Are You Going to Watch the Debates?

Will You Watch?

  • No

  • Yes, Live

  • Yes, afterwards

  • I will wait for Jimmy Kimmel to tell me what happened.


Results are only viewable after voting.
primaries are next year though
There's 20 of them to winnow down. Plus, there's blood in the water and a lot of energy and enthusiasm and most importantly, ad dollars and donations to be had. Our elections are billion-dollar affairs. It takes time to accumulate that capital and its done through stuff like this. I'm not saying it's a good system but it's the system we have.
 
Castro and Warren had strong finishes. Good show. Entertaining and substantive. Not nearly as much Trump bashing as I thought there would be.
 
Except Inslee calling him the greatest geo-political threat!
 
Lawrence O'Donnell actually praised Tulsi and then had to defend her against Nicole Wallace's red baiting.

Yeah, whats that rumor about Gabbard's sympathies for Putin and Assad?
 
My God De Blasio would be a disaster, he wants 70% or more corporate tax rate because it 'worked' under Eisenhower. They had a boatload of loopholes back then and a world to rebuild after wwii with little competition. Will he match those rates with tariffs to protect American industry from foreign competition or just watch as more businesses move abroad? I thought Warren did the best and Ryan the worst, Booker followed by Klobuchar were decent. De Blasio did good too but his after debate interview was not. He will kill jobs.

Okay, I watched Castro's post debate interview and he said the only way to end family separation was by repealing a law Beto voted to keep in place. I thought that was all on Trump and now I hear a Democrat blaming Congress for the law?
 
Last edited:
Lawrence O'Donnell actually praised Tulsi and then had to defend her against Nicole Wallace's red baiting.

Yeah, whats that rumor about Gabbard's sympathies for Putin and Assad?

She visited Assad after he used chemical weapons, which got her a lot of criticism. She has basically implied she views his victory as the quickest path to peace in Syria in the past. She also had weird ties to Hindu nationalists for a long time and has been cozy with Modi.

She also has some bad history similar to Biden in terms of previous positions. In the mid 2000s she was anti gay marriage and anti-abortion. Those alone will sink her.
 
No. I'm already sold on Buttigieg for my primary vote. I don't know how anyone could poll the Democrats Abroad primary, so I cant vote strategic.

If you vote for Buttigieg you are voting for an amoral careerist with no discernible principles.

Nope kind of indirectly complimenting you for having more interest in American politics than most Americans.

Last I checked Narz is an American. The fact that he said telly misled you into thinking otherwise, understandably.
 
I mean I don't know how she's viewed in Hawaii, but she won a state election at age 21 as a moderate so maybe had a sort of wunderkind vibe going, and then when she ran for the House she was a former troop who served in Iraq running in an Obama election year so you had the double strength of Dems turning out and respecting the troops.
 
I mean I don't know how she's viewed in Hawaii, but she won a state election at age 21 as a moderate so maybe had a sort of wunderkind vibe going, and then when she ran for the House she was a former troop who served in Iraq running in an Obama election year so you had the double strength of Dems turning out and respecting the troops.
Before she resigned from the DNC and endorsed Bernie she was definitely viewed as the next best thing and future party leadership. She ticks off so many boxes for Democrats, minority female who served overseas.

I like her now even though she's had bad views in the past. Maybe I identify since I grew up in a fundamentalist family. That brainwashing goes deep. If she maintains her current positions I'm all in for her in 2028.
 
Is she Hindu? I'm not sure that will fly in the general. I don't care but most people do
 
Last edited:
Classic smear article. Didn't it trip you up when it claimed she supports radical Islam? She's an Iraq war vet. The author should be shamed for that smear. She just doesn't think we should waste American money and lives on deposing them. Her opposition to propping up Saudi Arabia and her revulsion at the theocracies she saw over there (something also pointed out in this same article) should be enough to dispel that bullfeathers.

It also attempts to paint her as sympathetic to our "enemies" while attempting to undermine her antiwar stance as nationalist and dismissive of the destruction in those countries. The author uses this to tie her to the political poison Bannon. Just stupid.

I'd have to dig but there was a youtuber who compiled the many times Obama, Kerry and Clinton were positive or friendly with Modi, Niko House or Kim Iverson I believe. He's a powerful leader in one of our biggest allies in Asia. A good diplomat is going to be congenial, like Queen Elizabeth was with Donny Tiny-hands. The Modi thing is a sneaky way to attack her for being Hindu.

Funnily enough the author of the article contradicts his own position on her supporting islamists when he tries to attack her for her 180 on LGBTQ rights. She found what she saw there so revolting that it overrode her brainwashing. Something I said I identify with. It also explains how she can hold certain personal beliefs but doesn't let it interfere with legislation. We all agree theocracy is something to avoid at all costs. Maybe she had the wrong opinions in the past, let's be happy she saw the light.

I'd read further but do I really have to? The article contradicts itself just to pile on false smear after false smear. Dont buy into that crap. Who's scarier to the status quo than Sanders? Someone who endorses many of his ideas and is expressly antiwar. You have to look at the motivations.
 
Top Bottom