Democratic Debates (2 Viewers)

wikkidpissah · Oct 16, 2019

fatguyinalittlecoat said:
Reagan picked Bush

sry to be unclear. i was citing Dems

ETA: but since that appears to be the only GOP ticket of that kind in my lifetime, that waters the odds further, i guess

KCitons · Oct 16, 2019

In my perfect world, Mayor Pete and Yang would run as President and VP on an Independent ticket (if neither gets the nomination). Funded by Steyer. Throw in Harris support with the promise that she would be the AG under a Booty - Yang administration.

Smack Tripper · Oct 16, 2019

FF Ninja said:
I don't even know what the most laughable part of this post is. You think Warren being mistaken about her heritage is worse than lying to dodge the draft? You think trump has done what he said he was going to do? He was going to balance the budget, but instead he's increased the deficit. He was going to build a wall, but where is it? Despite his reckless spending and rolling back of regulations, the economy has done nothing more than continue on a pace set forth in the previous administration.

As for "what's different this time?" I can tell you what's different. His base was fully energized last time and he barely squeaked out an election in which he lost the popular vote by three million. His gross incompetence, ineptitude, and self-serving corruption has energized not the left, but the center... the independents and the apathetics, of which I am one. We are all showing up in 2020 to vote for anyone that gets the blue nom. It can be seen in the 2018 mid-terms. The youth vote skyrocketed, which is not normal for a mid-term. It's going to be off the charts in 2020. And FYI, the youth hate trump. Additionally, trump and Hillary were the two least liked candidates of all time. His approval rating has dipped and someone not named Hillary will get the nom this year, so things can only get better in terms of likability for the blue candidate and the red candidate is bleeding approval by the day.

You're looking at this entirely the wrong way. I don't care, so there's no worse in degrees here. A BS'er is a BS'er, whether you do it once or a 1000 times. Trump is all sunk costs and spent capital in terms of public perception. The only thing that will damage him significantly if the rumored tape of him dropping the n-bomb is out there. Otherwise, he is what he is, and that's remarkably flawed and i'm running of out synonyms to describe him as a caveman in conduct. However, what is lurking that's an unknown for him as a candidate?

How much does the big wide America know about Warren, how will it all be framed once they get down to a 1 on 1 situation? We are nerds, and like political nerds we have exhausted and went though the Elizabeth Warren story. She's still here. But I think there's an entire new level of people that pay attention every four years, a fact indisputable given how ratings will spike in presidential election cycles and fall after the election. For Elizabeth Warren to look in the mirror through crystal blue eyes and think she's a Cherokee is lunacy or delusion. You call it a mistake will show her reading as moron, and its one thing to believe that family canard, its quite another to exploit it. Its very off brand for a dem to have both culturally appropriated and likely seen the benefits of affirmative action when she was not what she said.

Trump's base, I'd imagine they'll be fine as the Dems, instead of just driving the car down the road, straight and steady, have decided to do some stunt driving when the sole mission should be beating trump. But now we go down wormholes of transgender agendas, open borders and free college and we Hell yes we're coming for you guns. This is all setting the table to be used to get the Trump voter into froth come election day.

tonydead · Oct 16, 2019

KCitons said:
In my perfect world, Mayor Pete and Yang would run as President and VP on an Independent ticket (if neither gets the nomination). Funded by Steyer. Throw in Harris support with the promise that she would be the AG under a Booty - Yang administration.

Now that's a campaign slogan that I can get behind!

saintfool · Oct 16, 2019

The Commish said:
After watching some summaries and parts of the actual debate, I think I'm done with Harris. I wanted to see her positions so I did focus on her more than a few of the others and she's just missing the mark.

i liked her quite a bit in the early going when he campaign was just getting underway. she hasn't done much to show me *more* and it's a little disappointing.

FF Ninja · Oct 16, 2019

Smack Tripper said:
A BS'er is a BS'er, whether you do it once or a 1000 times.

Nah. That's simply not even close to being true.

But if we want to devote any time to this nonsense.... first we must realize this was decades ago (long before 23andme and ancestry.com) and even if this was a real thing, people can change over a few decades. Second, signs point to it not being an intentional deception and therefore not even a lie.Third, is there any proof that this had an impact on her acceptance? It's just one long string of conjecture.

wikkidpissah · Oct 16, 2019

KCitons said:
In my perfect world, Mayor Pete and Yang would run as President and VP on an Independent ticket (if neither gets the nomination). Funded by Steyer. Throw in Harris support with the promise that she would be the AG under a Booty - Yang administration.

Bu-Yang Clan ain't nuttin' ta' f- wit!

Sinn Fein · Oct 16, 2019

saintfool said:
i liked her quite a bit in the early going when he campaign was just getting underway. she hasn't done much to show me *more* and it's a little disappointing.

That is kind of where I am (discounting that I have already sided with Pete). I remember watching her launch rally and thinking she had what it took to be the next president - but she seems to be stuck in 1st gear, while others, notably Warren and Buttigieg, have kicked on to higher gears.

Last night I finally decided she is probably never going to have that extra [what ever you want to call it] that elevates people to top contenders. Even after her mini-boost following her attack on Biden - she could not consolidate and sustain that momentum.

Smack Tripper · Oct 16, 2019

FF Ninja said:
Nah. That's simply not even close to being true.

But if we want to devote any time to this nonsense.... first we must realize this was decades ago (long before 23andme and ancestry.com) and even if this was a real thing, people can change over a few decades. Second, signs point to it not being an intentional deception and therefore not even a lie.Third, is there any proof that this had an impact on her acceptance? It's just one long string of conjecture.

Dude, I don't care, I really don't. Are people gonna care? I guess we will see, you don't and that's fine. Rachel Dolezal lives in ridicule for her choices and admission and Elizabeth Warren gets to run for President. So it seems like its something people kinda don't like, because I think most of the GOP agrees with affirmative action based on polls or pew research. But I think we can all acknowledge, there is a visual component that's a factor in bias, isn't that the point of affirmative action, people looked past minorities based on their skin color, maybe based on their name. Did she realize gains? I guess we won't know, it was enough of an asset to be promoted by Harvard. The conjecture is way way way down the list as compares to perception.

She has 4 percent support amongst black voters despite being the leader. Do you think its possible that misrepresenting her race could hold some sway there?

FF Ninja · Oct 16, 2019

Smack Tripper said:
Dude, I don't care, I really don't. Are people gonna care? I guess we will see, you don't and that's fine. Rachel Dolezal lives in ridicule for her choices and admission and Elizabeth Warren gets to run for President. So it seems like its something people kinda don't like, because I think most of the GOP agrees with affirmative action based on polls or pew research. But I think we can all acknowledge, there is a visual component that's a factor in bias, isn't that the point of affirmative action, people looked past minorities based on their skin color, maybe based on their name. Did she realize gains? I guess we won't know, it was enough of an asset to be promoted by Harvard. The conjecture is way way way down the list as compares to perception.

She has 4 percent support amongst black voters despite being the leader. Do you think its possible that misrepresenting her race could hold some sway there?

You can keep saying you don't care, but if you keep saying ridiculous things, you're going to keep giving the impression you do. An accidental misrepresentation several decades ago simply isn't the same as thousands of recent confirmed lies, so saying "a BS'er is a BS'er whether it's 1 lie or 1000" doesn't paint you as someone who doesn't care. Comparing Warren to Dolezal :rolleyes:

doesn't paint you as someone who doesn't care.

As for the 4%, let's worry about that once it's just Warren vs. the biggest bigot the white house has ever seen.

FF Ninja · Oct 16, 2019

I don't know if anyone has posted a recap, but here's one with a link inside to the full transcript: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/democratic-presidential-debate-otterbein-recap/

Everything the Candidates Discussed at the Ohio Debate

By Allison McCartney, Mira Rojanasakul, Paul Murray and Chloe Whiteaker

October 16, 2019

President Donald Trump loomed over Tuesday’s debate as an unfolding impeachment inquiry has upended the Democratic primary campaign.

All 12 candidates who qualified for the debate in Ohio agreed that impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives should go forward. The candidates questioned Trump’s foreign policy decisions—particularly his pullback of U.S. troops in Syria, where Turkey is escalating a military offensive. They even sparred over whether Twitter should shut down the president’s account.

Tuesday’s debate was the first time that health care wasn’t the most-discussed issue, though it was still a major focus of the debate along with foreign policy and economic inequality. Women’s reproductive rights were discussed at length for the first time in the debates. Immigration, which had been a dominant issue in earlier debates, and the environment were barely mentioned.

Read the full transcript, tagged by issue

Tuesday’s debate was the most crowded so far, with more rivals on stage than the first two—which were two-night events that split 20 candidates into groups of 10. That created more urgency for candidates to make the most of their speaking time.

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren trails former Vice President Joe Biden in most national polls, but her rivals on stage treated her like the frontrunner. Other candidates routinely lobbed attacks her way—especially over how she’d pay for her “Medicare for All” health care proposal. That ensured Warren received plenty of time to respond, and she spoke far more than any other candidate.

Billionaire activist Tom Steyer, who started his presidential campaign in August and had not appeared in prior debates, spoke the least.

With only three candidates polling in the double digits—Biden, Warren and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders—some candidates tried to break out by drawing direct contrasts with other candidates.

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar said she wanted “to give a reality check” to Warren that opposition to her plan for a wealth tax doesn’t mean she or other candidates are cozy with billionaires.

South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg—who has polled closest to the top tier recently—attacked on many fronts. He pushed Warren to say whether her health care plan would raise taxes. He said Tulsi Gabbard, a U.S. representative from Hawaii, was “dead wrong” when she said violence in Syria is a consequence of U.S. military presence. And Buttigieg shot back at former Representative Beto O’Rourke for suggesting his position on gun buybacks was influenced by polling.

“The problem isn’t the polls. The problem is the policy. And I don’t need lessons from you on courage, political or personal.”

(there were some interesting charts inside the article)

saintfool · Oct 16, 2019

Smack Tripper said:
Dude, I don't care, I really don't. Are people gonna care? I guess we will see, you don't and that's fine. Rachel Dolezal lives in ridicule for her choices and admission and Elizabeth Warren gets to run for President. So it seems like its something people kinda don't like, because I think most of the GOP agrees with affirmative action based on polls or pew research. But I think we can all acknowledge, there is a visual component that's a factor in bias, isn't that the point of affirmative action, people looked past minorities based on their skin color, maybe based on their name. Did she realize gains? I guess we won't know, it was enough of an asset to be promoted by Harvard. The conjecture is way way way down the list as compares to perception.

She has 4 percent support amongst black voters despite being the leader. Do you think its possible that misrepresenting her race could hold some sway there?

Factcheck.org on her heritage for those interested.

Quinnipiac Poll from this month(!) shows her AA support is expanding and well above the 4% referenced. As she has moved to the top of the leaderboard, her support among AA voters has moved with her.

Gr00vus · Oct 16, 2019

I thought Pete did the best in the first half of the debate, then kind of faded as things transitioned into domestic policy - I found his positions there uninspiring, and I don't think his appeal to half measures is a winner.

I came out liking Yang a lot more than I had previously, to the extent I hope he ends up doing something in the next administration. I don't think he's quite ready to be President, but I like his takes on a lot of subjects and am really glad he almost completely abandoned the game show Presidency gimmicks he'd been hammering in earlier debates.

I found Bernie mostly uninspiring last night, which I find troubling, but I'm still with him for now.

The one thing I now know for sure after last night is - it's time for Obama to come out of the dugout and tap Joe on the shoulder. He's done.

Sinn Fein · Oct 16, 2019

Nate Silver
@NateSilver538

Our post-debate polling results with @Ipsos coming shortly. Our numbers match the conventional wisdom about who did well in some respects, but not in others.

:popcorn:

Smack Tripper · Oct 16, 2019

FF Ninja said:
You can keep saying you don't care, but if you keep saying ridiculous things, you're going to keep giving the impression you do. An accidental misrepresentation several decades ago simply isn't the same as thousands of recent confirmed lies, so saying "a BS'er is a BS'er whether it's 1 lie or 1000" doesn't paint you as someone who doesn't care. Comparing Warren to Dolezal doesn't paint you as someone who doesn't care.

As for the 4%, let's worry about that once it's just Warren vs. the biggest bigot the white house has ever seen.

See I was cutting her a lot more slack than her attempt to spike the football with being 1/10124th indian as if that validated her. So any attempt to say this was years ago goes away with that.

Ramblin Wreck · Oct 16, 2019

sho nuff said:
Yang has zero shot.

Its too detailed in what he says...too "nerdy" in that way. I think he is more a policy guy than an overall leader. I do like him and his ideas though.

His target audience lacks the intelligence to understand?

KiddLattimer · Oct 16, 2019

Sinn Fein said:
Nate Silver
@NateSilver538

Our post-debate polling results with @Ipsos coming shortly. Our numbers match the conventional wisdom about who did well in some respects, but not in others.

Since it's Nate... "we're trying to make Bernie look worse than our numbers show"

OrtonToOlsen · Oct 16, 2019

Smack Tripper said:
Rachel Dolezal lives in ridicule for her choices and admission and Elizabeth Warren gets to run for President.

This is some solid work here, ST.

Mystery Achiever · Oct 16, 2019

GOP probably hoping O'Rourke sticks around for more debates.
https://tpc.googlesyndication.com/simgad/8215842857821548424?sqp=4sqPyQQ7QjkqNxABHQAAtEIgASgBMAk4A0DwkwlYAWBfcAKAAQGIAQGdAQAAgD-oAQGwAYCt4gS4AV_FAS2ynT4&rs=AOga4qkqpQSkxthHfIFkajkKy45JCbIXSw

the moops · Oct 16, 2019

Listened/watched to probably 2/3 of the debate. Not that anyone cares, but my rankings would be

TIER 1

Mayor Pete - had some well thought out policy stuff coupled with some good comebacks when necessary. Still looks way too young though. Should grow a beard or get a 250 dollar haircut.

Elizabeth Warren - she was clearly attacked from all sides and came out pretty well I think. She is quite quick on her feet and gives very politician like answers when necessary, yet has a clear outline of who and what she wants (even though she is indeed vague at times)

Bernie Sanders - still fesity and still has the resepct of his fellow candidates. Can't see any way that he is the nom at this point, but as long as he is in, he has gravity and steers the debate towards progressive ideas.

Cory Booker - I am coming around on him. Also has no path to the nomination, but he seems genuine and speaks from a place of caring

TIER 2

Andrew Yang - he knows what he knows. He doesn't ramble on after he says what he needs to. I like a person who doesn't feel the need to fill the dead space with nonsense. Say what you have to and get out.

Amy Klobuchar - Meh. She did fine. Coming into this primary she was near the top of my list, for I really like her as a Senator. She just has nothing distiguishing about her. And if nothing has popped yet, it's too llate.

Joe Biden - didn't have as much air time, so less chance for him to mumble his way through answers. His comment at Warren near the end where he stated that "I gave that to you" or whatever the exact wording was quite off putting and borderline sexist. Warren responded perfectly with the praise of Obama though. Ouch

TIER 3

Everyone else I guess :shrug:

toshiba · Oct 16, 2019

the moops said:
Listened/watched to probably 2/3 of the debate. Not that anyone cares, but my rankings would be

TIER 1

Mayor Pete - had some well thought out policy stuff coupled with some good comebacks when necessary. Still looks way too young though. Should grow a beard or get a 250 dollar haircut.

Elizabeth Warren - she was clearly attacked from all sides and came out pretty well I think. She is quite quick on her feet and gives very politician like answers when necessary, yet has a clear outline of who and what she wants (even though she is indeed vague at times)

Bernie Sanders - still fesity and still has the resepct of his fellow candidates. Can't see any way that he is the nom at this point, but as long as he is in, he has gravity and steers the debate towards progressive ideas.

Cory Booker - I am coming around on him. Also has no path to the nomination, but he seems genuine and speaks from a place of caring

TIER 2

Andrew Yang - he knows what he knows. He doesn't ramble on after he says what he needs to. I like a person who doesn't feel the need to fill the dead space with nonsense. Say what you have to and get out.

Amy Klobuchar - Meh. She did fine. Coming into this primary she was near the top of my list, for I really like her as a Senator. She just has nothing distiguishing about her. And if nothing has popped yet, it's too llate.

Joe Biden - didn't have as much air time, so less chance for him to mumble his way through answers. His comment at Warren near the end where he stated that "I gave that to you" or whatever the exact wording was quite off putting and borderline sexist. Warren responded perfectly with the praise of Obama though. Ouch

TIER 3

Everyone else I guess

I think this is a pretty solid take, I agree with much of it!

Mystery Achiever · Oct 16, 2019

the moops said:
Joe Biden - didn't have as much air time, so less chance for him to mumble his way through answers. His comment at Warren near the end where he stated that "I gave that to you" or whatever the exact wording was quite off putting and borderline sexist. Warren responded perfectly with the praise of Obama though. Ouch

He said she did a good job and that he got her votes. She then gave a pretty snarky response thanking Obama and anyone who helped, but not him.
I don't think it was in this exchange, but speaking of Obama, she came extremely close to plagiarizing "Obama's You didn't build this".

The exchange:
I agreed with the great job she did, and I went on the floor and got you votes. I got votes for that bill. I convinced people to vote for it. So let's get those things straight, too.

WARREN I am deeply grateful to President Obama, who fought so hard to make sure that agency was passed into law, and I am deeply grateful to every single person who fought for it and who helped pass it into law. But understand...

BIDEN You did a hell of a job in your job.

FF Ninja · Oct 16, 2019

Smack Tripper said:
See I was cutting her a lot more slack than her attempt to spike the football with being 1/10124th indian as if that validated her. So any attempt to say this was years ago goes away with that.

Did you mean to say 1000/24th?

Mystery Achiever · Oct 16, 2019

The remarks I mentioned above from Warren channeling Obama:
So I'm really shocked at the notion that anyone thinks I'm punitive. Look, I don't have a beef with billionaires. My problem is you made a fortune in America, you had a great idea, you got out there and worked for it, good for you. But you built that fortune in America. I guarantee you built it in part using workers all of us helped pay to educate. You built it in part getting your goods to markets on roads and bridges all of us helped pay for. You built it at least in part protected by police and firefighters all of us help pay the salaries for.

What Obama said:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

Amused to Death · Oct 16, 2019

FF Ninja said:
Did you mean to say 1000/24th?

Are you a stable genius? Are you? Cuz if you're not, you can't understand a stable genius!1!

toshiba · Oct 16, 2019

Mystery Achiever said:
the moops said:

Joe Biden - didn't have as much air time, so less chance for him to mumble his way through answers. His comment at Warren near the end where he stated that "I gave that to you" or whatever the exact wording was quite off putting and borderline sexist. Warren responded perfectly with the praise of Obama though. Ouch

Click to expand...

He said she did a good job and that he got her votes. She then gave a pretty snarky response thanking Obama and anyone who helped, but not him.
I don't think it was in this exchange, but speaking of Obama, she came extremely close to plagiarizing "Obama's You didn't build this".

The exchange:
I agreed with the great job she did, and I went on the floor and got you votes. I got votes for that bill. I convinced people to vote for it. So let's get those things straight, too.

WARREN I am deeply grateful to President Obama, who fought so hard to make sure that agency was passed into law, and I am deeply grateful to every single person who fought for it and who helped pass it into law. But understand...

BIDEN You did a hell of a job in your job.

Thought it was cheap of Biden to try and take credit, and he his voice sounded a bit over the top in that part of the exchange.

Mystery Achiever · Oct 16, 2019

He took credit for getting some votes and after she said that "Some of the Democrats fought us."

The General · Oct 16, 2019

Mystery Achiever said:
The remarks I mentioned above from Warren channeling Obama:
So I'm really shocked at the notion that anyone thinks I'm punitive. Look, I don't have a beef with billionaires. My problem is you made a fortune in America, you had a great idea, you got out there and worked for it, good for you. But you built that fortune in America. I guarantee you built it in part using workers all of us helped pay to educate. You built it in part getting your goods to markets on roads and bridges all of us helped pay for. You built it at least in part protected by police and firefighters all of us help pay the salaries for.

What Obama said:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

I thought exactly this when she was saying that last night. Wasn't that the stuff that got "Joe Plumber" all riled up?

Mystery Achiever · Oct 16, 2019

I don't remember specifically about him, but it got Obama in a lot of hot water for saying "You didn't build that" without a modifier like "without some support"

sho nuff · Oct 16, 2019

saintfool said:
Factcheck.org on her heritage for those interested.

Quinnipiac Poll from this month(!) shows her AA support is expanding and well above the 4% referenced. As she has moved to the top of the leaderboard, her support among AA voters has moved with her.

And AA support will be way more than what Trump would get.

wikkidpissah · Oct 16, 2019

i'm having a hard time assessing this debate with none of the late nite comedy shows working this week to tell me what to think...

ren hoek · Oct 16, 2019

wikkidpissah said:
we need to establish a clear winner, if only to know who @ren hoek will be digging the dirt on for the next month

Come on now. I dig up dirt on all the neoliberal shills, not just the frontrunners.

ShamrockPride · Oct 16, 2019

wikkidpissah said:
i'm having a hard time assessing this debate with none of the late nite comedy shows working this week to tell me what to think...

I haven't watched a late night show in about 3 or 4 months now. Just couldn't handle the Trump obsession anymore. Entire monologues now are devoted to politics. It's insane. I've watched late night shows my entire life. It makes me really sad to think this is going to be the new standard.

wikkidpissah · Oct 16, 2019

ShamrockPride said:
I haven't watched a late night show in about 3 or 4 months now. Just couldn't handle the Trump obsession anymore. Entire monologues now are devoted to politics. It's insane. I've watched late night shows my entire life. It makes me really sad to think this is going to be the new standard.

Seth Meyers is one of the truly great comedy writers i've ever experienced, and i consider myself a very rigorous & discriminating judge of comedy talent. His work on SNL, where everyone i've heard comment on his tenure as head writer gushes about his wordskill, some beautiful AND hilarious story arcs on Documentary Now and, lately, truly exciting work rounding out the spoiled, impatient material of his extremely young & diverse staff on Late Night. But he has become as you describe - obsessed, targeting and utterly unfair to his own viewers in his pointed attacks on the Bully-in-Chief. I am ashamed to still regularly watch his "A Closer Look" because i am inclined to boycott people being that remorselessly slanted, but there is so little good joke-writing out there that i still check it.

Stephen Colbert is the other side of the coin. He was so bad in his first couple of years as Late Show host that, between he and Trevor Noah (who is as targeted as Meyers but, like fellow Daily Show alum Samantha B, is not even passably funny), i entirely stopped watching the latenight shows for the first time in 50 yrs. But the last year or so, Colbert has found his element and it has nothing to do with politics, even though President Trump's shenanigans dominate his monologues. He has come to understand how exceptional it is for a pathological narcissist TV host to have risen like a 100year pimple on the forehead of the greatest country in the history of the world and has decided to fully enjoy the comedic possibilities of the Emperor's new clothes. He's not breaking any new ground, so i can't yet rank him with the late nite greats, but his performances are as clean as they are extravagant and a joy to behold.

saintfool · Oct 16, 2019

wikkidpissah said:
Seth Meyers is one of the truly great comedy writers i've ever experienced, and i consider myself a very rigorous & discriminating judge of comedy talent. His work on SNL, where everyone i've heard comment on his tenure as head writer gushes about his wordskill, some beautiful AND hilarious story arcs on Documentary Now and, lately, truly exciting work rounding out the spoiled, impatient material of his extremely young & diverse staff on Late Night. But he has become as you describe - obsessed, targeting and utterly unfair to his own viewers in his pointed attacks on the Bully-in-Chief. I am ashamed to still regularly watch his "A Closer Look" because i am inclined to boycott people being that remorselessly slanted, but there is so little good joke-writing out there that i still check it.

Stephen Colbert is the other side of the coin. He was so bad in his first couple of years as Late Show host that, between he and Trevor Noah (who is as targeted as Meyers but, like fellow Daily Show alum Samantha B, is not even passably funny), i entirely stopped watching the latenight shows for the first time in 50 yrs. But the last year or so, Colbert has found his element and it has nothing to do with politics, even though President Trump's shenanigans dominate his monologues. He has come to understand how exceptional it is for a pathological narcissist TV host to have risen like a 100year pimple on the forehead of the greatest country in the history of the world and has decided to fully enjoy the comedic possibilities of the Emperor's new clothes. He's not breaking any new ground, so i can't yet rank him with the late nite greats, but his performances are as clean as they are extravagant and a joy to behold.

My wife watched Fallon because he was just about being silly mostly. I finally switched us over to Colbert and his monologue is pretty awful, imo. The Ahab-like obsession with Trump is killing his show for me. He's a skilled and delightful interviewer though. I can't say the same for Fallon there. I like Meyers for some of the same reasons you mention - whip smart joke writing, awesome staff contributes regularly - but he's a very mediocre interviewer. He's somewhere between his Weekend Update gig on SNL and The Daily Show in that it's political satire but at a bantam weight level.

saintfool · Oct 16, 2019

sho nuff said:
And AA support will be way more than what Trump would get.

Little doubt of that, despite what Diamond, Silk, and Candace Owens would like us to believe.

urbanhack · Oct 17, 2019

Mystery Achiever said:
He said she did a good job and that he got her votes. She then gave a pretty snarky response thanking Obama and anyone who helped, but not him.
I don't think it was in this exchange, but speaking of Obama, she came extremely close to plagiarizing "Obama's You didn't build this".

The exchange:
I agreed with the great job she did, and I went on the floor and got you votes. I got votes for that bill. I convinced people to vote for it. So let's get those things straight, too.

WARREN I am deeply grateful to President Obama, who fought so hard to make sure that agency was passed into law, and I am deeply grateful to every single person who fought for it and who helped pass it into law. But understand...

BIDEN You did a hell of a job in your job.

You really need to see the video and watch how he talks down to her and raised his voice. It wasn't all just about the text.

KiddLattimer · Oct 17, 2019

Mystery Achiever said:
but speaking of Obama, she came extremely close to plagiarizing "Obama's You didn't build this".

Pretty sure he got that from her way back when

Gr00vus · Oct 24, 2019

Got a link to submit questions for the November debate: here. Submit those questions folks. I'll be asking about plans to address our environmental problems.

wikkidpissah · Oct 24, 2019

Gr00vus said:
Got a link to submit questions for the November debate: here. Submit those questions folks. I'll be asking about plans to address our environmental problems.

Not giving personal particulars to one of the six companies that run media (tho they probably already have it, can't be sure they do since they're always asking) in order to ask a question that won't be asked the candidates.

If i didn't mind that, it would be "Why, when most Democratic candidates can't stop talking about all the healthcare coverage they're gonna give us, aren't they talking about managing the costs & corruption in healthcare itself?"

I know people who worked with Hillary Clinton when she attacked the problem for her husband in the early 90s, and they were overwhelmed by how much they would have to rein in cost to make it work then. I'd guess it's over 300% more now, but no major figure has said a substantial word on the subject since Congress was cowed by Dubya (that's right, Dubya) into voting in Medicare Part D, which indemnifies Pharma from price negotiations by the states.

Mystery Achiever · Oct 25, 2019

Info was released on the December Debate. The uptick to 4% in polls might finally get the pare down many of us have been hoping for.

The sixth Democratic primary debate will be held Dec. 19 at the University of California, Los Angeles, the Democratic National Committee announced.

Candidates will need at least 200,000 unique donors to make the stage and meet one of two polling thresholds: 4% in at least four DNC-approved national or early-state polls, or 6% in two DNC-approved early-state polls. The debate will be co-hosted by PBS NewsHour and Politico.

The qualification requirements are higher than for the fifth debate next month. Candidates needed 165,000 unique donors and 3% in four polls or 5% in two early state polls to qualify for the Nov. 20 forum in Georgia, which will be hosted by MSNBC and the Washington Post.

(Source: Bloomberg)

Mystery Achiever · Oct 25, 2019

Also, update on November. It's at nine, with Klobuchar just making it. :pickle:

"Meanwhile, Klobuchar made it into the next round after hitting 3% in four polls. For what it’s worth, she also reached 4% in an Iowa poll released Thursday and by one estimate has moved into seventh place nationally. Three candidates who were at the October debate have yet to qualify this time. Former Representative Beto O’Rourke still needs two more good polls to make it; Representative Tulsi Gabbard needs three; and former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro needs four, as does everyone who didn’t make it in October. (Candidates need to reach 3% or better in four qualifying national or early-state polls to be invited.)"

(Also from Bloomberg, editorial pickle from me)

Tau837 · Oct 27, 2019

FF Ninja said:
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren trails former Vice President Joe Biden in most national polls, but her rivals on stage treated her like the frontrunner. Other candidates routinely lobbed attacks her way—especially over how she’d pay for her “Medicare for All” health care proposal. That ensured Warren received plenty of time to respond, and she spoke far more than any other candidate.

Good article on the challenge she faces on this: Why Paying for Single Payer Is Such a Political Quagmire

IMO whoever ends up as the Democratic candidate will (should) get hammered over this by the Republicans. There is no way to pay for it without raising taxes significantly on both citizens and businesses. Plus, aside from paying for it, there are all the other ripple effects (e.g., unemployment for people working in the private healthcare industry, the fact that the stocks of these companies are a non-trivial component of the stock market, etc.). I think a Democratic candidate who pushes this aggressively could lose the election on this issue.

FF Ninja · Oct 28, 2019

Just Win Baby said:
Good article on the challenge she faces on this: Why Paying for Single Payer Is Such a Political Quagmire

IMO whoever ends up as the Democratic candidate will (should) get hammered over this by the Republicans. There is no way to pay for it without raising taxes significantly on both citizens and businesses. Plus, aside from paying for it, there are all the other ripple effects (e.g., unemployment for people working in the private healthcare industry, the fact that the stocks of these companies are a non-trivial component of the stock market, etc.). I think a Democratic candidate who pushes this aggressively could lose the election on this issue.

I'm not well versed enough to come to a conclusion on the topic, but urbanhack provided a good article on the subject. I do believe the current system is broken, but I think we've got even more important things to focus on, such as corruption.

I don't see her losing on this issue, because who will hammer her about it? If her fellow Democratic candidates don't, then nobody on the debate stage will be able to. If trump actually agrees to debate her (unlikely), she'll slaughter him. He's not smart enough to grill her on this topic. I'm sure someone will try to write the questions for him to ask her, but he'll accidentally turn them into gibberish like he always does.

Sinn Fein · Oct 28, 2019

Just Win Baby said:
there are all the other ripple effects (e.g., unemployment for people working in the private healthcare industry, the fact that the stocks of these companies are a non-trivial component of the stock market, etc.).

I kind of think these are red herrings though.

Even if you assume that all private insurance would go away (narrator: "Insurance will never go away") - the tasks performed by the insurance company still need to be performed in a government funded role. Most of those jobs would not leave the economy.

And, again, assuming Insurance companies simply disappeared - they would be replaced in the Dow or other indexes - as those are updated periodically.

The problem with everyone's plan - everyone seems to be focused on coverage, and who will pay for that coverage. The real issue is reducing the overall healthcare costs. Insurance profits are certainly a target, but really, we have to do a much better job at reducing the medical costs of healthcare. We can do that through early diagnosis, healthy living, and reducing/eliminating wasteful medical procedures. (Also tackling big pharma on drug prices - getting better taxpayer ROI on initial drug discoveries)

unckeyherb · Oct 28, 2019

Sinn Fein said:
I kind of think these are red herrings though.

Even if you assume that all private insurance would go away (narrator: "Insurance will never go away") - the tasks performed by the insurance company still need to be performed in a government funded role. Most of those jobs would not leave the economy.

And, again, assuming Insurance companies simply disappeared - they would be replaced in the Dow or other indexes - as those are updated periodically.

The problem with everyone's plan - everyone seems to be focused on coverage, and who will pay for that coverage. The real issue is reducing the overall healthcare costs. Insurance profits are certainly a target, but really, we have to do a much better job at reducing the medical costs of healthcare. We can do that through early diagnosis, healthy living, and reducing/eliminating wasteful medical procedures. (Also tackling big pharma on drug prices - getting better taxpayer ROI on initial drug discoveries)

These are good points. But when Warren is asked, repeatedly about taxes going up and she responds, repeatedly, by evading the question and instead says that healthcare costs should go down, it looks disingenuous. I mean, she's getting push back from people like Chris Mathews for gods sake.

Sinn Fein · Oct 28, 2019

unckeyherb said:
These are good points. But when Warren is asked, repeatedly about taxes going up and she responds, repeatedly, by evading the question and instead says that healthcare costs should go down, it looks disingenuous. I mean, she's getting push back from people like Chris Mathews for gods sake.

She is - and I think she needs to explain how she will pay for it. I think that is fair game.

I do think that she, and Bernie, get asked loaded questions, like: "Will taxes on the middle class go up?"

The honest answer is: "Yes, under their proposals middle class taxes will go up."

But, that misses the point entirely of what they are trying to accomplish. They want to replace insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays with taxes. So, the "gotcha" moment of higher taxes ignores the broader concept of potentially lower overall spending by the taxpayer.

Having said that - Warren and Sanders need to come out with a more detailed approach, imo, to show that overall costs would go down. That is the assumption, but I don't think I have seen the analysis on that (it could be out there, but they need to make that crystal clear)

Tau837 · Oct 28, 2019

FF Ninja said:
I don't see her losing on this issue, because who will hammer her about it? If her fellow Democratic candidates don't, then nobody on the debate stage will be able to. If trump actually agrees to debate her (unlikely), she'll slaughter him. He's not smart enough to grill her on this topic. I'm sure someone will try to write the questions for him to ask her, but he'll accidentally turn them into gibberish like he always does.

Hammering her about it doesn't have to take place only in a debate. They will hammer her in talking points throughout the campaign, in the media, etc.

Sinn Fein said:
Even if you assume that all private insurance would go away (narrator: "Insurance will never go away") - the tasks performed by the insurance company still need to be performed in a government funded role. Most of those jobs would not leave the economy.

If none of the jobs are eliminated, where is the supposed administrative savings coming from? I don't see how this can be true.

Sinn Fein said:
And, again, assuming Insurance companies simply disappeared - they would be replaced in the Dow or other indexes - as those are updated periodically.

I don't think it will have a big impact on indexes. But consider the market capitalization of the top 5 health insurance and managed health care companies (as of Aug 2019):

United Healthcare - $92B
Wellpoint - $34B
Aetna - $30B
Cigna - $27B
Humana - $21B

That is over $200B in just those 5 companies. That value is held in investment accounts. Just getting rid of those companies in a big Government takeover would crush the investment accounts that hold that value. That would negatively impact a lot of citizens.

Sinn Fein said:
But, that misses the point entirely of what they are trying to accomplish. They want to replace insurance premiums, deductibles and co-pays with taxes. So, the "gotcha" moment of higher taxes ignores the broader concept of potentially lower overall spending by the taxpayer.

Sure, but what you are getting at is one of the hurdles addressed in the article I linked. Raising taxes affects everyone, but everyone doesn't have the same amount of insurance premiums and healthcare expenses. Healthcare spending is not proportional across the population - the top 1% of persons ranked by their health care expenditures account for about 23% of total healthcare expenditures. So it seems likely there will be many more financial losers than winners. It is just another form of wealth redistribution.

It is also a redistribution of healthcare. The good part of that is getting it to people who don't have it. The bad part of that is taking it away from people who have it due to budget constraints that drive rationing.

I don't think Sanders, Warren, or anyone can come up with a plan that shows details on how to pay for the program that will get widespread support because the tax element in any such plan is going to be so significant. And of course no such candidate would admit to the likelihood of rationing.

Sinn Fein · Oct 28, 2019

Just Win Baby said:
If none of the jobs are eliminated, where is the supposed administrative savings coming from? I don't see how this can be true.

I'll try to tackle these one by one.

Biggest chunk would be elimination of Insurance profits - that is a healthcare cost that provides no healthcare benefit.

Second, much smaller elimination would be reduced overhead by combining people into fewer locations. So, instead of 500 people working in 5 different office spaces, you put 500 people together in one location.

(The reality is automation will kill some of these jobs anyway, even if they stay with private insurers...)

Sinn Fein · Oct 28, 2019

Just Win Baby said:
Sure, but what you are getting at is one of the hurdles addressed in the article I linked. Raising taxes affects everyone, but everyone doesn't have the same amount of insurance premiums and healthcare expenses. Healthcare spending is not proportional across the population - the top 1% of persons ranked by their health care expenditures account for about 23% of total healthcare expenditures. So it seems likely there will be many more financial losers than winners. It is just another form of wealth redistribution.

It is also a redistribution of healthcare. The good part of that is getting it to people who don't have it. The bad part of that is taking it away from people who have it due to budget constraints that drive rationing.

I don't think Sanders, Warren, or anyone can come up with a plan that shows details on how to pay for the program that will get widespread support because the tax element in any such plan is going to be so significant. And of course no such candidate would admit to the likelihood of rationing.

So, here is the dirty little secret about healthcare (and why I think Obamacare struggled):

There is a big bucket of healthcare related expenses in this country - add up all the costs to get that total. Individuals are responsible for 100% of those costs - either directly, or indirectly. We either pay via taxes, premiums/copays/deductibles, or our employer chips in with some of those costs. But, its important to remember that our employer is paying for those costs via the profits they make on goods and services - i.e. they charge enough to cover those expenses, and without those expenses, products and services would cost less. So, we even pay, indirectly, for any employer benefits we receive.

So, with Obamacare the primary idea was to get more people covered - so that more people would go get medical treatment when needed. What that did was to create a bigger healthcare bucket - since people who had not gone to the doctor, were now going, and adding to the macro expenses. The new premiums for those new people - who tended to be less healthy than the general public - did not cover all the new expenses - and so we all, collectively, still have to pay for the entire bucket - that meant everyone's premiums go up.

So, if we are all collectively responsible, then we have to allocate those expenses in some way - but, no matter how you do it, its not going to be "fair" - and part of that reasoning is that we all collectively benefit from a healthier populace. That could be from a more productive work force (less sick days), it could be from reducing your own risk to illness being spread.

Arguably, the most successful among us, benefit the most from a healthy workforce. Whether that is as a CEO, or even just a shareholder - we benefit economically from everyone being healthier.

And, using your data of the top 1% accounting for 23% of expenditures - if they can't pay it (and most can't) - they go bankrupt, and the health system has to "eat" the expense - except the healthcare system does not eat the expense, it builds it into the pricing for everyone else...so most of us are already paying much more than we are taking out. Nothing really changes there.

Democratic Debates (2 Viewers)

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Dead sexy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Dead sexy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Dead sexy

Dead sexy

Fight The Power&#33;

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Fight The Power!