ChrisWeigant.com

The First Democratic Debate (Round 1)

[ Posted Thursday, June 27th, 2019 – 17:07 UTC ]

Along with millions of other Americans, I watched the first round of the first Democratic 2020 presidential debates last night. Although there were a few standout moments, the general impression I was left with was that any one of the people on that stage would do a much better job leading the country than the current occupant of the Oval Office. Of course, I could probably say the same thing about any random 10 people stopped on the street -- or even Michael Moore's ficus plant candidate -- so that's not really saying a whole lot. But it was indeed, as one late-night host pointed out later in the evening, sincerely refreshing to hear adults discuss the issues of the day in complete sentences, full paragraphs, and intelligent language without once resorting to playground bullying or other nasty taunts. In other words, it felt like a return to normalcy just to see them all up there.

NBC, perhaps eager to balance the crowd behind the podiums (podia?), had two tag-teams of moderators, three for the first hour and two for the second. This was rather disjointed, but other than microphone problems during the handover, it worked well enough. They tried a few things out (asking candidates to raise their hands if they agreed with a few issues), and generally asked intelligent questions.

Where the moderators fell down on the job was in reining unruly candidates in. Bill De Blasio was the most notable offender in this regard, jumping in on any old question he felt like answering. During the first hour, he was not constrained by the moderators in the slightest, as they just let him get away with stealing the spotlight. Other candidates eventually picked up on this laxity and began inserting themselves into random questions on their own. Now, this might not have mattered with a smaller debate field, but with ten people on the stage, it was essentially robbing some of the candidates of their allotted time. I haven't seen a breakdown of who got the most time, but I'd be willing to bet that De Blasio got more than his fair share. Rachel Maddow and Chuck Todd were better at shutting this sort of line-jumping down, but they still allowed more of it than I would have liked.

There were some standout moments, a few of which might qualify as the "breakout viral moment" that the lesser-known candidates were all searching for. We'll see, in the days to come, which of these will be remembered. To me, the most memorable two both happened at the very end. When asked what the biggest global security threat the United States faced, Washington Governor Jay Inslee had the best answer by far: "Donald Trump." That's going to be remembered, I'd be willing to bet. Also, in his closing statement, Julián Castro won the "best use of Spanish" of the night, for his statement: "On January 21, 2021, we'll say adios to Donald Trump." Again, I would look for that to appear in candidate ads because it was so perfectly delivered (unlike some of the other candidates' attempts to use Spanish).

Oh, I should mention that all of the quotes in this article are from my own hastily-jotted-down notes, and may not be word-for-word correct, as I have not checked them against a transcript for accuracy. So any mistakes are mine and unintentional, but I think I captured the gist of what was said fairly accurately.

To be absolutely fair, I'm going to run down my impressions of each and every candidate last night, in alphabetical order, and then offer up a few overall thoughts at the end.

 

Cory Booker

Cory Booker turned in a fairly solid performance last night, although he was rather vague on giving many details. He did a good job of telling his "from the poor neighborhood" story, and he made a good first impression for people who had never seen him before. He has a speaking style that sounds, if not presidential, at least senatorial, but at times this can turn into a monotone that lulls you to sleep. However, when he speaks about issues he genuinely and personally cares about, he gets a lot more animated and a lot more relatable, as he did on the question of gun control: "I'm tired of hearing about thoughts and prayers," he said, with visible exasperation, pointing out that he was the only candidate who hears gunfire in his own neighborhood on a regular basis. This is a strong point for Booker, who has called for a national licensing program for guns -- a stance no other Democratic candidate has gotten behind.

One of Booker's best answers was to the question of whether he supported "Medicare For All" or not. Booker threaded the needle better than anyone else on stage, saying that while single-payer is a great idea and one worth working towards, it would behoove us to move a lot more immediately on improving the Affordable Care Act by adding in a public option as soon as possible. In other words, he supports the ultimate goal of the progressives but at the same time wants to move fast on making things better in the meantime. His answer on the question was probably the best of anyone's, in fact.

However, he stumbled a bit on the other "show of hands" question, on whether as president candidates would rejoin the Iran nuclear deal immediately after taking office. Everyone else raised their hand, but Booker didn't. When asked to explain, he vaguely said that the deal could have been better and he'd try to renegotiate it, but he failed to offer up any real specifics. It was the chance to set himself apart from the rest of the field, but he didn't adequately capitalize on it.

 

Julián Castro

Julián Castro is the only actual Latino running for president, but two other candidates leaned more on using Spanish than Castro did. However, I thought Castro did perhaps the best job of making a first impression to the viewers, and wouldn't be surprised if he starts getting more media attention and more support in the polling. He had a strong night, and was definitely one of the biggest winners to emerge.

Castro provided one of the few moments of actual debate during the debate, as he skewered fellow Texan Beto O'Rourke for not supporting overturning "Section 1325" of a law that criminalizes illegal entry into the United States. Castro was arguing for treating this as a civil matter instead of a criminal one, but due to time constraints never fully explained the ramifications of overturning Section 1325. Even so, O'Rourke was obviously not expecting to get called out on this rather esoteric issue, and weakly tried to make the case that he had introduced a bill which would end up with the same result. "That's not true!" Castro shot back, and we got a real Texas-style debate dustup.

Castro was probably smart to pick O'Rourke as his target. Castro, after all, was supposed to be "the guy from Texas" running, until O'Rourke decided to make his bid, so drawing a contrast between the two of them was good politics. O'Rourke has gotten far more media attention than Castro to date, but he's in a rather weakened position now as he's fallen in the polls. Castro was looking to benefit from this, and it certainly seemed like he did after his direct attack.

Castro had one viral moment last night as well, when he used the phrase "It should piss us all off" to describe his reaction to the recent photo of the drowned immigrant and his small daughter lying face down on the banks of the Rio Grande. This is almost certainly the first time this phrase has ever been used in a presidential debate (although, now that I think about it, it wouldn't surprise me at all if someone had said it during one of the 2016 Republican debates...). Castro didn't just have a one-liner, though, he followed through by attacking the main problem -- "metering" at the ports of entry, which limit the number of asylum claims the border crossing stations allow in each day. This wasn't picked up on by the moderators, since it was too far in the weeds for them, but it was the best description of how Trump is doing his best to create as big a border "crisis" as he can. Castro's whole answer on the subject really knocked it out of the park.

Castro made one gaffe that few have noticed, though. About halfway through the debate he said he had a "10-year-old daughter," but then at the end said she had "had a birthday this week" and was now 11. But, again, it was a small slip and nobody really noticed.

 

Bill De Blasio

It should come to no surprise to anyone that Bill De Blasio is from New York City, not after last night at any rate. De Blasio is the least-liked Democrat running (at least, in polling), so he had a lot of ground to make up even from the get-go. He also jumped in the race fairly late and has been going nowhere in the polls, so he didn't have a lot to lose.

Which he proved, by ignoring the debate rules and jumping in with an opinion whenever he felt like it, in true New Yorker fashion. By doing so, at times he made a few good points, but mostly he shoved his own name and face in front of the crowd to a much bigger extent than the moderators had likely planned on. Which was the whole plan, obviously. And on that level, it worked. De Blasio got his airtime and made his points, which is more than a lot of the other guys polling at one percent or less can say after last night.

But is the Democratic Party really longing for a brash New Yorker at this point? Maybe De Blasio could make the case that you've got to fight fire with fire, and he'd be the fieriest one to take on Donald Trump, but he didn't fully make that case last night, as he was more interested in drawing differences between him and the rest of the Democrats. To his credit, however, he certainly knows how to deliver his lines and appear animated and personally invested in all kinds of issues. He's no shrinking violet, that's for sure, which set him apart from some of the other white-guy candidates. He was also one of the only two candidates to raise his hand when asked whether his version of "Medicare For All" would eliminate private health insurance (Elizabeth Warren was the other).

De Blasio really should have had a viral moment during one of his interruptions, but so far I haven't seen it being spread around much online. When the subject of immigration (and the photo of the dead father and daughter) came up, De Blasio launched into a strong denunciation of Trump's entire demonization of immigrants and xenophobia in general: "When you lose your job, the immigrants didn't do that to you! The big corporations did that to you! The one percent did that to you!" This was a stellar moment, at least to me, because it would be such a great line to see a Democratic nominee use in a debate with Donald Trump himself.

 

John Delaney

Who? John Delaney has actually been campaigning for president longer than anyone else (he filed his paperwork ridiculously early), and has spent a lot of his own money on his bid. But he has gone precisely nowhere, and it was pretty easy to see why last night. Delaney at times appeared unprepared, and visually had a few "deer in the headlights" moments.

It doesn't help, of course, that Delaney is one of those candidates arguing for a reprise of Hillary Clinton's "Dream Small!" campaign theme, and moderation in all things. Which, obviously, isn't all that popular a concept in the party ranks right now, unless your name happens to be "Joe Biden."

Delaney even tried to make this his biggest virtue, repeating his obviously-scripted line that was supposed to devastate all those lefties on stage with him: "I'm for real solutions, not impossible promises." He repeated this line at least three times throughout the night, including in his closing statement, but to little effect.

To be fair, Delaney did have one good moment when answering a question on impeachment, pointing out quite forcefully that impeachment was the obsession of the media far, far more than it is a concern of the actual voters. I've been making this point for a while, so perhaps I'm biased, but I thought Delaney said what really needed to be said by more Democrats more often, which I would phrase directly (these are my words, not Delaney's, to be clear) as: "We're not obsessed with impeachment, you in the media are the ones who ask about it every hour on the hour!"

But, all told, John Delaney may not become the first candidate to drop out of the race, but after last night he really should be thinking about it. First in, first out, right?

 

Tulsi Gabbard

Tulsi Gabbard wore a bright red power jacket last night, setting herself off visually from the rest of the rather staid sartorial choices. Beyond superficialities, though, Gabbard had perhaps the best moment of the entire debate -- one of the few moments of actual debate that happened.

Gabbard is the "no war" candidate, which is bolstered by the fact that she served in the military after 9/11. Sort of a "John Kerry for a new age" stance, if you will. After Tim Ryan essentially gave voice to the idea that American troops should stay in Afghanistan forever, Gabbard was quick to disagree. Gabbard had a great line about the conflict -- "The Taliban was there long before we were, and they'll be there long after we leave" -- which prompted the biggest gaffe of the night from Ryan. He tried to make the case that it was the Taliban who "flew planes in buildings on 9/11," but Gabbard was having none of that and corrected him, and then pointed out that she joined up to fight Al Qaeda, not the Taliban. Although it was kind of lost in the crosstalk, Gabbard also pointed out that Saudi Arabia probably bears a whole lot more of the blame than Afghanistan for what happened.

Gabbard also had a great moment on the question of healthcare, pointing out -- correctly -- that other countries with universal coverage still have a private health insurance industry. This is a point rarely made in politics, since journalists are generally too lazy to research the actual details. Medicare For All doesn't have to mean killing an entire industry, but it is always presented as a binary choice. Gabbard pointed out this just isn't true, but the moderators -- predictably -- didn't pick up on it.

Gabbard had a pretty good night all around, and made a fantastic first impression to those who have never seen her before. So I'd have to say she was one of the night's biggest winners.

 

Jay Inslee

Jay Inslee is one of a whole bunch of white guys running who I would have a hard time picking out of a lineup, even after watching his debate performance. He is running as a one-issue candidate, but he did make a pretty good case last night that he's not just a one-trick pony.

Being the governor of a state means chalking up executive experience. This used to be important in presidential politics, and perhaps will again someday. Inslee pointed this out in numerous ways on an array of issues, claiming he already had a track record of getting good things done, whether on climate change or on healthcare or many other subjects that were brought up.

He also had one of the standout moments of the night, with his "biggest threat America faces is Donald Trump" answer to the "lightning round" at the end. Taken all together, he had a pretty good night. But even having said that, he still doesn't really radiate excitement in any perceivable way. He gave the impression he'd be a great choice to lead the Energy Department, but somehow fell short of appearing all that presidential.

 

Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar is trying for the "folksy Midwesterner who can beat Trump in the important battleground states" mantle, but it's tough to say whether she achieved that or not last night. She really needs to be on the debate stage with Joe Biden to put this concept to the test.

Klobuchar, like other Democratic candidates, is trying to pull the whole party back from veering too far to the left. But that doesn't exactly gain you a whole lot of applause from a Democratic primary-voter audience these days. Her delivery was rather flat, and she had perhaps the "worst obviously scripted moment" when she charged that Donald Trump's promises to lower prescription drug prices were "all foam and no beer." This was reminiscent of a politician trying to eat a strange fried food at a state fair without embarrassing herself, with similar results. To put it another way, the insult kind of backfired on her, because it was Klobuchar who appeared rather foamy and lacking of actual beer. Which was a shame, because if she hadn't tried her "down home folks" line, the rest of her answer was one of the strongest condemnations of Trump's broken promises all night. Other scripted lines from Klobuchar also fell flat throughout the night, as well.

Klobuchar did have one viral moment last night, after Jay Inslee made his "I've actually accomplished stuff" case on the issue of abortion. His line was pretty good, but then Klobuchar shot back: "There are three women up here who have fought pretty hard for the right to choose," which cut Inslee's positioning off at the knees. It also highlighted the fact that this is the first presidential debate in American history with multiple women on the same stage.

Klobuchar also had a good moment when she castigated Trump for "doing foreign policy at 5:00 A.M. in a bathrobe." This has already gone viral, and would be a great line to see in a debate with Trump himself.

 

Beto O'Rourke

Beto O'Rourke has struggled in the polls after his overhyped launch, and last night it was easy to see why. He seemed unprepared at times, and unwilling to take strong stands on a number of issues. Answering his first question in Spanish -- about setting marginal tax rates, a rather unrelated subject -- also didn't really fly all that well. In the end, Spanish or not, he essentially refused to answer whether he would support a 70 percent top tax rate or not -- even after the moderator asked it to him again, with a "yes, no, or pass" demand.

O'Rourke is to be commended for one debate moment, because when he was answering a climate change question he repeatedly brought up farmers -- a demographic that Democrats really should be reaching out to in a big way right now. This is smart politics, and likely comes from all his in-person campaigning in Texas during his failed Senate bid. Farmers are hurting bad right now, due to bad weather, falling crop prices, and Donald Trump's trade wars. Democrats should be addressing their concerns if they have any prayer of getting their votes, but O'Rourke was the only one to noticeably do so.

But O'Rourke had few such moments of clarity, and instead left the impression of someone who really needed more experience under his belt before playing in the big leagues. He wandered off into the weeds instead of offering up specifics too many times to counter the impression that he hasn't thought his own positions through sufficiently enough to run for the highest office in the land.

 

Tim Ryan

Who? Yet another of the white guys who I wouldn't recognize walking down the street, that's who. Tim Ryan was vying for the "more moderate than everyone" prize, and it's hard to say whether he achieved it or not, because most of his answers tended to put me to sleep. He's competing with Klobuchar for the "Midwestern folksy" lane, but she did a much better job of projecting this than Ryan managed. Ryan is another good pick for "the guy who should drop out first," at least in my book.

 

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren was (literally) center-stage last night, since she's the only one among the entire crowd who can claim more than five percent support in the polls. She's also been surging of late, and is now comfortably in the double digits and nipping at Bernie Sanders's heels for second place.

Because of this stature, she was able to largely stay above the fray last night. She had absolutely nothing to gain by attacking anyone else on the stage, and in fact she really should have had a big target on her for incoming attacks. But she even avoided that, as none of the other candidates was willing to challenge her directly on just about any issue. Warren avoided all the jumping-the-queue dustups, since she had no reason to force her name and face on the screen.

Elizabeth Warren was also, quite obviously, the crowd favorite last night. She got huge rounds of applause for just about every answer she gave, and you could feel the energy getting higher every time she was called on. From the first question to the very end, Warren turned in a stellar performance. Her closing statement was more memorable than anyone else's, starting with: "Never in a million years did I think I would stand on a stage like this..." and then, after reprising a bit of her hardscrabble personal history, vowing: "I will fight for you!" The crowd loved it, and it was easy to see why.

If there's a single word to describe Elizabeth Warren, it is "feisty." She obviously deeply believes in the issues she champions, and she has the rare political ability to put the most complex problems in very relatable language. She is authentic, and she is smart as a whip. She's got a plan for everything.

Warren, as mentioned, currently has the wind at her back as she rises in the polls. Last night will quite likely help this trend along, as she was one of the clear winners of the debate. She is making a huge bid for the progressive vote, in direct competition with Bernie Sanders. It was a shame that in the first debate round the two drew different nights, because so far this has been the most interesting head-to-head matchup in the entire field. But Warren had the luxury last night of not having to compete with either Sanders or Joe Biden for attention, and she definitely made the most of the situation.

 

Overall impressions

Once again, wasn't it refreshing to see actual policy debated in language that a college student might use rather than "Am not -- you are!" third-grader idiocies hurled on a playground during recess? Sigh. I remember when politicians were required to have a brain... good times.

Snark aside, what was most noticeable from last night was the absence of any mention whatsoever of Joe Biden. I suppose all the candidates were lying back to see how the second-night folks would deal with him. Tonight will feature four of the five top candidates in the polling, but it will also feature several wannabes who struggle to poll at even one percent. They've got nothing to lose by attacking Biden, in other words, and such attacks will be much more pointed when he's there to answer them in person. So the safe route for everyone on the first night was to see what the others would do rather than pioneering that trail on their own. I should also mention that Bernie Sanders avoided all such attacks as well.

I found the focus of most of the Democrats last night to be on differentiating themselves from each other rather than launching a full-scale assault on Donald Trump. That's perhaps what should have happened, this early in the process, but it was still a little disappointing. Nobody -- not even Elizabeth Warren -- had the luxury of running their "general election" campaign last night, because they're all worrying much more about winning the nomination right now. Tonight, Joe Biden will be able to attack Trump freely, since he's so far been running as a general election candidate (a luxury his standing in the polls gives him).

There weren't a whole lot of fireworks last night -- at least, not compared to the free-for-alls we witnessed over on the Republican side the last time around. For the most part, the candidates (well... all of them except De Blasio, perhaps) were content in trying to make the best first impression possible to as many voters as possible. I'd say that most of them adequately achieved this goal (although some more so than others). Other than a few amusing one-liners, I didn't really notice any "magic breakout moments" for any candidate, but then we'll have to see what others think in the polling over the next week or so. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see three or even four candidates improve their standings considerably after their first debate performance. I'd just be hard-pressed to identify who they will be, at this point.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

155 Comments on “The First Democratic Debate (Round 1)”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Whew! Got it posted before Night Two begins!

    Everyone ready for tonight's "adult table" debate?

    :-)

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Absolutely, positively, unequivocally! And, I'm not trying to be facetious here. Not a joke!

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Snark aside, what was most noticeable from last night was the absence of any mention whatsoever of Joe Biden

    You didn't really think that Senator Booker was going to go there, did you?

  4. [4] 
    Paula wrote:

    Good review CW - I'm looking forward to tonight!

  5. [5] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I didn't get to see all the candidates because the ones I saw forced me to change the channel with their same old bullshit rhetoric.

    The Spanish was comical.

    Perhaps things improved after I stopped watching, but the ridiculous pandering and the crowd dutifully cheering when one of the candidates spouted their rhetoric could not in any way be considered enlightened debate.

    It's certainly not a good way to pick a candidate.

    It's just a show to give the media something to talk aboot so they don''t have to provide useful information.

    They ring the bell and the media salivates as the media are happy to be Entertainment Tonight instead of the news.

    It's no way to run a country- unless you want to run that country into the ground.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I will be pleasantly surprised if Americans ever understand that healthcare is a human right and healthcare insurance cannot be handled like insurance for cars.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    For the record, the endgame of a single-payer government run healthcare system should not eliminate private health care insurance.

    And, why shouldn't undocumented immigrants who are working and paying taxes not be covered by the healthcare system and have drivers' licenses?

  8. [8] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW
    Julián Castro is the only actual Latino running for president, but two other candidates leaned more on using Spanish than Castro did.

    Are you not aware that Castro is not fluent in Spanish? Like many Latino’s living in the US, Castro’s knowledge of the Spanish language doesn’t stray too far from items on the menu at Mexican restaurants.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Harris won't get very far, either, by telling lies about Biden's record.

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I believe Senator Harris just lost a job in the Biden administration should Biden be elected.

  11. [11] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M [6]

    It's comforting to declare healthcare to ba a "human right". Of course, it would be nice to declare all the necessities of life to be a "human right". How about food, clothing, housing education, etc. etc.

    The obvious problem is, when you declare yourself entitled to anything whatsoever that you are unwilling or unable to provide for yourself, you are simultaneously decreeing that you have the "right" to consume things that have been produced by the sweat of other peoples brows.

    They used to have that kind of system in the deep south many years ago, where certain people had the right to claim the product of other peoples' toils. They called it 'slavery' in those days.

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    FYI

    The Drudge polls regarding who won the first debate were gamed by Russian bots to pump up Tulsi Gabbard... who will be playing the part of Jill Stein in 2020. Will Jill be running as a third-party candidate in order to again split the left?

    Be aware. :)

    their preferred candidate. This seems...familiar.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CRS,

    What is the difference between healthcare insurance and insurance for driving a vehicle?

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Oh, I'd like to pass a torch to Rep. Eric Swalwell. Would anyone here have a problem with that? :)

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Gillibrand voted for the 2007/8 bailout … twice. God help us all if she's the president during the next financial crisis.

  16. [16] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    14

    Oh, I'd like to pass a torch to Rep. Eric Swalwell. Would anyone here have a problem with that? :)

    Depends. Would that torch be lit? ;)

  17. [17] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    well there will certainly be a financial crisis. we're currently in the "trump bubble" - or for short, we're in "trubble"

  18. [18] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    15

    Ms. "Two Rifles Under Her Bed" Gillibrand?

    No worries, EM. Not a chance. :)

  19. [19] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM

    Gillibrand voted {insert} ---> no for the 2007/8 bailout … twice. God help us all if she's the president during the next financial crisis.

    FIFY :)

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Sheeeeeeee...it … I meant Gillibrand voted against the bailout, twice.

    Glad to hear she won't make it!

  21. [21] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks!

  22. [22] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I couldn't watch the last part of the debate. But, CNN is saying that Biden wilted under the pressure and Trump has a point that Biden isn't the same as he used to be.

    What?

    What do y'all think?

  23. [23] 
    Paula wrote:

    I don't want J. Biden to be the nominee but I didn't enjoy seeing him do so poorly. I think he's going to be dropping in polling after tonight. He did what I suspected he would - smiled, looked pretty good for awhile, put out answers he'd worked on pretty well -- but as the debate wore on he appeared less sure, his answers were just a bit halting, just a bit confused once or twice, and often weren't quite on topic. Kamala's attack hurt him - he did not defend effectively, nor did he handle the "why trust you after you voted for Iraq war" well.

    Bernie's night wasn't as bad as Joe's. (Joe's wasn't a disaster, but it wasn't good.) But Bernie, while forceful, is a broken record and seems constitutionally unable to provide a detailed answer to a question. When asked to describe how he'd implement M4A he fell back on "the people will demand it" - which wasn't the question. The question was "how". Not "how to pay for it" - how to "implement it." Just give the basic roadmap. This was the national stage where many people were tuning in for the first time - give them the basics. He didn't. Then he ended by saying nothing's been done for 30 years - DURING HIS TENURE - and saying that on a stage with several much younger candidates who could be asking him why HE didn't succeed in launching his revolution in all those years. Not a good formulation.

    Kamala and Buttigieg were the stand-outs. Gillibrand and Bennet had some very good moments but were mixed. Swalwell a step down from them - some good points but no one is going to select him as POTUS.

    Hickenlooper - eh. Yang - mildly interesting and utterly un-POTUS-like. Williams - no one takes her seriously - she's way "out of her lane".

    Harris stood mid-stage and was like a rock in a whirlwind and she took great advantage of the dynamic. She appeared to want to make clear she could go toe-to-toe with Blotus and she succeeded.

    Buttigieg's answer about the shooting in South Bend was obviously rehearsed, but it was a really good answer - vs. other rehearsed answers by others that landed with thuds.

    They will have gained the most from tonight.

  24. [24] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [11] CRS

    They used to have that kind of system in the deep south many years ago, where certain people had the right to claim the product of other peoples' toils. They called it 'slavery' in those days.

    Sure! Being taxed on your income above $50 million dollars at a marginal rate of 70% is totally comparable to, for example, legally being whipped to death by your enslaver simply because he or she had a whim to do so.

  25. [25] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "They called it slavery in those days."

    Now they call it Capitalism.

  26. [26] 
    Paula wrote:

    There were more direct attacks on Blotus tonight too - enjoyed every one of them.

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Van Jones said he's not proud of his party after the debate tonight.

    What?

  28. [28] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    20

    Sheeeeeeee...it … I meant Gillibrand voted against the bailout, twice.

    I knew what you meant. We've discussed it before.

    Glad to hear she won't make it!

    No way in Hell. :)

  29. [29] 
    Kick wrote:

    CW does a great review. Paula's is great too.

    As for me, I think Kamala Harris had a great night. Joe Biden better be on his toes. Joe did fine, but there were others on the stage who gave Joe a run for his money because they came "cocked and loaded." ;)

    Harris and Buttigieg will wear Joe out if he's not careful. Both of them are really on their toes with great answers. Ultimately, I think Buttigieg will have a struggle earning the votes of people of color, and Kamala needs only to convince them that she can beat Biden, make them forget she was a prosecutor, and the sky will be the limit for her.

    I have no dog in this fight, so I'm being completely objective about who I believe helped themselves the most in the first round of debates:

    Booker (because he's so low in the polls)
    Castro (because he's so low in the polls)
    Warren (because she performed very well)
    Harris (because she knocked it out of the park)

    EM, I'm warning you now that I expect Joe to lose some of his support to Kamala Harris.

    I'm not kidding when I say this: For a myriad of reasons and barring no "scandals" as time goes on, I already think Kamala Harris might be your nominee. So Joe better get busy and prove me wrong. :)

  30. [30] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    After the second debate, I think the winners were:

    Kamala Harris
    Mike Sutton

    Everyone else either lost, or had baggage (Gillibrand). Bernie couldn't break out of his campaign speech. Buttigieg proved that he needed more testing, but will be great later. Biden lost traction by his stunned answer to Harris (that he should have seen coming). Harris just looked great all the way through. She'll get a big bump!

  31. [31] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick [12] FYI - The Drudge polls regarding who won the first debate were gamed by Russian bots to pump up Tulsi Gabbard... who will be playing the part of Jill Stein in 2020.

    I'm sorry, Kick, but that doesn't make any sense. Though Gabbard is anti-war, she isn't at all pro-Russian. I thought her performance was good, not great.

  32. [32] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    chaszzzbrown [24] and CRS [11]:

    I think that if either of you knew what you were discussing, you'd be ashamed of yourselves.

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, does anyone here remember how bad candidate Obama was in his first general election debate?

    Heh.

  34. [34] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [32] Balthasar

    Maybe I failed to communicate well. The point I was trying to make, sarcastically, is that CRS's equating the plight of a wealthy tax payer to the plight of an actual enslaved person is ridiculous. Maybe the sarcasm didn't come through; but, otherwise, not sure why you say I should be ashamed. But I'm open to education.

  35. [35] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That's a lesson that we could ALL learn.

    Making poor assumptions about the meaning of what someone said or wrote is never a good idea.

  36. [36] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It has implications, after all, to what Russian meddling looks like.

    If it doesn't make sense, then it's probably not true or has been wholly misunderstood.

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    chaszzbrown [34]: Sorry, I took your post as reinforcing that point. As you stated, equating the plight of a wealthy tax payer to that of a slave is ridiculous. My bad.

  38. [38] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [37] Balthy

    No worries. Must work on my sarcasm cues! :)

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stick a fork in Biden..

    He's done..

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    You didn't really think that Senator Booker was going to go there, did you?

    Considering what an ass Booker was before, I thought it extremely likely that Booker would go there..

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    I will be pleasantly surprised if Americans ever understand that healthcare is a human right

    Really??

    The problem with that concept is most Democrats think that abortions and boob jobs and face lifts are "healthcare"...

    Bigger tits are a human right??

    Hmmmmmm I'll have to ponder that..

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, why shouldn't undocumented immigrants who are working and paying taxes not be covered by the healthcare system and have drivers' licenses?

    Two reasons..

    1. They are privileges

    2. They are stepping stones to voting in national elections..

    I know, I know... Democrats would LOVE for illegal immigrants to vote...

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Overall, Democrats just destroyed the one person who might have a slight chance of beating President Trump..

    I am more sure than ever that 2020 is in the bag.. :D

    Kamala Harris?? The woman who slept (with married men) her way to her Senate seat???

    She makes President Trump's sexual "scandals" (such as they are) look like nothing by comparison...

    Faux-cohantas??? Lie-awatha?? Not a snowballs chance in hell of beating President Trump...

    The only person who had a chance to beat President Trump is Joe Biden.. And Democrats just insured that Biden won't win..

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:
  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kamala Harris plays the race card very well..

    Her entire message can easily be summed up..

    "Elect me President Of The United States because I am a woman and I am black.."

    Yea.. THAT is going to beat President Trump :eyeroll:

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    DEMS VOW HEALTHCARE FOR ALL ILLEGALS...

    Trump slams Dems for backing health care for undocumented immigrants
    https://nypost.com/2019/06/27/trump-slams-dems-for-backing-health-care-for-undocumented-immigrants/

    Dumbocrats just GUARANTEED that President Trump will be re-elected...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Rubio leads bipartisan backlash after de Blasio quotes Castro ally Che Guevara

    Democratic presidential candidate Bill de Blasio faced bipartisan backlash Thursday after he quoted Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara to pump up a crowd of union members in Miami.

    The New York City mayor's detractors included Republican U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida and Democratic U.S. Rep. Donna Shalala, also of Florida, who served in the Clinton administration.

    "It is unacceptable to quote a murderer like Che Guevara," Shalala wrote.

    Earlier in the day, de Blasio was captured on video, addressing striking airport workers.

    "Hasta la victoria, siempre!" de Blasio shouted. The phrase translates to, "Until victory, always!," and is attributed to Guevara, a key figure in the Cuban Revolution led by Fidel Castro.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de-blasio-apologizes-for-che-guevara-quote-seiu

    De Blowhole is your quintessential Democrat..

    That's why he won't be POTUS...

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    In this particular case, I take no pleasure in being factually accurate.. again..

    Biden falters in Democratic debate
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/450811-biden-falters-in-democratic-debate

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Byron York: In debates, Democrats move toward open borders

    On the second night of the Democratic presidential debate in Miami, NBC moderators asked candidates whether they would support decriminalizing the act of illegally crossing the border into the United States — that is, reducing the seriousness and consequences of illegal entry to the level of a parking ticket.

    "Raise your hand if you think it should be a civil offense, rather than a crime, to cross the border without documentation," said NBC's José Díaz-Balart.

    All 10 candidates — Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Gillibrand, Bennet, Swalwell, Hickenlooper, Yang, Williamson — raised their hands in approval. That moment was perhaps the Democratic Party's most significant step yet toward embracing a policy of open borders.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-in-debates-democrats-move-toward-open-borders

    Proof positive why no Democrat will win the 2020 Presidential Election...

    They are so out of touch with the American people, it's stunning..

    A country that ceases to have enforced borders is a country that ceases to exist...

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Watching carefully Wednesday night was Brad Parscale, manager of President Trump's 2020 reelection campaign. "Now Democrats are for OPEN BORDERS!' Parscale tweeted. "These debates are great, the American people can now see how far left the candidates are. If these policies were implemented millions of foreigners would flood our system and overwhelm public services. They are disconnected from reality!" On Thursday, after the unanimous show of hands, Parscale returned to Twitter: "Democrats say: 'Open Borders!' Get here and we will let you in! So, let's just let all 7 billion people in. That will completely work. What???"

    The Trump team was obviously delighted. But some Democrats were clearly concerned. On Thursday, former Obama strategist David Axelrod wondered, with a touch of dread, whether that night's debate would include a decriminalization discussion. "It will be interesting to see if @JulianCastro proposal to decriminalize border crossings returns as an issue in tonight's round, and whether any candidate demurs," Axelrod tweeted Wednesday. "It was a great moment that mortally wounded @BetoORourke. Long-term, however, it's a huge election target."

    The topic did return, and no candidate demurred. And Parscale's reaction showed that it is indeed a huge election target.

    Even Odumbo man, Axelrod, knows what a mistake pushing decriminalization and open borders is..

    Democrats just lost the election in 2020...

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny..

    I have read the entire US Constitution and there is not a SINGLE reference to healthcare as an inalienable right..

    It must be a dog whistle or code word in play...... :^/

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm sorry, Kick, but that doesn't make any sense. Though Gabbard is anti-war, she isn't at all pro-Russian. I thought her performance was good, not great.

    NOW yer getting it.. :D

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    The obvious problem is, when you declare yourself entitled to anything whatsoever that you are unwilling or unable to provide for yourself, you are simultaneously decreeing that you have the "right" to consume things that have been produced by the sweat of other peoples brows.

    Yes.. Otherwise known as the Democrat Party platform..

    Do you think it's a coincidence that the Democrat Party was the Party of slave-owners???

    It's that same sense of entitlement, whether owning slaves or owning the rights to someone else's toils...

    It's the Democrat Party way...

  54. [54] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I'm getting what?

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's going to be real interesting to see the eventual Dim nominee try to backpedal when they are confronted with their support for Open Borders..

    These debates are a GOLD MINE for the President Trump Re-Election campaign...

    The illustrate perfectly how far Left the Democrats have surged and how they are so far out of what mainstream patriotic Americans believe...

    I am more sure than ever that President Trump's victory will be a landslide... :D

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    This wasn't picked up on by the moderators, since it was too far in the weeds for them, but it was the best description of how Trump is doing his best to create as big a border "crisis" as he can. Castro's whole answer on the subject really knocked it out of the park.

    Yea.. Cuz there was NEVER a border crisis before President Trump. :^/

    US-Mexico border deaths lower per year under Trump than Obama, data shows
    https://americanmilitarynews.com/2019/06/us-mexico-border-deaths-lower-under-trump-than-obama-data-shows/

    Of course, the FACTS prove differently...

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Kamala is brilliant but i dont trust her.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kamala is brilliant but i dont trust her.

    Eh to the first and definitely to the second..

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Swalwell urges Biden to 'pass the torch' to younger generation

    Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) took a direct swipe at former Vice President Joe Biden at the second of the first two Democratic presidential primary debates Thursday night, urging the 76-year-old to “pass the torch” to a younger generation.

    “I was six years old when a presidential candidate came to the California democratic convention and said it’s time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans. That candidate was then-Sen. Joe Biden. Joe Biden was right when he said it was time to pass the torch to a new generation of Americans 32 years ago, he’s still right today,” Swalwell said.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/450784-swalwell-urges-biden-to-pass-the-torch-to-younger-generation

    "We are able to have differing opinions on how we best solve problems without having to resort to name calling and insults."

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg wasn't exactly thrilled with Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif, after the congressman challenged him to fire his city's police chief over the officer-involved shooting of Eric Jack Logan.

    Buttigieg has taken some time off the campaign trail to handle a local crisis of the death involving an unarmed black man by a police officer with his body camera off. And the Democratic candidate has had to face many angry constituents and their exchanges have gone viral.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/buttigieg-gives-swalwell-the-death-stare-after-challenging-mayor-to-fire-south-bend-police-chief

    Fire the police chief for what??

    Having officers defend themselves against knide-wielding scumbags???

    The Indiana mayor was pressed why the six percent black police force doesn't reflect the 26 percent black population in his city.

    Although I don't know the exact reason, it's fairly easy to guess.. Either black people don't apply to the police department or the black people who do apply and are not accepted are not qualified...

    Are Democrats suggesting that unqualified black people should be accepted to the police academy BECAUSE they are black??

    Basically race-based hiring..

    How is that not racism??

    The beginning and end of this story is it was a good shoot...

    Democrats play the race card because they have no other cards to play...

    Buttigieg plainly responded by saying he "couldn't get it done" but expressed his determination to address race relations between civilians and police.

    Once again, it's EASY to address race relations between civilians and police..

    Black people need to stop trying to kill police officers..

  61. [61] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M [13]

    There is NO difference "between healthcare insurance and automobile insurance", provided THE PREMIUMS (COST) ARE BEING PAID BY THE INSURED PERSON!

    But when you declare healthcare to be a "human right", I'm assuming that you're assuming that the premium (cost) of that insurance will be borne by somebody OTHER THAN the insured person, which means you are claiming the free right to consume things produced by the toil of other peoples' labors.

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I am just saying as someone that was on city council... the mayor has fired a police chief in the past and this police chief as far as I can see it should be fired."
    -Eric Swawell

    WHY should this police chief be fired, Swawell?? Because he is not black??

    What the perfect little racist you are..

    What can you expect from a libtard who wants to institute an "Assault Rifle Buy Back" program..

    Anyone who knows even the least little bit about firearms knows that "assault rifle" is a media creation and has no basis in firearm nomenclature...

    https://external-preview.redd.it/lH0yitRbfxp2MPRT0zELZYGPF00FnchMr_ZQN9r4b1M.png?width=960&auto=webp&s=e6a84a786f6f20a2abf8bcac51301c819ed47a6c

    Each of those weapons share the exact same specs.. rounds the fire, magazine capacity, rate of fire..

    Yet, the lower one is a perfectly acceptable hunting rifle. The upper one 'looks scary' so it must be banned..

    The ignorance and stoopidty of the Dumbocrats never ceases to amaze me...

  63. [63] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    chazzbrown [24]

    I don't recall commenting on the right of slaveowners to "whip' their slaves. I'm pretty sure I was commenting on the right of slaveowners to claim the product of the slaves labors as their own.

    Was that not obvious, or are you just intentionally making a classic 'non-sequiture' response for want of a reasonable response??

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    Was that not obvious, or are you just intentionally making a classic 'non-sequiture' response for want of a reasonable response??

    Yes

    :D

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden got demolished

    When one candidate enjoys an enormous lead in the polls in a field of two dozen, he's bound to be a target on the debate stage — the one person everyone has an incentive to take down a peg. And so it was that in Miami on Thursday night, in the second half of the first Democratic debate, former vice president Joe Biden became a punching bag.

    It started with Rep. Eric Swalwell taking a dig at the 76-year-old Biden's age by calling on him to "pass the torch" to a younger generation. Then Sen. Michael Bennet hit Biden for bragging about his role in striking a budget deal with Mitch McConnell in 2011. Bennet called it a "complete victory for the Tea Party," a "great deal" for McConnell, and the key to Republicans permanently extending tax cuts passed during the administration of George W. Bush.

    But most stunning of all was the extended clash between Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris over Biden's recent remarks harking back to the good old days of senatorial deal-making with segregationists — an exchange that quickly evolved, at Harris' direction, into an argument about Biden's opposition to bussing during the 1970s. Biden's defense was reasonable — he had no objection to states and localities choosing to integrate schools by bussing students between urban and suburban school districts but merely opposed federally mandated bussing by the Department of Education. It didn't matter. Harris came off as clear, passionate, and personally invested in the issue. (A child of a Tamil Indian mother and Jamaican father, Harris was bussed to school as a child in Berkeley, Calif.) Biden looked and sounded defensive, back on the ropes.

    It's how he looked and sounded all night long.
    https://theweek.com/articles/849877

    Sorry to say it Liz....

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    On the second night of the Democratic presidential debate in Miami, NBC moderators asked candidates whether they would support decriminalizing the act of illegally crossing the border into the United States — that is, reducing the seriousness and consequences of illegal entry to the level of a parking ticket.

    "Raise your hand if you think it should be a civil offense, rather than a crime, to cross the border without documentation," said NBC's José Díaz-Balart.

    All 10 candidates — Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Harris, Gillibrand, Bennet, Swalwell, Hickenlooper, Yang, Williamson — raised their hands in approval. That moment was perhaps the Democratic Party's most significant step yet toward embracing a policy of open borders.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-in-debates-democrats-move-toward-open-borders

    Democrats just lost the election..

    NO ONE who advocates Open Borders, which is what decriminalization of immigration crimes basically is, will EVER be elected President Of The United States...

    This is fact...

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    "My time’s up, I’m sorry."
    -Joe Biden

    Uncle Joe doesn't realize how prescient his words are.. :(

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There is NO difference "between healthcare insurance and automobile insurance", provided THE PREMIUMS (COST) ARE BEING PAID BY THE INSURED PERSON!

    That is one of the most asinine assertion I've heard in a very long time.

    Of course there are differences, assuming you wish to live in a country that can be called healthy where its citizens don't have to worry about getting sick just by waking by somebody who is very sick because they don't have access to healthcare.

    Everybody needs healthcare. Everybody doesn't need to drive a care.

    If healthcare is universal, then everyone pays into the system based on their ability to pay - assuming you want to live in a healthy country.

    Based on your comments here about healthcare, it is clear that there is a lot you have to learn about the issue. If you are just here to cause a disturbance, then that is a different thing altogether. And, in either case, I am done with you - on this or any other issue until you can contribute intelligently.

    But when you declare healthcare to be a "human right", I'm assuming that you're assuming that the premium (cost) of that insurance will be borne by somebody OTHER THAN the insured person, which means you are claiming the free right to consume things produced by the toil of other peoples' labors.

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The above comment should have been addressed to CRS.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    Most of the other officeholders on stage were similarly uninspired. Bernie Sanders was a bracing alternative to Hillary Clinton four years ago. But his message is now just repetition—nothing makes him a different or better candidate than he was in 2016, even as the country has changed profoundly and the field of rivals he now faces is nothing like the one-on-one race with Clinton.

    Pete Buttigieg had the best night after Harris, yet he too broke no new ground. He’s smart, confident, but not in the end much different from all the rest. There is hardly more variety in this 10-candidate field than there was in just the two-candidate Clinton-Sanders race four years ago. The Democrats are stuck in a rut.
    https://spectator.us/the-democrats-are-too-fake-for-2020/

    Democrats want to re-run the 2016 election..

    That's fine because the result will be the same...

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    CRS,

    There is NO difference "between healthcare insurance and automobile insurance", provided THE PREMIUMS (COST) ARE BEING PAID BY THE INSURED PERSON! But when you declare healthcare to be a "human right", I'm assuming that you're assuming that the premium (cost) of that insurance will be borne by somebody OTHER THAN the insured person, which means you are claiming the free right to consume things produced by the toil of other peoples' labors.

    That is one of the most asinine assertion I've heard in a very long time.

    Of course there are differences, assuming you wish to live in a country that can be called healthy where its citizens don't have to worry about getting sick just by waking by somebody who is very sick because they don't have access to healthcare.

    Everybody needs healthcare. Everybody doesn't need to drive a care.

    If healthcare is universal, then everyone pays into the system based on their ability to pay - assuming you want to live in a healthy country.

    Based on your comments here about healthcare, it is clear that there is a lot you have to learn about the issue. If you are just here to cause a disturbance, then that is a different thing altogether. And, in either case, I am done with you - on this or any other issue until you can contribute intelligently.

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just disregard [68] in its entirety and skip to [71] … the preview button is a very good thingy ...

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is one of the most asinine assertion I've heard in a very long time.

    I'm hurt.. :D

    But when you declare healthcare to be a "human right", I'm assuming that you're assuming that the premium (cost) of that insurance will be borne by somebody OTHER THAN the insured person, which means you are claiming the free right to consume things produced by the toil of other peoples' labors.

    If you claim that healthcare is an inalienable human right then the question that naturally follows is how can you charge someone for their inalienable human right??

    I think that was the point CRS was making..

    If you are claiming it's an inalienable human right, but they still have to pay for it, then your closer to mainstream patriotic Americans' way of thinking..

    If it's an inalienable human right, then it follows that it should be free..

    If people pay for it, then rich people could naturally afford better care and poor people suffer and then we are away from the inalienable human right concept..

  74. [74] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Would advise that you stick with "done with (me)"

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Supreme Court to decide whether Trump can terminate Obama-era DACA program
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/28/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-trump-administration-can-end-daca.html

    Rut Roh... Democrats better prepare for ANOTHER SCOTUS loss.... :D

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    The top court has been deferential to the president’s authority in immigration matters. Last year, the justices ruled 5-4 that a version of Trump’s so-called travel ban was constitutional. Since then, Trump’s second nominee to the high court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, replaced the less reliably conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy.

    Hand President Trump a huge SCOTUS win right before the election..

    Gotta wonder if President Trump planned it all??

    "Do you think he plans it all out?? Or just makes it up as he goes along..??"
    -XO, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN

    :D

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'm hurt.. :D

    I know. But, you'll get over it.

    It wasn't even one of your comments this time. Sheesh

  78. [78] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1144621211516903424

    On CSPAN Jimmy Carter goes there:

    If fully investigated, it would show that Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and he was put in office because the Russians interfered ...on his behalf.

  79. [79] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Paula

    We'd all be interested to hear how Carter thinks the Russians pulled that off? Is he naive/dumb enough to believe that the Sanders people were so mad about their guy being cheated out of the nomination, that they switched their votes to Trump??

    Get real, Jimmy!!

    I know that some folks here are that crazy, but the general public, not so much.

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know. But, you'll get over it.

    It wasn't even one of your comments this time. Sheesh

    You misunderstand... I am hurt because I always thought that you always thought that MY comments were the most ridiculous.. :D

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    If fully investigated, it would show that Trump didn't actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and he was put in office because the Russians interfered ...on his behalf.

    BBBWWWAZHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You see?? THIS is exactly why it's IMPOSSIBLE to take Democrats and Left Wingers and Trump/America haters seriously...

    The spew the most ridiculous bullshit without a single solitary FACT to back it up...

    I loved how President Trump faced down Putin and dead-panned, "You will NOT interfere in the 2020 US Presidential Election!"

    Putin and President Trump had a good laugh over that. :D

  82. [82] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    reports of biden's political death have been greatly exaggerated

  83. [83] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [63] CRS

    I'm pretty sure I was commenting on the right of slaveowners to claim the product of the slaves labors as their own.

    I'm pretty sure you were doing so in order to equate the plight of a person who has to pay taxes to the plight of an enslaved person in the South. Which is ridiculous.

  84. [84] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I loved how President Trump faced down Putin and dead-panned, "You will NOT interfere in the 2020 US Presidential Election!"

    That was actually the most stupid moment of this long, stupid presidency. Years from now, that clip will be played to show just how blatantly we were being played by these guys.

    Good that it comes today, in that it reminds us that literally ANYONE on that stage in Miami is better than another 2 years of Trump.

  85. [85] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    To reiterate:

    The winners last night were K. Harris and Michael Bennet. The losers were the Republicans watching all of the shit the president was doing.

  86. [86] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    chazbrown [83]

    You consider it ridiculous 'cause you cant get past the details to see the big picture, but it's the same principle.

    Of course it doesn't apply to all taxation, because much of it is spent on things that benefit everybody (nat'l defense comes to mind).

    But when the fruits of your labors are confiscated to buy food (think SNAP benefits) for those who are able to work but choose not to, you are playing the same role that the slaves played, having the fruits of your labors declared to not belong to you - totally same principle.

  87. [87] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    We're like two ships, passing in the night ...

  88. [88] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    CRS [86]: It's you who's missing the 'big picture' here.

    Unless and until people are dragged from their homes, put in shackles and forced to pay taxes for the rest of their lives, then this argument is both spurious and insulting.

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    reports of biden's political death have been greatly exaggerated

    Time will tell.. It doesn't look good for Joe..

    The only way he can extricate himself from this mess is to move further Left than anyone else..

    That would doom him in the General..

    Biden has no moves left..

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'm pretty sure you were doing so in order to equate the plight of a person who has to pay taxes to the plight of an enslaved person in the South.

    Mindreading???

    Oh.. I guess it's OK... :^/

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    That was actually the most stupid moment of this long, stupid presidency.

    Of course you would say that.. You believe the huge joke that President Trump colluded with the Russians. :D

    Good that it comes today, in that it reminds us that literally ANYONE on that stage in Miami is better than another 2 years of Trump.

    Wanna bet?? :D

    The winners last night were K. Harris and Michael Bennet. The losers were the Republicans watching all of the shit the president was doing.

    That's your opinion and I respect that..

    But, the FACTS clearly show that your opinion is governed by your Party slavery..

    Ergo...

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Scarborough apologizes for 'disaster' of 2020 Democratic debate on MSNBC
    https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/450841-scarborough-apologizes-for-disaster-after-2020-democratic

    Even Trump/America hater extraordinaire Scarborough knows that the Dims Debate was a disaster...

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    MSNBC host Joe Scarborough called the second night of the first 2020 Democratic debates a “disaster for the Democratic Party” and said that he hopes voters were not watching the face-off, which aired on his network.

    "With apologies to our friends and watching, last night was a disaster for the Democratic Party," Scarborough said Friday on "Morning Joe." "My only hope is people were not watching and I will tell you why."

    hehehehehe

  94. [94] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    You believe the huge joke that President Trump colluded with the Russians.

    And you don't. That makes YOU the more dangerous person here.

    Wanna bet?

    Sure, all of the quatloos in Weigantia.

    the FACTS clearly show that your opinion is governed by your Party slavery.

    What facts? Besides the ones that Barr is trying desperately to keep from the American people..

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Dow is on pace for its best June return since 1938
    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-dow-is-now-on-pace-for-its-best-june-return-in-80-years-but-the-fed-could-change-that-in-a-heartbeat-2019-06-18

    I am confused about something..

    During the 2016 election ya'all swore up and down that, if Donald Trump was elected, the economy would implode and the Market would tank...

    And yet, the economy is flourishing and the Market had it's best June in over 80 YEARS!!!!

    So, were you full of shit back in 2016????

    Obviously....

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mr. Biden found himself again explaining his decades-old record, reminding voters he served with America’s first black president and that he was a longtime champion of civil rights. He repeated that defense Friday. “I did support federal action to address root causes of segregation in our schools and our communities including taking on the banks and redlining and trying to change ways in which neighborhoods were segregated,” he said.

    What Joe doesn't understand is that, if you're explaining, you're losing...

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL...

    You honestly think that Joe Biden could recover???

    How??

    I don't think the other candidates are going to let Joe Biden move past this.. They will keep hammering it home...

    The only way forward I can see for Biden is to move further Left than the other candidates..

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale,

    We're like two ships, passing in the night ...

    And, every once in a while, we collide.. :D

  99. [99] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    MSNBC host Joe Scarborough called the second night of the first 2020 Democratic debates a “disaster for the Democratic Party” and said that he hopes voters were not watching the face-off, which aired on his network.

    Yeah, Joe was jerked off about some sort of hand-raising exercise. Apparently, he wasn't aware that EVERY immigrant to this country gets medically evaluated when they enter. That's for our safety.

    Moreover, they have to have follow-up checkups to cover the infectious diseases. All of that is done now.

    Republicans still haven't gotten the idea that we're very tied to each other medically. Without medical intervention, a bug from San Diego can get all the way to Maine in a hurry.

    But they're still in denial. Unlike the 15th century, the cure for the flu isn't to 'move out of London', it's to keep the flu isolated so that it doesn't spread.

    Y'know, hygenics.

  100. [100] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I meant to say: All of that is done now, HOPEFULLY!

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, Joe was jerked off about some sort of hand-raising exercise. Apparently, he wasn't aware that EVERY immigrant to this country gets medically evaluated when they enter. That's for our safety.

    Moreover, they have to have follow-up checkups to cover the infectious diseases. All of that is done now.

    Republicans still haven't gotten the idea that we're very tied to each other medically. Without medical intervention, a bug from San Diego can get all the way to Maine in a hurry.

    But they're still in denial. Unlike the 15th century, the cure for the flu isn't to 'move out of London', it's to keep the flu isolated so that it doesn't spread.

    Y'know, hygenics.

    And the Most Non-Sequitor Meaningless Answer Award goes to Balthasar....

    Congrats.. The fact that your answer was the most un-intelligible and meaningless really says something..

    "Dogs barking can't fly home without umbrella"
    -JUMPIN' JACK FLASH

    Yer home.. Go drunk...

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    ‘My Time Is Up. I’m Sorry.’
    If Joe Biden fails to win the nomination, Thursday night’s debate will be remembered as the moment the final countdown began.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/joe-biden-vs-kamala-harris-bussing-and-race-issues/592912/

    And David A. Graham rips off my point..

    He must be here in Weigantia.... :D

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    #NeverTrumper David Brooks is dazed by how far left the Democrats are going. He says he could never vote for Trump, but that doesn’t meant he can bring himself to vote for a Democrat, given how far to the left they’re racing. Excerpts:

    The party is moving toward all sorts of positions that drive away moderates and make it more likely the nominee will be unelectable. And it’s doing it without too much dissent.

    First, there is health care. When Warren and Kamala Harris raised their hands and said that they would eliminate employer-based health insurance, they made the most important gesture of the campaign so far. Over 70 percent of Americans with insurance through their employers are satisfied with their health plan. Warren, Harris and Sanders would take that away.

    According to a Hill-HarrisX survey, only 13 percent of Americans say they would prefer a health insurance system with no private plans. Warren and Sanders pin themselves, and perhaps the Democratic Party, to a 13 percent policy idea. Trump is smiling.

    More:

    Third, Democrats are wandering into dangerous territory on immigration. They properly trumpet the glories immigrants bring to this country. But the candidates can’t let anybody get to the left of them on this issue. So now you’ve got a lot of candidates who sound operationally open borders. Progressive parties all over the world are getting decimated because they have fallen into this pattern.

    Yep. Seems to me like the big winner from these first two nights of Democratic presidential debates is … Donald Trump.

    Yep...

    President Donald Trump is the HUGE winner in the Democrat Party debates..

    But I will give Dumbocrats credit.

    They are working REALLY hard for the Illegal Immigrant Criminal vote..

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    CAN JOE BIDEN RECOVER AFTER THAT DEBATE-NIGHT THRASHING?
    As Kamala Harris trained her crosshairs on the frontrunner, questions about Biden’s viability re-emerged.

    https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/06/can-joe-biden-recover-after-debate-night-thrashing-kamala-harris

    Looks like the Left Wing commentariat have declared Joe Biden's demise...

  105. [105] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Joshua,

    reports of biden's political death have been greatly exaggerated

    Indeed.

    The pundits on CNN - and, I presume, elsewhere are coming from a place of deep disrespect for Biden who they see as little more than a caricature. They always have and they surely always will.

    Of course, that goes for 99% of the media/blogosphere/punditocracy who, collectively have created and sustained an "asinine media storyline on Biden" for years as told to my by a Boston Globe columnist and I couldn't have said it better myself.

  106. [106] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Michale [101] Oh, am I making no sense to you?

    Let's try this more simply:

    Every day, about a million people cross the Southern Border of the United States legally. If, while in this country, one of them gets sick, we cover it. Why? Because we don't want to get sick. It's that simple.

    Skewering Democrats for raising their hands on that question is just stupid.

  107. [107] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And that, the entire time, Joe Scarborough kept saying, "don't get me wrong, I still wanna see Trump lost this election".

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale [101] Oh, am I making no sense to you?

    Why should today be any different?? :D

    Every day, about a million people cross the Southern Border of the United States legally. If, while in this country, one of them gets sick, we cover it. Why? Because we don't want to get sick. It's that simple.

    Since you are talking about LEGAL, then it has absolutely NO BEARING on the discussion at hand..

    Skewering Democrats for raising their hands on that question is just stupid.

    Yea?? The LEGAL people you are talking about PAY for their medical services..

    Dumbocrats want to GIVE the medical services away to the ILLEGAL criminals and stick middle class Americans with the bill.

    The fact that you can't see that illustrates EXACTLY your problem..

    And that, the entire time, Joe Scarborough kept saying, "don't get me wrong, I still wanna see Trump lost this election".

    And yet, he is honest and calls the Dim debate exactly what it was. A "disaster"...

    You should strive to lose the bonds of your Party slavery and be as honest..

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, that goes for 99% of the media/blogosphere/punditocracy who, collectively have created and sustained an "asinine media storyline on Biden" for years as told to my by a Boston Globe columnist and I couldn't have said it better myself.

    Since 99% of the Left is against Biden, how do you expect him to win??

  110. [110] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy [88}

    So, you don't understand the principle, but don't feel bad, damn ffew people do.

    Regarding "being dragged off and put in shackles and forced to pay taxes for the rest of your life", Thanks, now that I know taxes are voluntary, I'll quit paying immediately.

    PS Please explain that to the IRS, 'cause when they come after me, I'm going to tell them that I have your word on that voluntary thing, just in case your opinion on that subject turns out to be "spurious and insulting".

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    Dumbocrats want to GIVE the medical services away to the ILLEGAL criminals and stick middle class Americans with the bill.

    The fact that you can't see that illustrates EXACTLY your problem..

    Why do you hate Americans so much???

  112. [112] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [86] CRS

    It's ridiculous (and whiny) to take any random example of being compelled to do a thing you simply don't want to do (for example, registering your car with the state), and equate that with the moral wrong of slavery, on the basis that slaves were also compelled to do things they didn't want to do - "totally same principle".

  113. [113] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    chaz brown

    Sorry, not the same principle at all. Registering your car with the state robs you of nothing (OK, perhaps a small fee to pay for the clerk's time.)

    There were abundant sins of slavery, but forcing them to work was a minor one. The free black folks had to work too, everybody has to work to live, unless you can find a way to make somebody elso work for you (think welfare for the able-bodied, OR slavery).

    The sin of slavery, from the economic standpoint, was that everything the slaves produced was to the benefit of somebody else. The fruits of their labors accrued 100% to th slave owner.

    If you find that "whiney", or the distinction of principle is beyond you, it's probably time for you and I to disengage.

  114. [114] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    CRS [113]: Yeah, I find that whiney.

    Michale [111]: the question is, why do you hate Americans so much? So much that if an epidemic were to hit, under your regime, most would die.

  115. [115] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    31

    I'm sorry, Kick, but that doesn't make any sense. Though Gabbard is anti-war, she isn't at all pro-Russian. I thought her performance was good, not great.

    Would it be a requirement for a candidate to be "pro-Russian" in order to garner the support of the bots in order to push a narrative? I certainly wasn't trying to make sense about why the Russian bots would flood the zone to make Tulsi Gabbard the winner of a poll on right-wing propaganda media like Drudge, but they are.

    GRU modus operandi is to divide and conquer and spread misinformation. Why would they choose Tulsi Gabbard as a means to that end? Let's now speculate. Perhaps it's because:

    * Gabbard was endorsed by David Duke and the white supremacists and their ilk.

    * The far lefties refer to her as being an "Assad shill" and therefore a "Putin puppet."

    * She took an unannounced trip to meet with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2017 and afterward said she was "skeptical" that Assad would use chemical weapons against his own people and referred to the accusations as just another round of "pointing fingers."

    * She took a Trump Tower meeting brokered by Steve Bannon who praised Gabbard for embracing the term "radical Islamic terrorism."

    * RT loves her.

    * Gabbard has said that she'd drop all charges against Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. Julian Assange and WikiLeaks are a cutout for the Russian hacking of our democracy.

    https://www.rt.com/usa/459356-gabbard-assange-snowden-charges/

    So, yes, the Russian bots are promoting Tulsi Gabbard. Just FYI. :)

  116. [116] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Balthy

    Sorry if you think you perceive whiney. Your opinion on that topic is SO important to me. I will likely feel distraught for days to come over that!

  117. [117] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    32

    I think that if either of you knew what you were discussing, you'd be ashamed of yourselves.

    Okay, now! Do I need to worry about you Balthy? That's two comments in a row where you're misunderstanding me and Charles Brown, Esq. Take your vitamins, please. ;)

  118. [118] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Since 99% of the Left is against Biden, how do you expect him to win??

    I'm hoping that the faith Biden has put in the American people over the decades will be returned in the primary voting booths.

  119. [119] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick [117]: That wasn't aimed at you at all!

    Sorry that you thought so. Ultimately it was directed to C.R.S., who apparently believes that contributing to society is somewhat akin to being kidnapped, shackled, and forced to work in bad conditions.

  120. [120] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    51

    I have read the entire US Constitution and there is not a SINGLE reference to healthcare as an inalienable right..

    In fact, the word "inalienable" doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution regarding any right.

    The belief in the "right to healthcare" generally stems from our Founders belief in the "unalienable" right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

    The Constitution, however, contains no such right. However, the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution does provide constitutional protection for certain rights or "liberty interests" related to privacy.

    The right to privacy has been held to include the right to procreate, to use contraception, to have an abortion, and to maintain bodily integrity, but the Supreme Court's holding that the Constitution implicitly confers a fundamental right to privacy, the have not elevated healthcare to the status of a fundamental right in the same manner.

    It is indeed a slippery slope when those righties who insist that there is a right to life insist there is no right to healthcare, but the vast majority of righties aren't exactly known for their ability to connect the dots.

    FACT: There is no right to life or healthcare enumerated in the Constitution. Full stop.

  121. [121] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    82

    reports of biden's political death have been greatly exaggerated

    I know, right!?

    Voters will overwhelmingly be choosing whomever they believe can take on Trump and beat him. Joe simply needs to get busy sharpening his knives. :)

  122. [122] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    85

    To reiterate:

    The winners last night were K. Harris and Michael Bennet.

    Okay... and I actually knew who you meant when you said it was Harris and "Mike Sutton."

    What were you smoking last night? ;)

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    The problem with Biden when it comes to these kinds of debates where there is little time to talk and there are so many who are in attack mode and the truth be damned is twofold.

    Number one, he doesn't fight dirty like Swalwell and Harris and Booker. It's not in his DNA to go after fellow Democrats like those who have gone after him and tried to distort his record with words like " I know you're not a racist, but".

    Number two, he's too decent and polite for these debates. Which is why he has always tried to keep to his time actually interrupting himself when he's gone over the time allotted.

    I think he's going to have to change tactics for the next debates with 10 people on the stage without changing who he is. And, Biden can be stubborn that way. And, frankly, I don't blame him.

    Have fun with the next piece tonight everyone but, count me out for the duration.

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    95

    The Dow is on pace for its best June return since 1938

    In December 2018, the Dow and the S&P 500 posted their worst December since 1931, while the Nasdaq had its worst December on record in its entire history.

    Why did you not report that single month's outcome?
    {rhetorical question}

    Also, U.S. stocks posted their worst year in a decade as the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost about 10% of its value, as did the S&P 500, while the Nasdaq dropped roughly 8%.

    https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/making-sense/6-factors-that-fueled-the-stock-market-dive-in-2018

    Why did you not report that? Moron. :)

  125. [125] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    105

    The pundits on CNN - and, I presume, elsewhere are coming from a place of deep disrespect for Biden who they see as little more than a caricature. They always have and they surely always will.

    The media need a horserace, EM. Same old shit, different election.

    Of course, that goes for 99% of the media/blogosphere/punditocracy who, collectively have created and sustained an "asinine media storyline on Biden" for years as told to my by a Boston Globe columnist and I couldn't have said it better myself.

    Yes, ma'am. Very well said. :)

  126. [126] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Also, U.S. stocks posted their worst year in a decade as the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost about 10% of its value, as did the S&P 500, while the Nasdaq dropped roughly 8%.

    Well, Kick, the Dow is still up pretty high for the past many years.

    You know, I never cease to be amazed and so very pleasantly surprised that the market hasn't been a lot worse in the Trump era. I don't really get it but I like it!

  127. [127] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    106

    Oh, am I making no sense to you?

    Some people have no critical thinking skills. Why don't you dumb it down for him.

    Let's try this more simply:

    Great idea!

    Every day, about a million people cross the Southern Border of the United States legally. If, while in this country, one of them gets sick, we cover it. Why? Because we don't want to get sick. It's that simple.

    One hundred percent correct. The whole comment. Something that morons don't seem to realize is that the border crossings go both ways. Americans indeed cross into Mexico every single day for a myriad of reasons... vacation, medical care, pharmaceutical products, weed, I could go on.

    Skewering Democrats for raising their hands on that question is just stupid.

    I know, right!? It's also why we as Americans who care for the general welfare of our citizens go to great lengths to cure Anthrax in other countries and are pro active in concert with charities and world organizations to deliver vaccines worldwide. We help others because it benefits us. :)

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    109

    Since 99% of the Left is against Biden, how do you expect him to win??

    Oh, FFS. The media love a comeback! Duh. :)

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    114

    Michale [111]: the question is, why do you hate Americans so much? So much that if an epidemic were to hit, under your regime, most would die.

    Because according to him he has spent his life being a soldier and law enforcement officer... in other words, a person who killed people for a living... a paid People Killer partial to the welfare of fetuses but not actual people.

  130. [130] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [113] CRS

    There were abundant sins of slavery, but forcing them to work was a minor one. [...]

    Smh [*].

    [E]verybody has to work to live, unless you can find a way to make somebody else work for you (think welfare for the able-bodied, OR slavery).

    I don't think Tiffany Trump is going to spend a lot of her life doing anything either of us might call 'working'.

    The sin of slavery, from the economic standpoint, was that everything the slaves produced was to the benefit of somebody else.

    So, your claim is that a retired person who donates all of their time and effort to the homeless is committing a sin, from the economic standpoint, since everything they produce from their efforts is to the benefit of someone else?

    If you find that "whiney", or the distinction of principle is beyond you, it's probably time for you and I to disengage.

    Yeah, it does sound pretty whiny overall, to be honest. Just because you have to pay taxes that you don't want to pay, it isn't an injustice comparable to being enslaved as people were in the South in this country's history. As you claimed earlier.

    [*] https://www.lifewire.com/what-does-smh-mean-3485959

  131. [131] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    119

    Kick [117]: That wasn't aimed at you at all!

    Of course it wasn't. I was teasing you regarding the prior comment at [31] and the one aimed at Charles Brown that followed at [32]. I also could have piled on and gave you shit about your comment at [30] wherein you praised the debate performance of one "Mike Sutton." ;)

    Sorry that you thought so.

    I did no such thing.

    Ultimately it was directed to C.R.S., who apparently believes that contributing to society is somewhat akin to being kidnapped, shackled, and forced to work in bad conditions.

    I know, right!? It takes a special kind of stupid to keep telling posters how much he doesn't care what they think while conveniently forgetting that it's a two-way street.

    I mean, really!? A guy living off social security while incessantly and constantly whining about nonproductive people! It is to laugh. *laughs* :)

  132. [132] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    126

    Well, Kick, the Dow is still up pretty high for the past many years.

    Of course it is, but reporting on the high months while ignoring the low months like December 2018 and the fact that 2018 was the worst year for the market in a decade is cherry picking months in order to push a false narrative. The hypocrite troll who whines incessantly about hypocrisy simply has no moral authority with which to do so.

    You know, I never cease to be amazed and so very pleasantly surprised that the market hasn't been a lot worse in the Trump era. I don't really get it but I like it!

    It's simple. Trump inherited a great economy. The employment numbers Trump referred to as "fake" are still figured in the exact same way and one of Trump's favorite things to brag about. Meanwhile, the markets had a record dive in 2018 and are recovering nicely in 2019. I promise you another dive like 2018 is coming that'll likely also break all kinds of records. The only question is when. :)

  133. [133] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick,
    Yes, we're in the throes of the trubble

  134. [134] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's simple. Trump inherited a great economy. The employment numbers Trump referred to as "fake" are still figured in the exact same way and one of Trump's favorite things to brag about. Meanwhile, the markets had a record dive in 2018 and are recovering nicely in 2019.

    I don't think it's that simple, true as all of it is. Trump still has the support of too many people who should know better.

    We can probably expect the dive to come in the last quarter of 2020.

  135. [135] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    133

    Yes, we're in the throes of the trubble

    Meanwhile, Trump is in Japan gently patting Vladimir Putin on the back. Gag.

    Later, Trump wagged his tiny little finger at Putin and made jokes about hacking our democracy. More appeasement of Putin at the expense of the national security interests of the United States.

    I was wrong when I said Trump is Putin's Bitch. He is obviously Putin's Whore... a role he seems to enjoy.

  136. [136] 
    Kick wrote:

    Elizabeth Miller
    134

    We can probably expect the dive to come in the last quarter of 2020.

    As I am sure you're aware, October is a historically bad month... the markets like to fall in the fall. :)

  137. [137] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I don't think Tiffany Trump is going to spend a lot of her life doing anything either of us might call 'working'.

    Isn’t she in law school right now? I’m pretty sure it isn’t Trump University School of Law. Of the Trump kiddies, she seems the most likely to be a productive member of society.

  138. [138] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick

    Because according to him he has spent his life being a soldier and law enforcement officer... in other words, a person who killed people for a living... a paid People Killer partial to the welfare of fetuses but not actual people.

    He’s never been a law enforcement officer....he was military police on whichever base he served at. He speaks of it as if it occurred after he left the military, but it didn’t. Since he wasn’t career military, his time as a “cop” was very limited.

  139. [139] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [137] LWYH

    According to Wikipedia:

    Career

    In 2011, Trump released a music single called "Like a Bird." She later told The Oprah Winfrey Show that she was evaluating whether to take her music career "to the next level as a professional".

    In 2015, Trump worked as an intern at Vogue and modeled for a 2016 Andrew Warren fashion show during New York Fashion Week.

    In the Media

    Trump is a frequent poster to Instagram, where, as of December 2018, she had 1,000,000 followers.

    Her Instagram posts frequently include photographs of her with friends or with other people known mostly for having famous parents or grandparents, including Kyra Kennedy, granddaughter of Robert F. Kennedy; Gaïa Jacquet-Matisse, great-great-granddaughter of artist Henri Matisse; Reya Benitez, daughter of John Benitez; Ezra J. William, son of an Indonesian real estate businessman; and EJ Johnson, son of Magic Johnson.

    The group, whose posed photos are edited by Andrew Warren, has been named the "rich kids of Instagram" by the New York Post and the "Snap Pack" by The New York Times and New York magazine.

    I think she's shooting for what CRS would call "welfare for the able-bodied". :)

  140. [140] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    138

    He’s never been a law enforcement officer....he was military police on whichever base he served at. He speaks of it as if it occurred after he left the military, but it didn’t. Since he wasn’t career military, his time as a “cop” was very limited.

    You mean he constantly refers to his "LEO bona fides" when he was nothing more than a damn Mud Puppy! Oh, FFS. Then that makes him a fraud of the highest order.

  141. [141] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick,

    You mean he constantly refers to his "LEO bona fides" when he was nothing more than a damn Mud Puppy! Oh, FFS. Then that makes him a fraud of the highest order.

    Afraid so... but it does help explain his misinformed interpretations of various laws. I couldn’t figure out how he’d worked for any commissioned department, but finally he said he was an MP and hadn’t worked with civilians. Military folks’ rights are not nearly what the general public enjoys off base!

  142. [142] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    chazbrown [130]

    You obviously have reading comprehension problems. If "Tiffany Trump" never has to work, she obviously falls into the catagory I mentioned, by my phrase "unless you can find somebody else to work for you". You quoted my very words, and then imply that they didn't register on your brain.

    Everybody consumes, so if Tiffany doesn't have to work (produce), she has obviously found somebody else to produce for her.

    Does "the retired person who contributes . ." not eat, not need shelter from the elements, not need medical care, etc? He/she consumes, so he/she either produces consumable goods and services, or has found somebody else to do it for him/her. His,her charitable generosity hasn't got a damn thing to do with the principle involved.

    It's becoming clear who is actually the whiney one in this exchange, and it ain't I.

  143. [143] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Kick [131]

    You don't have the slightest idea what I "live on". I've told you I collect social security, as do most people in their eighties, but to say I "live on it" is a fallacious conclusion on your part.

    Re: your "Two-way street". It's not necessary to tell me you don't care what I think. It's prima fascia obvious based on the quality of your responses. But I well understand that while most of my stuff is over your head, that you're doing the best you can with the limited level of comprehension you possess.

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I'm hoping that the faith Biden has put in the American people over the decades will be returned in the primary voting booths.

    Would that be those same American people who voted in President Trump?? :D

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathy,

    Michale [111]: the question is, why do you hate Americans so much? So much that if an epidemic were to hit, under your regime, most would die.

    Once again, you go off the wall with a totally non-sequitor response...

    Nippin' at the cooking sherry again, I see...

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:

    You know, I never cease to be amazed and so very pleasantly surprised that the market hasn't been a lot worse in the Trump era. I don't really get it but I like it!

    And you are alone amongst Weigantians to admit it.. :D

    Good on you...

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    We can probably expect the dive to come in the last quarter of 2020.

    If the high notes are because of Obama, aren't the low notes ALSO because of Obama??

  148. [148] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh.. I get it..

    President Trump gets all of the blame and none of the credit.. :^/

  149. [149] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Once again, you go off the wall..

    No, I'm making a legitimate point. The idea that a patchwork health care system can work is dead in the 21st century.

    Anti-vaxxers thought so. How quaint.

    You and your Republican brethren are about the only ones left, in fact, that believe that you can leave an entire population without healthcare, and the rest of society will be Okay.

    You've got your head in the sand.

  150. [150] 
    Michale wrote:

    No, I'm making a legitimate point. The idea that a patchwork health care system can work is dead in the 21st century.

    And yet, that is EXACTLY what your messiah, Dumbo and the Dumbocrats gave us...

    You and your Republican brethren are about the only ones left, in fact, that believe that you can leave an entire population without healthcare, and the rest of society will be Okay.

    And yet, it's worked for over 250 years..

    But, of course, you want to indulge in fear mongering.. :eyeroll:

    You've got your head in the sand.

    And yet, it was your messiah, Odumbo and the Dumbocrats who gave us TrainWreckCare.. :eyeroll:

    But hay... If you want to throw 130 million Americans off their healthcare plans that they LIKE and that works for them???

    Be my guest..

    Just don't plan on winning any elections from the remainder of your life...

  151. [151] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Would it be so difficult for you to set a good example here and start showing a modicum of respect for President Obama and the Democrats and the Democratic party?

    Even if no one follows you with respect to President Trump, at least you would be doing the right thing.

    Think about Chris's blog, at least.

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    Would it be so difficult for you to set a good example here and start showing a modicum of respect for President Obama and the Democrats and the Democratic party?

    Sure.. Once I see a modicum of respect for President Trump and the Republicans and the Republican Party...

    Even if no one follows you with respect to President Trump, at least you would be doing the right thing.

    One fights fire with fire... "Doing the right thing" often leaves one burned..

    Think about Chris's blog, at least.

    This is it, in all it's glory.. Warts and all..

    "One man cannot effect change..."
    -Mirror Spock

    I'll be happy to be respectful of the Left.. Once everyone else here shows some respect for the Right...

  153. [153] 
    chaszzzbrown wrote:

    [142] CRS

    If "Tiffany Trump" never has to work, she obviously falls into the catagory I mentioned, by my phrase "unless you can find somebody else to work for you".

    Agreed. Actually, I was responding to your more complete quote which I provided: "unless you can find somebody else to work for you (think welfare for the able-bodied, OR slavery)."

    I was using Tiffany as an example to point out that this category covers far more than your qualifying parenthetical would suggest.

    Does "the retired person who contributes . ." not eat, not need shelter from the elements, not need medical care, etc?

    Does an enslaved person not eat, not need shelter from the elements, not need medical care, etc.?

    Ranchers provide all these things for their cattle; and similarly enslavers provide these things for the people they enslave.

    He/she consumes, so he/she either produces consumable goods and services, or has found somebody else to do it for him/her.

    And in the enslaved case; one can claim that he/she has tragically indeed "found" someone else to "do it for" him/her.

    The principle distinguishing between the two is not that only in the latter case is it true that what is produced is to the benefit of somebody else, as you claim. It's not something economic at all.

    It's that the enslaved person is compelled against their will to act by deadly force. Wouldn't you agree?

  154. [154] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    143

    You don't have the slightest idea what I "live on". I've told you I collect social security, as do most people in their eighties, but to say I "live on it" is a fallacious conclusion on your part.

    Yes, I actually do, "C. R. Stucki" from "Podunk, Idaho," but then why on Earth would you presume to "have the slightest idea" what I know?

    Re: your "Two-way street". It's not necessary to tell me you don't care what I think.

    I didn't tell you anything, you cranky presumptuous old man. In point of fact, the post you are responding to was a comment to Balthasar wherein you made a similar comment toward him; as such, why not butt the eff out?

    It's prima fascia obvious based on the quality of your responses.

    As I said grandpa, my response was meant for someone else and not remotely for you. If I had been posting a response to you, I would have naturally dumbed it down to your reading comprehension level, and it would have had your name at the top versus the name of someone else who isn't you.

    But I well understand that while most of my stuff is over your head, that you're doing the best you can with the limited level of comprehension you possess.

    Said the benighted geezer whining about my post to Balthasar that he's confused about being to him. Shove off you old prat! :D

  155. [155] 
    Kick wrote:

    Charles Brown, Esq.

    I see the obvious problem here: The whiney old man is angry at you for being correct about everything and kicking his cranky old ass and has decided to take it out on me. :)

Comments for this article are closed.