Democratic Debates

[Moiraine]

9 hours ago, knapplc said:

In Nebraska? Yes, you can. I've been doing it for years.

 

 

I went to the caucus in 2016 in Lincoln and they said I need to register as a Democrat to enter. Unless I completely misunderstood.

[funhusker]

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I went to the caucus in 2016 in Lincoln and they said I need to register as a Democrat to enter. Unless I completely misunderstood.

https://www.omaha.com/news/politics/independent-voters-will-again-be-able-to-vote-in-nebraska/article_68c7b41a-f6b4-5f37-9407-19f941032b48.html

 

Edit: you may be right about 2016.  Going off of memory, but I think they did have a caucus but still held an election.  I could be wrong, I'm a registered "R".  But I remember hearing from friends that the whole process was screwy!

[Ratt Mhule]

Battle of the centrists. 

 

Healthcare:

Youre banning private insurance!

 

Im not banning private insurance, I just want to add a public option, just like you!

 

Yeah, well, youre taking away EMPLOYER based private insurance!

 

This person who Im not going to mention works for a for profit health insurance company said my plan is the best!

 

The person you just said helped write your bill works for a for profit health insurance company!

 

Yeah, well, I didnt say she wrote the bill, I said she endorsed my bill! Now lets bring up Bidens plan again!

 

My plan will cover everyone even though every study has shown otherwise, for only a $1,000 deductible. Im not going to mention how expensive the premium is since everyone on the public option will be sick. 

 

Criminal Justice reform:

 

Your record sucks!

 

I know my record sucks, but your record sucks more! And ive changed my stance on things. 

 

You literally changed your stance last week! Lol

 

Climate change:

 

I think we need to go all out to combat CC, there is no middle ground as the VP has said. 

 

I never said that (yes you did). Im going to completely get rid of fossil fuels by the year 2030. We are going all electric, baby! My donors are going to hate I just said that and Ill tell them behind closed doors I was jk. 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[NM11046]

16 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I can understand you not supporting her.  But, please tell me the bolded is a case of hyperbole.  

Maybe a little, but she does really scare me.  

 

She labels herself a Dem, but there are a lot of examples of her not aligning to the values the party is based on.  I think there are a lot of stupid people who vote on party alone and have given her some credibility/consideration because of the "D" she has - they won't research her past actions.  Her past comments and actions are not only not "dem like", I find them irresponsible and scary.   I know we're supposed to think she's seen the light on LGTBQ and womens choice but her comments weren't all that long ago.  Her position agreeing with the republicans and coming out very publically against Obama because he chose not to label things "radical Islamic Terrorism" by going on Fox and etc, was poorly done.  Her relation to and defense of Assad etc.  Her public anti Hilary stance was in poor taste in 2016.

 

And I really do think there is a likely chance that when she gets bumped from the Dem debates/primaries that she will register as an independent and screw things up with that.

 

It should alarm everyone that she is the Dem that the Russians are focused on promoting right now.  And the fact that David Duke has come out and supported her openly should also be a big, flipin' red flag.

[NM11046]

This should scare people.  She is supposedly a Dem, but more importantly she has obviously either not read the report, or did not comprehend it.  The rumors of her gaining support from the same country that rallied around Trump and her choices to not speak ill of Russia or Assad says a lot to me.  

 

 

[Ulty]

34 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

This should scare people.  She is supposedly a Dem, but more importantly she has obviously either not read the report, or did not comprehend it.  The rumors of her gaining support from the same country that rallied around Trump and her choices to not speak ill of Russia or Assad says a lot to me.  

 

 

 

Holy crap, had not seen this before. Yeah, she needs to GTFO.

 

However, she also pointed out a few flaws last night in Kamala Harris's record that I was not previously aware of. I was feeling strong about Harris before last night, now I have doubts. But Gabbard... definitely not.

 

After 2 rounds of debate, my current faves are Warren and Castro.

[NM11046]

I agree - I like Harris but I think she is a slick politician.  It turned me off that she has backed off comments after seeing them not being well received.  She is good on practiced attacks but doesn't come across as good at responding to questions that aren't on her list. 

 

Im a Warren, Buttegige, Castro camper right now.  I think they seem smart, principled and focused.  

[TGHusker]

4 hours ago, Ulty said:

 

Holy crap, had not seen this before. Yeah, she needs to GTFO.

 

However, she also pointed out a few flaws last night in Kamala Harris's record that I was not previously aware of. I was feeling strong about Harris before last night, now I have doubts. But Gabbard... definitely not.

 

After 2 rounds of debate, my current faves are Warren and Castro.

I think there is a bit of an over action to her video.   I think she is trying to get us to move forward to protecting the electoral system so this doesn't happen again.  While deep down, I think Trump both colluded and conspired and should be indited after he leaves office, I guess I would not agree that it was a good thing that he wasn't indited now.  I see her point about how disruptive to the country that would be (if you aren't old enough to have lived through Nixon's near impeachment where real crimes occurred or Clinton's impeachment - you may not know how disruptive that can be).   While I understand her point,  I don't think justice delayed is a good thing especially at the top.  Sometimes we need to go through the pain of the disruptive action (impeachment) to get rid of the illness (Trump Mob Enterprise).

[Danny Bateman]

52 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

Honestly, I'd rather them impeach him now so they disrupt what more damage he could do to the country...it's going to take YEARS to unwind what this moron has wound. 

 

We'd all like that. Well, most of us.

 

Problem is it won't go anywhere because McConnell and the Senate won't let that happen.

 

I'm increasingly convinced we're slowly hurtling towards impeachment because it seems like a few more Dems come out in support every day. Eventually the leadership won't be able to put the kibosh on it anymore and will have to proceed. Maybe that's the plan - put Trump in a pot of water like a lobster, set it to simmer and slowly let him boil. I think starting impeachment hearings in the summer or fall of 2020 could be very effective. Especially if they call on him to testify under oath. That would be an utter sh#tshow and he'd crack like an egg.
 

At this point I want them to do whatever it takes to drag this man for maximal damage. Which probably includes triggering impeachment at the worst possible time for him. It won't matter that the Senate lets him off - the damage will be done and fresh in everyone's mind.

[TGHusker]

11 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

We'd all like that. Well, most of us.

 

Problem is it won't go anywhere because McConnell and the Senate won't let that happen.

 

I'm increasingly convinced we're slowly hurtling towards impeachment because it seems like a few more Dems come out in support every day. Eventually the leadership won't be able to put the kibosh on it anymore and will have to proceed. Maybe that's the plan - put Trump in a pot of water like a lobster, set it to simmer and slowly let him boil. I think starting impeachment hearings in the summer or fall of 2020 could be very effective. Especially if they call on him to testify under oath. That would be an utter sh#tshow and he'd crack like an egg.
 

At this point I want them to do whatever it takes to drag this man for maximal damage. Which probably includes triggering impeachment at the worst possible time for him. It won't matter that the Senate lets him off - the damage will be done and fresh in everyone's mind.

Agree. Keep the powder dry for a bit longer otherwise Trump will turn it for his advantage to rally his troops. 

[RedDenver]

On 7/31/2019 at 7:05 AM, TGHusker said:

So wt Warren/Sanders doing a tag team, what happens when the field gets narrowed??  One of them will have to step aside.  They will have to eventually turn their shots at each other.  Otherwise they will divide the progressive vote and Biden wins by default --- as what happen in the GOP debate 4 years ago.  Trump directed conversations away from him, derailed policy talk that he didn't have a clue by insulting those who did have a clue, and watched as the others eliminated each other.  I don't see either Sanders or Warren stepping aside when it gets down to  Biden, Harris, Warren, Sanders as I think it is bound to be.   

 

So for you more progressive leaning posters - would you lean towards Sanders or Warren??

 

If it were me, I would lean towards Warren.  Bernie just seems to be an angry old man. 

I lean towards Bernie because he has the better track record. However, if they are both polling behind Biden by the first primaries, I think Bernie will drop out in order to boost Warren.

 

As for the debates, the first night Warren and Sanders were excellent and Buttigieg was decent, but the rest sucked and should drop out. Bernie and Warren finally took off the kid gloves and hit back at the other candidates. The second night was a little more bland. Biden, Booker, and Harris should be in the next debate, but the rest should drop out. 

 

On 7/31/2019 at 1:00 PM, commando said:

beto is probably going to be the vp candidate for the dems and put texas into play for them.   just a guess but it makes sense as he polls much higher in texas than trump does.

Beto needs to run for Senate in Texas and start doing that soon. He could have a major impact of helping to flip the Senate. The VP pick won't make much difference in the general, and the VP in general doesn't matter.

[NM11046]

Beto needs to run for TX Senate.

Hickenloper or Bennett needs to run for CO Senate.

Ryan needs to run for OH Senate.

 

Three flips - easy peasy.  There are more.  Why these people are setting sights on POTUS when they can make more of a difference in Senate or the House is frustrating me.  Pelosi & Schumer need to step up their recruiting.

 

 

[TheSker]

12 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

Hickenloper or Bennett needs to run for CO Senate.

 

 

Ummmm.........

[NM11046]

48 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Ummmm.........

Point?