equal time. They let the stars ramble on and interrupt everyone else.

Eerily reminiscent of their congressional work.

Yes, but like... what's really the difference between embellishment and petty lying? He could also be outright lying with this one.

Still waiting to hear why Corey Booker is a closeted gay, though. I must admit out of the thousands of possibilities I could not see this one come up as something people would discuss about him.

This season of American Elections show is off to a bombastic start.

Dirtbag Right rumor mongering.

If you're using nothing but a huge pic of a woman to justify your support, jeez... give us front and back there at least... why pussyfoot around with it?

For emphasis of the point... I notice you did not mention Warren, who policy-wise, is easily the closest to Bernie, whom you claim to prefer.

The current sexiest candidate in the Democratic primary is Beto.
Spoiler'd for expletives.

Spoiler :

Harris will get owned by Trump. She's a hypocrite. So is he of course but his supporters don't care about that.

Trump is going to clean Harris's clock and progressives will silently cheer him on.

Interesting that this bit of information seems to have, at some point, made it out of New Jersey. Let me just say that being from there and knowing some people who are well-connected with prominent people in NJ state politics, I have it on good authority that Booker is closeted and not straight. The "dating" Rosario Dawson is like a stereotypical camouflage 'relationship'.
And I've been sure since I saw his name in the running that it would prove a liability. Not the fact that he's gay...or bi...or whatever....but the fact that he's closeted.

When that comes out, as I think it must if doesn't leave the race before it starts to get real, I fail to see how his campaign will deal with it.

No one will care about it, except maybe Dawson.

 

[Berzerker]

Dore (whoever that is... never heard of him) isn't very persuasive... lots of non-sequiturs and nonsensical arguments... I'll add that you seem to be particularly triggered by Harris for some reason... Rather than guess the reason I'll just leave it at that.

What nonsensical arguments? Now why would I be 'triggered' by a corporate shill for the weapons industry while supporting a veteran of Iraq who wants to get us out of these wars? Go ahead, guess. Dont keep your lawyerly logic to yourself. Dore is a progressive comedian who does youtube videos, he's a funny source of information about party politics. I didn't know squat about Harris until he exposed her establishment ties, she's looking bad now, even Biden-esque. They're both bought and paid for by the same people. Dont attach your wagon to her too quickly, do some research. Or not, you have a track record of supporting people like her.

 

[Ironsided]

Dore is a good political satirist comedian and you get recommendations of his videos on YouTube if you only barely follow the political debates in the US. Those who don’t know that suggests they may be mostly involved with traditional media channels. There is technically nothing wrong with that behaviour but I also think we are reaching a point where the traditional media is so squeezed by ad revenue and corp interests the public service they should provide has become second hand. It’s fudged up.

Look at Bernies situation. He had the highest approval rating of all candidates after the debates, at over 75%, much thanks to Biden predictably imploding on stage. (That’s from 538, and Nate hates Bernie but is at least a genuine data presenter if also at the same time an abysmal pundit.)

Bernie has double the donations and donors of any other candidate. Yet none of the MSM reports on that. MSNBC, ABC, CNN report on gay major Pete making the most donation DOLLARS this month while mixing it up with Bernie “slipping” in the MONEY RACE. The one slipping politically is Biden.

When they present the candidates it’s no longer with a picture of Biden in the centre and Bernie and Warren sort of looking up to him on the sides. Nope, now he’s joined by Kamala in the centre who still polls behind Bernie and Warren. MSM smell the disaster Biden is and needs a new Status quo figure to push. They actually want Butty, but thankfully his sold ass is still polling around 4% so they figure Kamala it is for now.

There’s your candidates being pushed today – Kamala, (Biden) and Butty. They will be the “safe and stable” middle ground that will allow these “for profit and idiots news outlets” spin the wheels on their terms. I would advise people to seek more custom content on debates until you have a government that regulates corporate meddling in the national political media hosting debates and also in the everyday democratic process itself. That would most likely be until you have a Bernie or Warren administration in place.

 

[Rashiminos]

She has been in favor of a 3-way Iraq partition. She praised Sisi. She has spoken in favor of allying with Saudi Arabia in military matters (look where that has gotten us). She's said torture can work in some situations. Her meeting with Assad was organized by literal fascists. She criticized Kuwait for having women in burqas, a classic Islamophobic talking point. She's spoken at events hosted by John Hagee, a conspiratorial Islamophobe and radical Christian. Her refugees admitting resolution in Iraq during ISIS's rampage there prioritized Christians and Yazidis with specific language. It goes on and on. She is a dove unless it comes to Islam, when she is bombs away. She's never met a slightly secular brutal dictator she hasn't liked.

When she first endorsed Bernie she managed to thrust herself into this coverage of being a total progressive. Her foreign policy is more hawkish than several in the current field. She is basically Obama with more support for torture. Whoopee.

Going aggro on Syria internal policy while questioning our military relationship with Saudi Arabia is a weird flex, but okay.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Dont attach your wagon to her too quickly, do some research. Or not, you have a track record of supporting people like her.

*sigh*

My top 5 as of now are:
1. Warren 2. Harris 3. Gabbard

Don't assume whom I'm "attaching my wagon to" too quickly... do some research. Or not... you have a track record of saying things that are incorrect.

 

[Kyriakos]

*sigh* Don't assume whom I'm "attaching my wagon to" too quickly... do some research. Or not... you have a track record of saying things that are incorrect.

So you support both Harris and Tulsi. Because you want both opposite ends of the spectrum. Believable
I'll bite, though. Please elaborate as to why Harris is a good choice for potus.

Re Dore, here is the video Berz was commenting upon. Dore is actually a pretty well-known youtube commentator, and is left wing (supports Bernie and Tulsi) :

 

[Berzerker]

Dore is a good political satirist comedian and you get recommendations of his videos on YouTube if you only barely follow the political debates in the US. Those who don’t know that suggests they may be mostly involved with traditional media channels. There is technically nothing wrong with that behaviour but I also think we are reaching a point where the traditional media is so squeezed by ad revenue and corp interests the public service they should provide has become second hand.

Dore says media like CNN are trying to de-platform and demonetize voices from 'alternate' sources like Facebook and Youtube. Joe Rogan (JRE) and Dore had a 2+ hour talk and Alex Jones was one of the subjects. Jones got sued for his BS about Sandy Hook being phony. Rogan pointed out platforms have a legitimate reason to be concerned about the content they allow.

But there is also a law from the mid 90's that protects them from lawsuits, so they cant be sued along with Alex Jones. Dore said individual incidents - like Jones and Sandy Hook - should be dealt with in the courts like now, but the establishment media wants to control the debate in the country and they cant if they're losing viewers to other outlets. There is a hilarious video on youtube of Jones ranting about various things set to emo/indie music, its worth the 2 minutes it takes. Search Alex Jones rants to music and it should show up.

*sigh* Don't assume whom I'm "attaching my wagon to" too quickly... do some research. Or not... you have a track record of saying things that are incorrect.

She's 2nd on your list and you're defending her from legitimate criticisms with a dismissive "lots of non-sequiturs and nonsensical arguments..." But now you're not a supporter?

So you support both Harris and Tulsi. Because you want both opposite ends of the spectrum. Believable

I dont know who Nellie Kay is but she reminds me of the quiet talker from Seinfeld.

 

[Sommerswerd]

So you support both Harris and Tulsi.

*sigh* So I notice that you conveniently ignored the most important part of the post, despite me putting it in LARGE FONT and BOLD. But I will quote it again for you:

My top 5 as of now are:
1. Warren

You can't have it both ways. I told you I would vote for Bernie if he got the nomination... which means that I'd vote for him, but he's not my first choice. In response you got self righteous and criticized me as someone who "never supported" Bernie. Now I give you a post where I clearly state that Harris is not my first choice, Warren is, but instead of being consistent, now you are falling all over yourself to label me as a Harris "supporter." The bottom line is that you are triggered by Harris the same way you were about Hillary and you want to argue about her. I'm not biting. Warren is my first choice.

Because you want both opposite ends of the spectrum. Believable I'll bite, though. Please elaborate as to why Harris is a good choice for potus.

Nah, you need to explain how you can claim to be a Bernie supporter but not even know who Warren is until I mentioned her to you. Because if anything is "believable" its that.

You like Bernie. You can't be persuaded otherwise and I'm not bothering to try... So I'll pass m8, thanks.

you're defending her from legitimate criticisms with a dismissive "lots of non-sequiturs and nonsensical arguments..." But now you're not a supporter?

Puh-lease. Don't get me started... You do exactly this with Trump... constantly defending him from legitimate criticisms with endless whataboutisms, and moral equivalency and "both sides are bad" type arguments... but you nevertheless claim that you're not a Trump supporter. Have several seats.

 

[Kyriakos]

Nah, you need to explain how you can claim to be a Bernie supporter but not even know who Warren is until I mentioned her to you.

Yes, Sommer, I was waiting for you to inform me that Warren exists. You can use the search option in this subforum to see how many years ago I first posted about her
Btw, apparently most Bernie supporters don't care for Warren, so the tie there is bizarre as well. I am well-aware of some media agony to present them as somehow close.

I just noted that you aren't fooling anyone by claiming to be both massively pro-war (Harris) and massively anti-war (Tulsi).
At least you are consistently pro-CNN/MSNBC favorites (Warren or Hillary).

 

[Berzerker]

Puh-lease. Don't get me started... You do exactly this with Trump... constantly defending him from legitimate criticisms with endless whataboutisms, and moral equivalency and "both sides are bad" type arguments... but you nevertheless claim that you're not a Trump supporter. Have several seats.

"Exactly"? I 'defend' Trump when I think his critics are wrong or hypocritical, but I dont do it with "lots of non-sequiturs and nonsensical arguments..." I'm not a Trump supporter, I didn't vote for him nor will I in 2020 and he's not 2nd on my list. But I can be fair because I'm not consumed with partisanship, 2 of your 3 are on my short list of candidates. Harris is not. You get to defend her, thats how it works.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Yes, Sommer, I was waiting for you to inform me that Warren exists.

Whatever, strawman all you want... you said:

Re Warren, I haven't watched that much of her, maybe she is a good option too. Up to now, of what I have seen, I like Bern and Tulsi.

So by your own admission, you didn't know much about Warren and weren't paying much attention to her. You certainly weren't aware how similar she was to Bernie policy-wise... so now you're trying to move the goalpost to "aware of her existence" FOH with that BS. Its obvious to anyone who saw you post nothing but a giant picture of Tulsi to "explain" why you like her that you like Tulsi (and AOC) mainly because you find them physically attractive... Warren, not so much, so she doesn't interest you. Its that simple... so just admit it, stop trying to deflect to my position on Harris, and move on. I'm not discussing Harris with you (or @Berzerker), its a strawman, red-herring, waste of time, so either give it up or go bark up another tree.

I just noted that you aren't fooling anyone by claiming to be both massively pro-war (Harris) and massively anti-war (Tulsi).

More strawmanning. I never claimed to be either of those things. And if you think Tulsi Gabbard is "massively anti-war" you're extremely misinformed, or willfully blind... or both... probably both.

 

[Kyriakos]

Whatever, strawman all you want... you said:
So by your own admission, you didn't know much about Warren and weren't paying much attention to her. You certainly weren't aware how similar she was to Bernie policy-wise... so now you're trying to move the goalpost to "aware of her existence" FOH with that BS. Its obvious to anyone who saw you post nothing but a giant picture of Tulsi to "explain" why you like her that you like Tulsi (and AOC) mainly because you find them physically attractive... Warren, not so much, so she doesn't interest you. Its that simple... so just admit it, stop trying to deflect to my position on Harris, and move on. I'm not discussing Harris with you (or @Berzerker), its a strawman, red-herring, waste of time, so either give it up or go bark up another tree. More strawmanning. I never claimed to be either of those things. And if you think Tulsi Gabbard is "massively anti-war" you're extremely misinformed, or willfully blind... or both... probably both.

You do realize that literally nothing you said there is factually correct?
Anyway, no need for me to continue with this. I am not really out to fight - guess we will never know why you like Harris, and I can live with that.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Round 2 starts tonight at 8pm EST. Here are the line-ups:
DNC debate candidates for July 30
Candidates will appear onstage from left to right

• Marianne Williamson
• Tim Ryan
• Amy Klobuchar
• Pete Buttigieg
• Bernie Sanders
• Elizabeth Warren
• Beto O'Rourke
• John Hickenlooper
• John Delaney
• Steve Bullock

DNC debate candidates for July 31
Candidates will appear onstage from left to right

• Michael Bennet
• Kirsten Gillibrand
• Julián Castro
• Cory Booker
• Joe Biden
• Kamala Harris
• Andrew Yang
• Tulsi Gabbard
• Jay Inslee
• Bill de Blasi

 

[EgonSpengler]

There's still way too many people. They really need to put the hammer down. I'd like to see 12-14 of these people gone by the next debate. I don't know what the f the Democratic Party is doing.

 

[AdrienIer]

The rules were for 20 people max in the first two debates (so including this one), with a very easy threashold for participating. Next debate has a much harder threashold to meet, one that is expected to be met by 6-7 people

 

[Lexicus]

There's still way too many people. They really need to put the hammer down. I'd like to see 12-14 of these people gone by the next debate. I don't know what the f the Democratic Party is doing.

Having so many is silly, but I think it is a good approach not to winnow it down too early. I'd guess they don't want to appear to be favoring anyone at this point.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The rules were for 20 people max in the first two debates (so including this one), with a very easy threashold for participating. Next debate has a much harder threashold to meet, one that is expected to be met by 6-7 people

Right, it wasn't an accident. If it were me, I wouldn't want to see more than 12 in a preliminary round. 6-7 seems reasonable for the next round. Also, 10 people onstage at one time is ridiculous. I'd like to see no more than 4 at a time, but if you had 12, 3 nights in a row would be too much. Maybe once a week, for 3 weeks? I dunno. 12 is a lot. 20 is a circus.