Obviously, this post is absolutely not directed at the poster of the expletive in [82] since I am not responding to her posts out of respect for her... her term... being "afraid." :)

Wish in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one gets full first. ~ Daddy

Can somebody please pass that along to her since she is... her terms... "afraid" and not "worth her own salt."

Thanking y'all in advance. :)

So who's this "Good Will" guy? Ain't no such person in this place!

"Having no idea what one is talking about" is not exactly a virtue, but it beats the HELL out of your system of claiming you actually DO when in reality you do NOT, right???

There's debate on the Kick network?

Not unless you define debate as making stuff up aboot the opposing argument to fit your argument and avoiding the issue at hand as debate.

You are the opposing argument, DH, and no one need make up a single thing on your behalf because you've done that quite properly already:

I have none of the credentials normally listed in a bio. No degrees, no years of running a successful business and no experience in political campaigns or activism. I am simply an average person that has been working and living at survival mode. But I have the only credentials that I believe really matters. I am a citizen and I have an idea that may improve our political system. ~ Don Harris

Have I mentioned lately that you could "cut down" your bio even further and simply say: "I have no education, no experience, no success, and absolutely no idea what I'm talking about." Oh, right... I just did. :)

i'm also afraid to debate on the kick network. but i might be convinced were i offered some pie.

My good man, be not afraid... for kicks and stones may break your bones, but words will never hurt you. *grins*

I am prepared to bestow upon thee a nice pecan tart and dub thee "queen for a day" and proffer thee the entirety of Thursday 3.14, but on this day you had better bring the receipts or off to the dungeon you'll go without any dessert. ;)

There are always folks with great expectations, but no one knows what Mueller will say, or how he'll say it.

Mueller has to date been using what is referred to as "speaking indictments" and "spin-offs" in order to make his case against multiple perps. Would it be a giant leap to expect this modus operandi of Bobby Three Sticks to continue in the future? Um... nope. :)

Who among us doesn't recognize the FOX network for what it is. That is all the more reason why Democrats, if they are worth their own salt, should welcome a FOX debate. ~ Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller is obviously afraid to debate on the Kick Network. Anyone else? ;)

Do you think Democrats are capable of providing the kind of leadership that will be required to begin the task of lessening the extreme polarization in your country and of saving American democracy?

Of course they are, as are many Republicans, and they are on the job as we speak protecting our democracy as always... but they're not politicians. :)

What cable news network is the most watched by American viewers?

Actually, that depends on the time slot. Regardless, you seem blissfully unaware that the majority of Americans don't receive their news from cable networks and there are multiple networks that draw millions more viewers than that of Fox News.

I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

I don't need 3 guesses, but I will give you 3 networks that have more viewers than your precious Fox News. You seem rather hung up on the "little picture," EM; however, if viewership is truly your ultimate priority, you should divest yourself of the ridiculous notion that Fox News garners the majority.

THE MOST-WATCHED NETWORKS OF 2018
(BY TOTAL VIEWERS)

NETWORK--VIEWERS--VERSUS 2017

1. NBC.....…….7,876,000...….+9%
2. CBS...…..….7,385,000...….-7%
3. ABC...……...5,423,000...….-3%
4. Fox...…...….4,401,000...….-6%
5. Fox News...2,481,000...….+3%
6. MSNBC...…1,789,000...….+11%
7. ESPN....…...1,764,000...….-7%
8. USA...……...1,518,000...….-9%
9. HGTV...…….1,461,000...….-5%
10. Univision..1,448,000......-13%

Any more questions?

Do you think Democrats are capable of providing the kind of leadership that will be required to begin the task of lessening the extreme polarization in your country and of saving American democracy?

What cable news network is the most watched by American viewers?

I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.

Yes, you're right about the question not being a good one for the Democratic debates and about it being couched in the right terms(ie. not as a 'decline').

It's probably a good question for debate around here, though. :)

I think you're right about the damage done to America's global leadership role can be corrected in large part by just defeating Trump in 2020.

But, that kind of course correction is going to take a Democratic leader for whom diplomacy and leadership on the world stage is second nature.

If Trump is re-elected, then all bets are off as to when the promise of America will emerge, if ever.

Perhaps the DNC is simply holding out for the RT Network debate with sponsorship by Stolichnaya... or maybe the Alex Jones "Demon-crat" Debate from Hell brought to you by the InfoWars Vitamin Store.

How many times must this be explained to you that it's not remotely about being afraid or fearful? Oh, what will it take to convince our seemingly oblivious "friends in the North"?

Close your eyes and pretend you're walking in a landscape where unicorns fart rainbows and pixies frolic in the meadow (props to CW), but the foxes in the meadow emit pure unadulterated bullshit. Avoiding the foxholes doesn't mean you're afraid of their BS; it's simply indicative of having the good sense to choose not to allow their stench to soil your shoes.

Are Canadians so lazy they can't change a TV channel or perhaps just too ignorant to work the remote? Oh, I know: They're simply frightened to death at the prospect of changing the channel to another network. *laughs*

Exactly this! Very well said, sir. :)

Nice try. There goes one! There are always folks with great expectations, but no one knows what Mueller will say, or how he'll say it. What you're perceiving are a bunch of clueless people.

The "girls" around here misinterpret the fact that I've been telling them for over two yrs they were out of their gawdam stupid female minds to think that getting dirt on Hillary from Russians would bring down the idiot-in-chief, means that I support Trump.

The saddest part of the whole thing is, absolutely NOBODY in all of Weigantia would be happier than this broken-down old "Podunkian" to be rid of Trump. (However, that ain't gonna keep me from gloating about being right.)

Obama's Hope and change, and yes we can.

Trump's make America great again.

Voters need inspiration.

A Kamala Harris or a Bernie Sanders, or a Beto O'Rourke or a Joe Biden etc.

Not a policy wonk focused in the weeds with endless minute detailed policy on how to reverse America's decline, etc. Now matter how well thought out and good those proposals might be. If people's eyes glaze over, you've lost them and might never get them back.

Especially if all you hear is how bad America is, without the second part of hearing, here is what America stands for, and how we make her promise even better as a people, all of us united going forward.

Drop the American bashing, you can't lead with that, and focus on the second.

The same can be said of those who have a legitimate complaint about some Israeli policies. If the first words out of your mouth are always bashing Israel, no one is going to hear the rest, and will accuse you of being anti-Jewish, and in many cases rightly so.

"Actually, a good debate question would be to have the Democratic candidates to outline a strategy for effectively manage this inevitable American decline."

No it absolutely would not. At least not couched in those terms, especially for an American audience. Any democratic candidate saying America was in decline would be like throwing red meat to the "Democrats are an America hating bunch" Republican crowd. It would be Jimmy Carter's ridiculed "malasie" speech all over again only 10 times worse. A sure path to electoral defeat.

Voters need a positive message to counter Trump and the Republicans, not a negative one.

[57] Don Harris

"Don't think that a strategy to manage the decline of America will be an inspiring message that will sweep Dems into office."

Spot on exactly.

"I agree the decline of America was inevitable. The key is its ability to effectively manage that decline."

Management is the key. Especially diplomatically. That is exactly where we have been hurt the most, and where we need to recover. Simply getting rid of the dislike other leaders feel for Trump would go a long way towards that. Reversing the gutting of our diplomatic core, is what is going to take years to undo.

"i feel it was inevitable given the decline of north american cultural and economic hegemony, and would eventually have happened even had donald not won the presidency. it can return, but not in the same way as before.."

Very good and well said. But I think I would characterize it a little differently. Not so much as a decline, but more as a readjustment. All declines are relative. I would also say it is pretty much confined to economic, rather than cultural or military.

Europe and Japan, both recovered from world war economically. China has shaken off the legacy of Mao, and regained the economic number two position it held as nation in the world, exactly the same position it held a couple hundred years ago.

So while American is no longer alone with no competition, America is still number one economically. Militarily it goes without saying. The USA is the only nation in the world with a global navy in every ocean, for example. Both Russian and Chinese navies are still pretty much limited to staying near and close to their own coastlines.

Culturally, American movies, Fashion, TV, Music, still rule the world. Youth in Africa, Latin America or the Middle East aren't singing Chinese songs. They are still dancing to American pop stars and wearing T-shirts with American logos on them.

"How do you feel about the loss of America's global leadership role and do you think it could regain it in short order if the right Democratic presidential nominee defeats Trump in 2020?"

Even though this question wasn't addressed it to me, I think America could regain its role in a fairly quick short order.

1) Because our allies are hungry for America to assume that role.

2) Because current opposition to and loss of American leadership is due to a personal dislike of Trump himself, and not to America itself as a whole.

Having said that, if Trump were to win a second term in a far more credible fashion than he won the first, it would be no longer seen as a fluke but as a symptom of something far deeper and of more lasting damage to America's image and role.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/tucker-carlson-called-britney-spears-whre-defended-statutory-rape-in-unearthed-radio-show-clips/ar-BBUBunC?ocid=spartandhp

No doubt Tucker Carlson will be subjected to an 'internal' spanking, he may even be forced to entertain his Evangelical viewers with a 'Swaggartarian' catharsis, but sure as god made little green apples, he'll be bullshitting the flock this time next week.

FOX isn't in the decency business. Take Hannity, for instance, a year ago he was telling the world that Michael Cohen (his personal lawyer, as we were to find out later) was a decent chap, an excellent lawyer and a close personal friend of both himself and Monkeyman Trump. Last week, Hannity heaped ridicule and scorn on Cohen, claimed he was kith and kin to chaos in his profession, and a complete arsehole. No no no… It would be an insult to the intelligence of the electorate if FOX were to conduct a debate. Sure, they can air it so their flock don't have to re-arm their tv converters with batteries, but allowing these clowns to orchestrate such an event would be like getting a pack of Dingo's to babysit your child.

I was amused by TP's one through three... Trump's demagoguery knows no bounds, of that there's no doubt. I wonder how many MAGA-maniacs are still waiting patiently for the 10% middle-class tax cut promised them prior to the midterms? Maybe they've assumed it was withheld because they failed to show up in droves on election day? One wonders how much more of this Trumpian gobshitery they can take before it sinks in that he's nothing more than cheap huckster, strategically coiffed, and stuffed into poor-fitting suit.

LL&P

the democratic party has been in decline since the 1970's, and hasn't had any institutional power to speak of since 1990 at the latest. obama had a chance to turn it around, but basically just tinkered around the edges. there's enough size and structure for a resurgence, but at the moment it's the proverbial party of will rogers.

"I am not a member of any organized party — I am a Democrat."

How do you feel about the loss of America's global leadership role and do you think it could regain it in short order if the right Democratic presidential nominee defeats Trump in 2020?

You can't debate a neo-Nazi on an intellectual level and change their mind, as Oprah found out. The world, especially the political world, for most ordinary people, just doesn't work that way.

"If Democrats are afraid of what FOX news can do to them, then I feel fairly certain that they will not win in 2020 with any one of the current crop of candidates."

Again, like everyone else it is not fear. Like my childhood friends and Trump supporters I mentioned. There is no rational logical case you can make to them with however much of supporting facts that you have that will ever make them change their minds. Period. Full stop.

There simply has got to come a point where you have to realize that beating your head against a brick wall is going to result in nothing more than only giving yourself a severe headache.

[19] Elizabeth Miller
… and half your country.

[20] Elizabeth Miller wrote:
Anyone else?

I have four childhood friends that I grew up with. Mind you I have know known these people for 50 years. They are all rabid right wing Trump supporters. In terms of their politics, they and the 40 percent of the country who are Trump supporters scare the hell out of me. They would all throw away American democracy and freedom and lead us down a rabbit hole of fascism for the simple fact that they respond with a visceral knee jerk hatred to anything that even remotely seems to be "liberal" to them, no matter the actual merits of the case.

The Fox News audience is not going to miss anything - this isn't the U.K. in the 1950s when there was only one channel.

True, but the vast majority of Fox News viewers ONLY get their news from Fox News. In fact, for many it is the only channel that they ever watch. (For my grandfather, he kept the channel on Fox News full time except for when the Univ. of Alabama games were on.)

Our news radio station here had just announced Manafort’s sentencing and the next story was that the Surgeon General was in Seattle this week for a town hall on the opioid epidemic and shared that he has a younger brother who is an addict and is in prison on a ten year sentence for stealing $200 million... oh wait, he got ten years for stealing $200, not $200 million! Silly me, he’s black!

The deficit is running 77 percent higher than last year, and is approaching $1 billion a year once again.

In both cases, as NYPoet [3] points out, the "billion" should read "trillion".

Sorry, don't agree with you on this one. If somebody wants to watch the Democrats debates, they know how to use their remote control. Do we care which channel runs the Superbowl each year? Can we even remember? Or the Stanley Cup?

The Fox News audience is not going to miss anything - this isn't the U.K. in the 1950s when there was only one channel.

Also, quite frankly, I don't expect a Trump supporter to suddenly develop an interest in the Democrat debates just because it is on "their" channel.

trump may well get re-elected, but if so it sure as shit won't be because democrats avoided letting fox produce their debate.

You heard it here first.

@liz,

i know you don't like links, but just watch the first 54 seconds. big cake is real!

;)
JL

i strongly disagree with your characterization of the decision as weak. i see it as starting to break with a pattern of being monumentally stupid.

you don't fight an infestation of bed bugs by moving in and trying to stomp on them one at a time. you move out, fumigate, and put everything they've touched in storage.

JL

Shocking. Positively shocking.

But, apparently, Democrats are too weak, generally speaking and with notable exceptions, to take the chance.

Good luck to them in 2020.

i'm not afraid of fox, i just recognize them for what they are, as do most democrats (which is the most likely reason why CW thinks dems are delighted that fox was spurned for the debates). recognizing what fox would likely try to accomplish with the platform isn't saying they'd necessarily succeed, but why take the chance?

just because half the country votes republican doesn't mean they never change the channel. anyone who wouldn't watch just because it's on some other network is highly unlikely to vote democratic anyway.

JL

this will not be a comprehensive answer, but i'll do the best i can off the cuff.

fox is essentially the propaganda arm of the republican party, and will use any platform available to help republicans win elections. even if there's nothing a democratic primary debate can do to further that goal directly, there are many indirect ways the show-runners there can exert influence on the public.

the candidates are isolated voices competing with each other for air, while the network is a centralized power with all its cogs working toward a singular goal. from the ticker at the bottom of the screen, the panelists, the commentators, the network promos, the commercial time, the audience, the camera angles - absolutely everything will be tilted and framed as much as they are able, to make the democratic candidates look bad and donald j. trump look good. also, to bring in new viewers to watch more propaganda. also, to bring in sponsorship money from corporate sources to which they don't usually have access, further funding their propaganda efforts. also, to grow their brand among the public and allow future propaganda to reach a wider audience.

is that non-brief enough?

The D.N.C. announced it was rejecting a bid by Fox News to hold a Democratic presidential debate, much to the delight of Democrats everywhere.

Delight? How so?

Please keep your answer non-brief. :)

If House Dems are serious about oversight of Trump, they will retain counsel to ask the first 2 hours of questions of each witness.

If they're gonna question someone, do it right!

The bottom line: In an ever-crowded primary field where candidates are relying on personalities to break through, Warren's constant flow of policy proposals is a way to show voters she's not just talking the talk.

Your neoliberal hero, aka Fauxcahantas, screamed right along with Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, all thru the housing boom build-up, that the banks were shutting out poor folks from the bonanza by "red-lining" and "discriminating".

Then, when the housing boom crashed, and all those poor folks defaulted on their mortgage loans and got kicked out of the houses they couldn't afford, suddenly the loans she pressured the banks to grant, became "predatory lending", proving we need a CFPB!!

What those poor folks really needed was an EWPB.

Here is some analysis of one of her planks: reining in big Tech companies:

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/03/09/liz-warren-lets-break-up-big-tech/

She provides context and detail, as she does with all of her plans. Unlike the broken record from VT who still hasn't released his taxes.

Anyway, this, the co-determination bill, the CFPB, are all good examples of what I love about Warren. Her “making capitalism work for everybody” shtick just really resonates with this neoliberal shill.

in Iowa City, @BernieSanders celebrates "ending the power of superdelegates at the Democratic Convention." When he says that before the caucuses had even started here in Iowa, "my opponent [Hillary Clinton] had 500 superdelegates," the crowd issues a loud round of boos.

And right then was Bernie's opportunity to show his "leadership" and good faith by explaining to his followers he would not tolerate that and how it hurts us all.

But he didn't.

I just signed a pledge to the Australians to hop like a kangaroo, which should put to rest all the complaints that I'm not a marsupial, since I now officially am one. :)

For the year, the deficit is now in danger of topping $1 billion.

i think you meant trillion

I would point out when it comes to Manafort, the judge that sentenced him is a well documented anti-Mueller individual. I am expecting a bit of a stiffer punishment to be handed down in his next hearing.

TP 3- I would also have pointed out the forced resignations under cloud of impropriety ( what is it, like 4 or 5?) and that it seems like the only ones who got fired were actually not so swampy, still don't agree with the positions they took or supported...

TP 5- Great idea, one has to wonder if the dems could hold it together long enough to let it play out or would they pull a Kavanaugh and sideline the person they hired?

TP1- I am sure that any day now a "grab em by the tassels tape" will surface.... You didn't happen to do a drive by of urban dictionary did you?

Warning NSF and could cause unwanted mental imagery https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=vexillology