USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
Night 1 thoughts:
- Williamson is still a kook.
- Hickenlooper continues to look awkward and not have much of value to say. I assume he’s toast after this.
- Bullock’s manner of speaking comes off as completely inauthentic, like he’s trying to force a fake folksy charm. I kept waiting for him to lapse into a snake oil pitch. No thanks.
- O’Rourke is a complete joke. His attempts at flowery speech are forced and fall flat, he has this weird nervous energy that is extremely offputting, and he’s completely bankrupt on policy substance. Unfortunately he’s already met the higher entry requirements for the next debate.
- Ryan came off better than in the first debate (an extremely low bar to clear), but Sanders gutted him when he tried to go on the offensive.
- Klobuchar has some good points to make, but she’s struggling to stand out in this field. She may be toast.
- Delaney seemed to get a lot of attention this time, and I think he did a good job of articulating his more moderate positions, but Warren and Sanders both smacked him down pretty hard. He also has this weird nervous tic of briefly flashing a creepy fake smile, which isn’t a good look. But maybe he stood out enough to hang on for another round.
- Buttigieg continues to be the calm, thoughtful presence on stage. He’s probably the most Obama-esque of the current crop, which works in his favor.
- Sanders came out swinging, slapping down lesser challengers like they were barely worth his notice. His angry grandpa schtick is working for him.
- Warren seemed less shrill and more focused than the last time around, and she shut down Delaney hard. I think she had a good night.
Williamson is a kook* but not gonna lie her kookiness kinda scares me. Both debates have done quite a bit for her popularity and the media seems to love her. I don't think she's a realistic threat at this point but she's proof that nobody has learned their lesson from Trump.
*Or she at least plays a kook. She's clearly trying to play the media and it seems to be working.
The losers of this debate were CNN. First of all, I wasn't able to watch the debate live and couldn't find any way to watch it through CNN after the fact. I read somewhere that you had to pay to stream it after? I don't know if that's true cause I couldn't even find a paywall but I wouldn't be surprised. Welcome to America. Also, the moderation during the debate was ridiculous. I get they have limited time but the way they constantly cut off candidates mid answer was obnoxious. At least let them finish whatever idea they're on. The "will you raise taxes on the middle class" question was embarrassing. The essence of the medicare-for-all argument is that total costs will go down. Any increase in taxes would be offset by a lowering of premiums. Bernie and Warren have both made this argument. Trying to get them to simply say "we will raise taxes on the middle class" is just fishing for a soundbite that would be disingenuous to use in an argument and highly valuable for any Republican running in 2020.
As for candidates: we get one new contestant in Bullock and the overall quality of candidates goes down. I honestly liked Swalwell better. Bullock came off as a really shady politician and didn't really contribute anything to the conversation.
For everyone else, my thoughts are pretty much the same as last time. Bernie came off a lot better and handled things really well when confronted directly. Several of the moderate candidates each took a turn at swiping at him but he handled it with ease. Warren, same thing. She didn't dominate the way she did last time, but she is still the obvious best choice on that stage.
Beto didn't embarrass himself and actually had a few good moments. I guess that's the best he can hope for at this point.
Mayor Pete didn't embarrass himself and had a few good moments. That is not good for him. After seeing a remarkable surge before the summer he really needed to make a splash on the debate stage and I feel he hasn't done it. He's going to make a great VP pick but after the third debate he is going to quickly run out of money if he doesn't have a "moment." Despite that, I actually really liked a lot of what he had to say.
Klobuchar is by far the best "moderate" choice but she has no chance. The other moderates* (Delaney, Hickenlooper, Ryan, etc) are running on really hollow messages of "socialism is not the answer." I already ranted on this last time so I'll save it, but I think it's lame that they throw terms like "wish list" economics at the progressive candidates when they aren't really proposing much of substance themselves. Delaney said he had a healthcare plan, but didn't really elaborate on it. I've noticed that they tend to be the ones who throw out the most empty slogans and bumper sticker politics. Klobuchar, on the other hand, is running as a moderate and doing it with substance. When she has disagreements, she presents an alternative. She also seems genuinely interested in winning instead of just taking swipes at top tier candidates because she wants a viral moment or to sell books or whatever the other 0-percenters are trying to do in this race.
*I'm not counting Mayor Pete in this. I suppose you could consider him a moderate but it's kinda hard to say because he's being purposefully coy with some of his positions. He and Beto are kinda in their own brand of Millennial Neoliberalism I guess.
So this was the big fight over party identity. You're not going to see the same thing tonight because there isn't as much of an ideological divide (the most progressive candidate is probably Tulsi but that's not really a focus of her campaign). Expect a lot more attacks on Biden though. I don't care who the candidate is as long as they are qualified and can beat Trump, but I don't think running on what can't be done is the way to do that. Bernie said it best: Republicans aren't afraid of big ideas and that's why they continue to win elections at every level. This is why I think Warren and Bernie are running winning campaigns. The non-progressive who understands this and can win is Kamala Harris. Looking forward to her performance tonight.
Edit: One more thing: one of the big media narratives leading up to this was whether the friendly rivalry between Bernie and Warren will become more heated and less friendly. I'm glad they didn't take the bait on that. Warren was especially excellent when she was asked if describing herself as a capitalist was her way of saying that she's a better choice than Sanders. Instead of taking the bait, she took the moment to make an argument for progressivism. This is what democrats need to do in general. There is way more agreement than disagreement. Instead of playing up those differences, play up party unity and differentiate from the Republicans and current government. Warren had a similarly good moment earlier when she made a point to say that the democrats were not a party of taking things away.
*Or she at least plays a kook. She's clearly trying to play the media and it seems to be working.
The losers of this debate were CNN. First of all, I wasn't able to watch the debate live and couldn't find any way to watch it through CNN after the fact. I read somewhere that you had to pay to stream it after? I don't know if that's true cause I couldn't even find a paywall but I wouldn't be surprised. Welcome to America. Also, the moderation during the debate was ridiculous. I get they have limited time but the way they constantly cut off candidates mid answer was obnoxious. At least let them finish whatever idea they're on. The "will you raise taxes on the middle class" question was embarrassing. The essence of the medicare-for-all argument is that total costs will go down. Any increase in taxes would be offset by a lowering of premiums. Bernie and Warren have both made this argument. Trying to get them to simply say "we will raise taxes on the middle class" is just fishing for a soundbite that would be disingenuous to use in an argument and highly valuable for any Republican running in 2020.
As for candidates: we get one new contestant in Bullock and the overall quality of candidates goes down. I honestly liked Swalwell better. Bullock came off as a really shady politician and didn't really contribute anything to the conversation.
For everyone else, my thoughts are pretty much the same as last time. Bernie came off a lot better and handled things really well when confronted directly. Several of the moderate candidates each took a turn at swiping at him but he handled it with ease. Warren, same thing. She didn't dominate the way she did last time, but she is still the obvious best choice on that stage.
Beto didn't embarrass himself and actually had a few good moments. I guess that's the best he can hope for at this point.
Mayor Pete didn't embarrass himself and had a few good moments. That is not good for him. After seeing a remarkable surge before the summer he really needed to make a splash on the debate stage and I feel he hasn't done it. He's going to make a great VP pick but after the third debate he is going to quickly run out of money if he doesn't have a "moment." Despite that, I actually really liked a lot of what he had to say.
Klobuchar is by far the best "moderate" choice but she has no chance. The other moderates* (Delaney, Hickenlooper, Ryan, etc) are running on really hollow messages of "socialism is not the answer." I already ranted on this last time so I'll save it, but I think it's lame that they throw terms like "wish list" economics at the progressive candidates when they aren't really proposing much of substance themselves. Delaney said he had a healthcare plan, but didn't really elaborate on it. I've noticed that they tend to be the ones who throw out the most empty slogans and bumper sticker politics. Klobuchar, on the other hand, is running as a moderate and doing it with substance. When she has disagreements, she presents an alternative. She also seems genuinely interested in winning instead of just taking swipes at top tier candidates because she wants a viral moment or to sell books or whatever the other 0-percenters are trying to do in this race.
*I'm not counting Mayor Pete in this. I suppose you could consider him a moderate but it's kinda hard to say because he's being purposefully coy with some of his positions. He and Beto are kinda in their own brand of Millennial Neoliberalism I guess.
So this was the big fight over party identity. You're not going to see the same thing tonight because there isn't as much of an ideological divide (the most progressive candidate is probably Tulsi but that's not really a focus of her campaign). Expect a lot more attacks on Biden though. I don't care who the candidate is as long as they are qualified and can beat Trump, but I don't think running on what can't be done is the way to do that. Bernie said it best: Republicans aren't afraid of big ideas and that's why they continue to win elections at every level. This is why I think Warren and Bernie are running winning campaigns. The non-progressive who understands this and can win is Kamala Harris. Looking forward to her performance tonight.
Edit: One more thing: one of the big media narratives leading up to this was whether the friendly rivalry between Bernie and Warren will become more heated and less friendly. I'm glad they didn't take the bait on that. Warren was especially excellent when she was asked if describing herself as a capitalist was her way of saying that she's a better choice than Sanders. Instead of taking the bait, she took the moment to make an argument for progressivism. This is what democrats need to do in general. There is way more agreement than disagreement. Instead of playing up those differences, play up party unity and differentiate from the Republicans and current government. Warren had a similarly good moment earlier when she made a point to say that the democrats were not a party of taking things away.
Last edited:
As expected, night 2 wasn't quite as interesting as night 1 mostly because there wasn't as much of an ideological divide. It seemed obvious that a lot of the candidates were struggling to differentiate themselves and reconciled this by going on the offensive. Ultimately I don't think that strategy will work out. There was clearly blood in the water not just from Biden but also Harris. A lot of the low pollers seemed to frequently go after one or the other, Biden much more so. Sometimes it worked, like when Tulsi went after Harris, sometimes not as much, like Gillibrand vs Biden.
I mentioned yesterday that Tulsi was probably the only progressive on stage but totally forgot about de Blasio, who is actually running a progressive campaign. He seems to be playing the Trump role in the sense that he has the same New York brashness and isn't afraid to directly attack other candidates. When a moderator asked which opponent a candidate was specifically referring to when making a general statement about other Democrats, de Blasio was the only one who would name names without dodging the question. Whether that's good or bad is up for debate, it ultimately doesn't matter because this will be the last we hear from him.
Andrew Yang got a lot more speaking time and also performed infinitely better than last time around. He was basically ignored by the other candidates and pretty much used every question as a way to promote his Freedom Dividend. I would really like to see a moderator ask any of the other candidates if they agree with his proposal. Anyway, he had a lot of great moments and even had some nice applause lines. I'll be curious to see if he sees any improvements. Apparently he is one of the few who have qualified for the third debate, which is interesting. We'll see how he performs on a smaller stage.
Gillibrand came off much better this time I thought. Her attack on Biden's record with women was a dud though and probably ruined any other good moments she had. She basically implored people to help her make the next debate stage at the end. She's done.
Add Bennett, Castro, and Inslee to the list of finished candidates. Castro had a real chance going into this to build on his momentum and maybe cross that third debate threshold but he didn't really have any memorable moments. He is also not doing a good job with explaining what a lot of people are interpreting as essentially a call for open borders, which is a politically toxic position. Inslee is obviously in this to push the climate change issue and seems to be doing fine on that front. More than any other candidate, I really have no idea why Bennett is running. I'll miss him though, I like hearing him talk. He's definitely from Colorado.
If I was a Democratic frontrunner, the last candidate I would want to see meet the third debate requirements is Tulsi Gabbard. She is a great debater and speaker. She is really good job at coming off as the more knowledgeable and qualified person while making the opposition look really bad. She did it to Tim Ryan last time and last night she did it to Kamala Harris. I'd love to see her up against Trump. That said, she is probably done. However she did have a much better performance overall and seems to have generated some buzz.
Of course the match everyone wanted to see was Harris and Biden. Biden performed about the same as last time, minus any particularly embarrassing moments. So it was probably about as good as he could hope for, as the frontrunner. He does get tongue tied a lot though and has a tendency toward long ramblings before abruptly stopping. It doesn't look good and gives me serious concerns about his health. I still think that, of the frontrunners, he is by far the worst choice and I really hope he isn't the nominee.
Harris wasn't quite as strong tonight. She tried to have another moment with Biden and while she did OK I don't think it'll land the way it did last time. Her exchange with Tulsi looked really bad and exposed what is really a wishy washy platform and a questionable record.
At the end of the day, I don't think any candidate really came out of this looking good. It was a much more confrontational debate and that's not a great look for the Dems. I actually think Cory Booker was the one who came off the best. He has a ton of charisma and I'm actually surprised he isn't a frontrunner. He's certainly more appealing than a Beto or a Mayor Pete with similar policy and charm.
After this the debate requirements become more strict and we're going to see a lot of candidates dropping out. I think this is ultimately going to come down to Warren and Biden. I'm really looking forward to seeing the two of them finally share a debate stage. I still like Harris in terms of her being qualified and having a presidential demeanor. She's probably to the right of me on policy, but I think at least some of the progressive agenda will ultimately win out in the end regardless. No matter who wins the nomination, Bernie Sanders is going to be one of the lead voices in whatever healthcare or education legislation is written. Obviously healthcare under President Biden would look different than under President Sanders, but a lot of the debate over the details that we're seeing now is going to happen again in congress.
I mentioned yesterday that Tulsi was probably the only progressive on stage but totally forgot about de Blasio, who is actually running a progressive campaign. He seems to be playing the Trump role in the sense that he has the same New York brashness and isn't afraid to directly attack other candidates. When a moderator asked which opponent a candidate was specifically referring to when making a general statement about other Democrats, de Blasio was the only one who would name names without dodging the question. Whether that's good or bad is up for debate, it ultimately doesn't matter because this will be the last we hear from him.
Andrew Yang got a lot more speaking time and also performed infinitely better than last time around. He was basically ignored by the other candidates and pretty much used every question as a way to promote his Freedom Dividend. I would really like to see a moderator ask any of the other candidates if they agree with his proposal. Anyway, he had a lot of great moments and even had some nice applause lines. I'll be curious to see if he sees any improvements. Apparently he is one of the few who have qualified for the third debate, which is interesting. We'll see how he performs on a smaller stage.
Gillibrand came off much better this time I thought. Her attack on Biden's record with women was a dud though and probably ruined any other good moments she had. She basically implored people to help her make the next debate stage at the end. She's done.
Add Bennett, Castro, and Inslee to the list of finished candidates. Castro had a real chance going into this to build on his momentum and maybe cross that third debate threshold but he didn't really have any memorable moments. He is also not doing a good job with explaining what a lot of people are interpreting as essentially a call for open borders, which is a politically toxic position. Inslee is obviously in this to push the climate change issue and seems to be doing fine on that front. More than any other candidate, I really have no idea why Bennett is running. I'll miss him though, I like hearing him talk. He's definitely from Colorado.
If I was a Democratic frontrunner, the last candidate I would want to see meet the third debate requirements is Tulsi Gabbard. She is a great debater and speaker. She is really good job at coming off as the more knowledgeable and qualified person while making the opposition look really bad. She did it to Tim Ryan last time and last night she did it to Kamala Harris. I'd love to see her up against Trump. That said, she is probably done. However she did have a much better performance overall and seems to have generated some buzz.
Of course the match everyone wanted to see was Harris and Biden. Biden performed about the same as last time, minus any particularly embarrassing moments. So it was probably about as good as he could hope for, as the frontrunner. He does get tongue tied a lot though and has a tendency toward long ramblings before abruptly stopping. It doesn't look good and gives me serious concerns about his health. I still think that, of the frontrunners, he is by far the worst choice and I really hope he isn't the nominee.
Harris wasn't quite as strong tonight. She tried to have another moment with Biden and while she did OK I don't think it'll land the way it did last time. Her exchange with Tulsi looked really bad and exposed what is really a wishy washy platform and a questionable record.
At the end of the day, I don't think any candidate really came out of this looking good. It was a much more confrontational debate and that's not a great look for the Dems. I actually think Cory Booker was the one who came off the best. He has a ton of charisma and I'm actually surprised he isn't a frontrunner. He's certainly more appealing than a Beto or a Mayor Pete with similar policy and charm.
After this the debate requirements become more strict and we're going to see a lot of candidates dropping out. I think this is ultimately going to come down to Warren and Biden. I'm really looking forward to seeing the two of them finally share a debate stage. I still like Harris in terms of her being qualified and having a presidential demeanor. She's probably to the right of me on policy, but I think at least some of the progressive agenda will ultimately win out in the end regardless. No matter who wins the nomination, Bernie Sanders is going to be one of the lead voices in whatever healthcare or education legislation is written. Obviously healthcare under President Biden would look different than under President Sanders, but a lot of the debate over the details that we're seeing now is going to happen again in congress.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
My DVR didn’t record night 2’s live broadcast for some reason, so I recorded the repeat, but CNN abbreviated the repeat so it dropped the opening and closing statements and probably some of the late debate content. So, with those caveats...
Night 2 thoughts:
I look forward to this field getting chopped down to a manageable size.
Night 2 thoughts:
- Inslee doesn’t come off as presidential at all to me. He’s like your weird uncle that you just wish would shut up. No thanks.
- Castro was...zzzzzzzzzzz...I’m sorry, what was I saying? Oh yeah, he’s toast.
- Bennet has an odd way of presenting himself that doesn’t really work for him, so even though he makes coherent points, it’s hard to take him seriously.
- Yang seemed to get more mic time in this debate, and whatever you think about UBI, I think he did an effective job of tying it to other issues in unexpected ways. I don’t think he’s ready for prime time, but I like having him in the conversation.
- Gillibrand looked desperate, and her attempt to attack Biden on his attitude toward working women didn’t really land at all. She probably seemed the strongest to me when she was talking about making the case for racial justice issues to white suburban women, but I don’t think it’s enough to keep her around.
- DeBlasio continues to be annoying, and I enjoyed seeing him get chided for trying to speak out of turn. He keeps trying to position himself as the bold warrior of the progressive left, but I don’t think anyone’s buying what he’s selling.
- Gabbard had a much better night tonight, and she really torched Harris, but I don’t think she’s polished enough to go the distance. Sorry, Vlad.
- I’ve already said I can never take Booker seriously again after his disingenuous Spartacus bullshit, but he had a pretty good night and landed some good hits on Biden. I think people overrated his performance, though.
- Harris had a solid night, but I don’t think she moved the needle, and Gabbard landed some pretty nasty blows on her that should stick.
- Biden continues to come off as old, slow, and stumbling over his words. It’s not a good look at all. That said, he defended himself better than the last time around, but his attempt to attack Booker was pathetic. I’m worried about his chances if he gets the nomination and doesn’t radically improve this impression.
I look forward to this field getting chopped down to a manageable size.
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
Wonder if the big child in the White House will celebrate the release of A$AP Rocky as a victory, despite him not yet being found not guilty? (The verdict will come in two weeks, but the rapper and his crew have been released from custody)
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
So, what do the resident USAians think? Purchase Greenland from Denmark, yay or nay?
And since Denmark have already said they are not going to sell - what to do? Punitive tariffs on Danish pastry and Carlsberg beer?
And since Denmark have already said they are not going to sell - what to do? Punitive tariffs on Danish pastry and Carlsberg beer?
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
Greenland is already very generous with us about doing things on their land. I could see strategic value in having them under our official umbrella, especially if Trump plans to alienate Europe; but he shouldn’t be alienating Europe in the first place, and if Greenland and Denmark aren’t interested, then it should be a moot point.
I don't know if Greenland has control over the US use of bases in the country, as Greenland's foreign policy is still executed by Denmark. However, the US military is a huge employer there, so I suspect they're OK with it.
Greenland has high unemployment, alcoholism and suicide rates, so I'm guessing the locals wouldn't be terribly unhappy with some interest in their country. In fact, I don't seem to recall reading any statement by a Greenlander about this.
'Kielsen, the Greenlandic premier, responded that purchasing the territory was "not something to joke about."'
Trump postpones meeting with Denmark’s leader over Greenland comments
President Trump on Tuesday announced he was postponing a planned meeting with the prime minister of Denmark after she shot down his talk of possibly purchasing Greenland, an autonomous Danish terri…
thehill.com
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
If we let him have Greenland he'll have 5 extra soldiers every turn. That is unacceptable.
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
In the aftermath of this idea going public, Donald Trump has proved that he is, in fact, one of the greatest snowflakes in US politics. Ironic, as it is a word he and his ilk loves to use to deride the opposition.
The Danish prime minister has said that the idea is absurd. Trump takes it as an insult not only towards himself but towards the United States, no less.
Jesus wept.
The Danish prime minister has said that the idea is absurd. Trump takes it as an insult not only towards himself but towards the United States, no less.
Jesus wept.
Black Bart
Ancient Mariner
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
Trump and his supporters have a lot in common with social justice warriors. Thin-skinned, hostile to criticism and the freedom of expression, socially collectivistic, pseudoscientific, faux-enlightened. Horseshoe theory strikes again.
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
Makes one think. Perhaps it's not that the different radical (right wing, left wing) ideologies share so much per se, but that the same mechanisms apply to all people who seek the extremes - and that those who end up seeking the extremes are those who are by nature more likely to do so - whereas it is more down to external influences which extreme they end up at.
Sometimes you can also see people changing from one radical type of movement/ideology/belief to another. For example, one rather outspoken Norwegian supporter of the ayatollah regime in Iran was earlier part of the more radical Communist party in Norway (the one that openly supported Mao and wanted an armed revolution).
Sometimes you can also see people changing from one radical type of movement/ideology/belief to another. For example, one rather outspoken Norwegian supporter of the ayatollah regime in Iran was earlier part of the more radical Communist party in Norway (the one that openly supported Mao and wanted an armed revolution).
Last edited:
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
I think this is it. In fact, I believe it's a widely-researched phenomenon in psychology and sociology.
RationalWiki also uses the term "crank magnetism" for the phenomenon in which people who believe in one discredited conspiracy theory, pseudoscientific concept etc. are more likely to endorse other such conspiracy theories and pseudoscientific concepts even when they are unrelated.
Joe Walsh (not the Eagle) has become the second republican to announce a primary against Donald Trump in the 2020 election. Where William Weld appeared to being challenging Trump from the left, Walsh is coming at him from the right. There have also been rumors about challenges from Jeff Flake and John Kasich. A primary challenge in itself isn’t really surprising or interesting, however if one of these characters puts up a real challenge that will be a very bad sign for Trump in the general.
Although the primary system has evolved since, it was early primaries in 1968 that convinced LBJ not to run.