ChrisWeigant.com

The First Democratic Debate (Round 2)

[ Posted Friday, June 28th, 2019 – 18:12 UTC ]

Last night was the second of two nights of the first 2020 Democratic presidential debates, which showcased another ten candidates on stage sparring with each other. And it certainly lived up to its "adult table" billing, since Thursday night was a lot more high-energy than the previous night. There were fireworks, there was shouting, and there were a few punches landed. In other words, a good time was had by all (all the pundits watching, that is).

I'd like to make a few general observations before getting into each candidates' performance. What struck me most was the volume of the second debate night. Bernie Sanders, of course, shouted out a lot of his answers. He always does, so this was no surprise. What was surprising was that almost every other candidate matched Bernie's decibel count at some point or another, even the mildest of them. Obviously, they were all told to "show passion" on the stage, and most of them managed to do so without appearing too contrived. Not only were a lot of the candidates' answers loud, they all also talked as fast as they could to get as much as possible into their 60-second answers. This was also much more noticeable than the quieter pace of the previous night.

The crowd reflected the higher energy as well. While on the first night, the applause was sporadic and polite, on Thursday the crowd roared at times when a particularly good answer was given. Rachel Maddow even castigated the audience at the end for "totally ignoring our rules," but she did so tongue-in-cheek. Everyone knows a livelier crowd means better ratings, after all.

Because everyone on the stage had watched the first night, they all predictably knew to ignore the rules and just jump right in whenever they felt the need. Once again, the moderators just sat back and let the fur fly rather than holding the candidates to their own rules. As for the moderators, they sure do like to hear themselves speak -- the questions were almost all painfully long and convoluted, when a quick sharp jab is what really would have worked a lot better.

I was very impressed at the level of debate last night, though. I thought just about everyone exceeded expectations on the stage, and with a few exceptions they conveyed the fire in the belly that is necessary to run for president. Maybe that should read "my own expectations" of the candidates, though, as it's admittedly a rather biased metric.

Speaking of bias, I have to admit to my own, at least when it comes to accents and speaking styles. Because I find some of the candidates more than a little off-putting in how they speak. Michael Bennet in particular usually sounds like he's talking with a mouthful of oatmeal. He (much more than Joe Biden) really earns the label "sleepy," because when he speaks I tend to drift off. John Hickenlooper has the same problem, but its not as pronounced as it is in Bennet. Also, Marianne Williamson has one of the strangest accents I've ever heard. I have no idea what region of the country she grew up in, but when she speaks it just seems strange, at least to me.

More substantively, last night was notably different from the first in two respects, because both Donald Trump and Joe Biden were a lot more prominent in the candidates' answers. Trump was attacked directly by more candidates, and Biden was -- in a much more respectful fashion -- also attacked by many. This was a noticeable change from the previous night.

What else? NBC had another microphone snafu, this time not being able to turn on Lester Holt's mic in time. They've already become the butt of many late-night jokes for their audio screwups, so I'll just mention it in passing. Overall, they did a fairly decent job of hosting the first debates (I've seen a lot worse, in other words).

Once again, I offer up my standard disclaimer: 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.

As I did yesterday, in the interests of fairness, 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.

 

Michael Bennet

Since I already complained about Bennet's mushmouth speaking style, I will admit that on a few subjects Bennet upped his pace and his volume. He sounded a lot more authentic when he did so, but that may just be my own bias talking.

But Bennet just seems like a Central Casting character you'd order up if you were a director and wanted a slightly-pompous and slightly-condescending politician in the background of your movie. He certainly didn't do a great job of explaining why he would be the best choice to take on Donald Trump, or even why he thought he was the best choice to be our next president.

Bennet did try to jump in on lots of questions, but even when he succeeded he didn't always have much to say about things. This wasn't universally true, but even when he got loud and forceful, at times he ended up in the rhetorical weeds, showing lots of sound and fury but signifying not very much. Not always -- after rambling a bit on the question of immigration, he closed with an excellent comparison between Trump's "nativist hostility" and our ideals as personified by the Statue of Liberty. The line was well-delivered and forceful, even if the buildup was kind of weak.

Bennet did have one shining moment in the debate, when he directly challenged Joe Biden. After being asked how they would function as president if Mitch McConnell manages to hang onto the Senate, Biden responded that he had already gotten Mitch to agree to things like raising taxes. Bennet jumped in to forcefully point out that this tax bill "was a victory for the Tea Party" because it made permanent most of the Bush tax cuts. So Biden shouldn't be bragging about it. Other than the dustup with Kamala Harris, this was the most effective attack against Biden of the whole night, but it was overshadowed in the end.

 

Joe Biden

Joe Biden had a tough night, that's for sure. For the first time, he faced some adversity on the campaign trail. His campaign so far has been wrapped in cotton batting, shielding him from those pesky reporters and doing a minimal amount of actual campaigning in front of voters. Biden has had this luxury due to his absolute dominance in the polls. That all changed last night (well, we'll have to see about the polling, but the rest of it certainly changed in a big way).

Because he is the frontrunner -- who is way out in front -- Biden had a big target placed on him for the first debate. And plenty of the other candidates took potshots at this target as the night progressed.

Biden was defensive from the very start, insisting rather awkwardly (see a fuller explanation of this moment below, in the Swalwell section) when questioned about his age: "I'm still holding on to that torch," rather than passing it along to a younger candidate. This could be seen as kind of cringeworthy, but so far other Biden moments have dominated the post-debate discussion, so perhaps not.

Biden did manage to dispel Trump's "Sleepy Joe" caricature last night -- he looked anything but sleepy. He was fast-paced, he raised his voice constantly, and he defended his positions wholeheartedly. Biden has been in politics for a long time, so debating is not exactly new to him, and he showed his experience with his forceful performance.

Joe Biden had one recurring theme over the night, and that was to mention Barack Obama's name as often as possible. This reminds everyone of the love Democrats still hold for Obama, and ties Biden's record to his service as vice president. On Obamacare, for example, Biden urged to "build on what we did," and introduce a public option as soon as possible because "urgency matters." It was a good delivery, and a good point.

Biden occasionally rambled aimlessly, although he usually did so when listing his previous accomplishments (of which there are many, in his defense). But sometimes, by doing so, he stepped on his own good lines. And, as many have already noted, Biden occasionally even cut himself off by just halting his delivery in mid-sentence and noting that his time was up.

At other times, though, he was indeed succinct, as when he spoke of his record on immigration: "We all talk about these things, but I did it. I did it, period!" Biden's record is second to none, in terms of getting things done, so I'd look for similar language from him on all kinds of issues in the future, where all the other candidates have to offer is aspirations.

Biden's worst moment, of course, came when he got into it with Kamala Harris over racial politics. Astoundingly, he strongly defended his 1970s stance on school busing -- that it should be a local issue, and not imposed forcefully by the Department of Education -- which is not exactly a winning argument today. Harris definitely got the better of him in the exchange, which he weakly ended with another "my time's up" moment.

Joe Biden shares one trait with Donald Trump that should concern all Democrats -- he refuses to admit that he's ever been wrong about anything. Whether it is school busing, his crime bill in the 1990s, his Iraq War vote, or defending Barack Obama's deportation record, Biden just cannot bring himself to say the words: "I was wrong." He obviously sees this as a political strength, but it really should be a cause for concern. We're all seeing the damage such thinking can cause on a daily basis, from Trump. More than anything else -- more than his response to Harris on busing, even -- this is the takeaway that should really give Democratic voters pause when they make up their minds which candidate to support.

Biden did have some fresh ideas that none of the other candidates brought up, as when he supported "smart gun" technology that only allows the owner to fire the weapon. This is a hugely contentious issue with Second Amendment supporters, even though none of the other Democrats has ever (to my memory) spoken about it.

Overall, Biden did a better job than I expected him to. He was forceful, he was on-point, and he had a good answer for almost everything thrown at him. He did not crumble under the pressure, and he showed why Barack Obama selected him for vice president in the first place. But his standing in the polls made him the biggest target of the night, and he will remain so until his poll numbers begin to fade (if that actually happens). Biden did not have any disqualifying moments last night, so it's an open question how many voters' minds will actually change from seeing his performance. It's still Biden's race to lose, in other words.

 

Pete Buttigieg

One of Mayor Pete's biggest strong points was supposed to be his nimble mind and speaking style. It's what launched him into the top ranks initially, after all. But while he did exhibit this at times last night, at other moments he seemed out of place on that stage -- precisely what you'd think of any small-city mayor trying to make the jump to the White House in one giant leap.

Buttigieg's worst moment came when he did something few politicians ever do -- he refused to pass the buck. When confronted with the stats from South Bend, Indiana (26 percent black population, but only 6 percent of the cops are black), Buttigieg flatly admitted that he had failed to do better: "I couldn't get it done." One of the other candidates shot back that he should just fire the police chief, leaving Buttigieg trying to explain that that simply wasn't possible under Indiana law, which didn't help his case one bit.

This left the impression, fair or not, that Buttigieg was out of his league. After all, if he couldn't even make strides to solve racial problems on a local level, how in the world would he manage to solve similar problems nationwide? He was saved from his tough spot when Kamala Harris jumped in to change the subject to Biden's busing record (more on that in a bit).

But Mayor Pete had good moments as well last night. One of his best was his answer to the Medicare For All issue, when he gave an excellent explanation of the idea of "Medicare For All Who Want It" being a glide path that would eventually end up at a single-payer system. He also made the point that some European universal healthcare systems still have private insurance as a part of it -- a point Tulsi Gabbard had also made the night before. Of the two, Buttigieg did a much better job of explaining it.

Buttigieg also had a good moment in his answer on immigration, where he dove into an issue that few Democrats have ever used -- shaming the Christian right over their absolute hypocrisy on subjects like how we treat immigrants. This is a recurring theme for Buttigieg, and he inserted it into the flow of the debate rather well.

Buttigieg also did a good job of playing the "I can win the Midwest" card, in his answer on China. He flatly stated "tariffs are taxes," a line I've been urging more Democrats to start using. He also addressed the concerns of farmers, both on the tariff question and later on the climate change question. Once again, Democrats really need to begin to speak to farmers' concerns if they have any hope of cutting into Trump's political dominance of rural America.

Buttigieg had one great line late in the night, when answering a question about gun control: "If more guns made us safer, then we'd be the safest country on Earth now." And during a "lightning round" on which country he'd phone first as president, Buttigieg had the funniest line of the whole night: "I have no idea which country I'd call first, because we have no idea which country Trump will have pissed off by then." This marks the second time the phrase "pissed off" arose in the first Democratic presidential debate (the first came on Wednesday night).

Overall, Buttigieg didn't have a great night but also didn't have a terrible night. He's always been challenged by his relative inexperience in national politics, but so have a lot of the other candidates -- and Mayor Pete seems to be doing better making the adjustment than most. But he also didn't have any real standout game-changing moments last night either, so it's doubtful he changed a whole lot of minds with his performance.

 

Kirsten Gillibrand

Kirsten Gillibrand is from New York, although not from New York City. You wouldn't have known that last night, since she more than anyone else followed Bill De Blasio's lead from the previous night, by trying to jump in on just about every question, unprompted. In both cases, this was a tactic born of desperation.

Gillibrand really should be doing a lot better than she is in the polls. After all, she is a senator from a very important state. Her name was well-known even before she began her presidential campaign, and she took over Hillary Clinton's seat in the Senate. All of that should have worked to her benefit, but it really hasn't. She has struggled down at the bottom of the pack with the relative no-names instead.

So last night she had nothing to lose and tried to dominate the flow of the debate the way that De Blasio managed to on the previous evening. This fell rather flat on most subjects, because she just didn't have anything to say that was worthy of such interruptions. De Blasio, at least, breathed some fire when he muscled his way onto the screen. Other than with women's issues, Gillibrand fell short of doing so.

Gillibrand tried her mightiest to make a splash last night, but to my eyes she fell short of doing so. She's obviously trying real hard, but she still isn't making much of an impression.

 

Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris was, obviously, one of the big winners (if not "the" big winner) of the night last night. She showed off her prosecutorial chops in a major way, she defused a "food fight" with humor that worked perfectly, and she appeared strong on just about every subject (although she seems to be struggling with one in particular, post-debate).

Millions of Americans were picturing Harris last night appearing on some future debate stage opposite Donald Trump, and were further picturing her sitting in the Oval Office. She looked and sounded, in a word, presidential. That's about the best review you can get after a debate, really.

Harris had multiple standout moments over the course of the night. She began with a sharp denunciation of the first question she got -- essentially: "How will you pay for all your ideas?" -- by pointing out quite rightly that this question is never asked of Republicans whenever they propose slashing taxes on the wealthy, or spending money on their pet issues. This is a universal truth among journalists, so it was refreshing indeed to see Harris push back so hard.

Harris's next big moment came in an obviously-scripted line, but one that was delivered so well and with such great timing that nobody cared. When the shouting match erupted between Eric Swalwell and Joe Biden (and Bernie Sanders) over age, Kamala loudly smacked all the squabbling down with: "Hey, guys, America does not want to witness a food fight, they want to know how we're going to put food on their table." This was devastating, and the crowd loved it.

Kamala Harris is walking back one stance she took last night, as she was only the fourth candidate out of all 20 to raise her hand when asked if her Medicare For All plan would abolish all private health insurance (the others were Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Bill De Blasio). Harris seemed to defend this position, but today is saying she "misunderstood the question" and that she wouldn't be for abolishing private insurance. She's given contradictory answers on this subject before, and she still seems to be twisting in the wind, unsure of exactly what she supports.

Harris was much stronger on subjects like immigration ("I would not lock children up in cages!") and at times she got huge rounds of applause from the audience. She was also very comfortable in attacking Trump directly. But she was very careful in her attacks on Biden, managing to appear very respectful in her disagreement. The first of these came over Obama's immigration record, where she "disagreed with our president," and sugar-coated her criticism of Biden's involvement.

Of course, the standout moment of the entire night (of the entire two nights, really) was when Harris jumped into the debate Pete Buttigieg was having with others about racial problems in his home city. Harris demanded to be heard, "as the only colored person on the stage," and unleashed a broadside against Biden's recent comments about racist senators he was happy to work with and his own stance on school busing from the 1970s. She did preface this attack by noting that she doesn't consider Biden a racist (which precluded him from defending himself against a charge she wasn't making) and that she still had respect for him. But her comments were devastating, beginning with her: "That little girl was me" story about busing to her forceful stance that the power and might of the federal government was necessary to ensure civil rights, at times. Biden tried a hair-splitting defense ("I opposed forced busing") which was not very effective, to put it mildly. This back-and-forth was clearly the moment that will be remembered from the first debate round, and it showcased Harris's strong points.

In her closing speech, Harris leaned on her own experience ("We must prosecute the case against four more years of Donald Trump") and gave a callback to a Hillary Clinton campaign theme ("I have what I call a 3:00 A.M. agenda"), but it won't be her closing statement that is remembered from last night's performance.

My guess is that Harris will see an immediate spike in fundraising, and may even begin rising in the polls while draining off support for Joe Biden (especially African-American support) in the coming weeks. For the time being, Kamala Harris has cemented her status as one of the true frontrunners of the Democratic race.

 

John Hickenlooper

Who? John Somebody from Colorado? Oh, yeah... that guy.

Wednesday night, we had a head-to-head contest from two guys from Texas, and the general consensus was that Julián Castro won and Beto O'Rourke lost the matchup. Last night, we got the head-to-head between two guys from Colorado. In my opinion, Michael Bennet won this contest hands-down, and Hickenlooper lost badly.

Hickenlooper is one of the moderates running who is cautioning the party not to head too far to the left. This was almost completely overshadowed last night by others making similar cases. Of course, it was tough that Hickenlooper had to appear with Joe Biden on the stage -- he might have done better if he had drawn the first debate night instead. But maybe not. He might have faded into the background then, too.

Hickenlooper's main theme is one that other moderate candidates are pushing as well -- "Dream Small!" We'll have no Green New Deal, no Medicare For All, and no dessert if you don't finish your broccoli.

Hickenlooper did have his moments, as when he denounced Trump's child-separation policy in the most forceful terms: "In Colorado, we call that kidnapping." But for most of the night, he turned in a pretty forgettable performance.

He also committed one unforgivable sin (for me, at least), in his closing remarks. He bragged that Colorado had become the first state to legalize recreational marijuana, even though he actually led the fight against the effort. To his credit, since the voters passed the law, he's gotten on board, but there is just no way I'm going to give him the tiniest shred of political credit for getting the law passed, sorry.

 

Bernie Sanders

"I'm! Bernie! Sanders! And I'm here to lead the REVOLUTION!"

Well, no, he didn't exactly scream that. But it's not that far from the reality.

Now don't get me wrong, I personally love Bernie and would thoroughly enjoy seeing him become president. I think he's got an excellent shot against Trump, and the polls so far have backed this feeling up. I think he would have run a much better 2016 race than Hillary Clinton did, too.

But Bernie's consistency works both for him and against him. He is who he is -- he is about as authentic a politician as you'll ever meet. He has been fighting for the same things his entire political life, and he has almost never twisted in the winds of public opinion (the only notable flip-flop he's ever had is on gun control, which isn't that unusual for a politician from a rural state transitioning to the national Democratic stage).

But what all that also means is that he doesn't change much. He doesn't change his style, he doesn't change his message, and he doesn't change his delivery. He has had an astounding amount of success in promoting his key issues over the past four years -- he, more than any other Democrat around, has transformed the entire party by forcing it to rededicate itself to the working class. He managed to do this almost singlehandedly, which is no mean feat. And from where I sit, he deserves thanks and praise for doing so.

Bernie's problem now, however, is that because he has transformed the Democratic Party, he is no longer a voice crying in the wilderness. He's got competitors who largely agree with the direction he has charted. And some of them might wind up being better candidates against Donald Trump. He could wind up becoming a victim of his own success, to put it bluntly.

Bernie, for some reason, got the first question and after extolling his Medicare For All idea was forced into admitting that middle class taxpayers will have to pay higher taxes to get it. This is a complicated issue -- as Bernie rightfully pointed out, they will wind up saving money on healthcare overall -- and one that Medicare For All proponents really don't want to talk about.

Bernie did much better later on, when the whole debate turned to Medicare For All. He made a point that few even bother making (which has always mystified me) -- that with single-payer, "you can choose any doctor you want and go to any hospital you want," because everybody will be in the same "network." This is a huge issue in the middle of the health insurance debate, but it is seldom talked about.

Bernie did a pretty good job of taking the fight to Trump, as when he answered a "Day One" question with: "I'd take out our executive order pen and rescind everything that Donald Trump has done." That is what every Democrat should be saying, obviously.

Bernie did have a few bad moments, though, as when he rejected the premise of a question Rachel Maddow had put to him. Maddow pointed out: "That's a direct quote, Senator" in her defense, although luckily for Bernie not many people noticed during the crosstalk.

Overall, Bernie held his own last night. He probably didn't convince a lot of people to get behind him, but then again he didn't say or do anything that would cause his supporters to give up on him, either. His biggest problem is that he's not the only one championing his progressive agenda any more, so the voters have more than just him to choose from even if they agree with everything he says.

 

Eric Swalwell

Who? Oh, yeah -- the straight young white guy.

Eric Swalwell also attempted to play by Bill De Blasio's playbook last night, interjecting himself as often as he could into the discussion. But with him, it fell rather flat. Swalwell fell rather flat in general, appearing as one of the candidates who is definitely not really ready for the prime time of a presidential race.

Swalwell had one card to play, and he tried to play it multiple times. He was young, dammit, and voters needed to get behind him rather than all those old folks who were getting in his way. He first introduced this theme with an obviously-rehearsed zinger, telling the story of when he was a young boy hearing a senator say: "The torch must be passed to a younger generation," and then surprising everyone that the senator in question was Joe Biden. This might have made a bigger impact if Kamala Harris hadn't shut down the whole fracas with her "food fight" quip, though. Swalwell tried to return to this "pass the torch" theme over and over again throughout the night, but after his initial zinger it fell pretty flat.

Swalwell obviously had memorized some snappy lines, such as: "We need to love our children more than we love our guns," but he never really delivered any of them all that well. He did do well on the gun control issue, which he's tried to make his own in this race, but even that wasn't all that standout a moment for him.

His scripted closing statement also fell flat, when he tried to crack a diaper-changing joke ("most of the time the diaper smelled better" than what went on in Washington). Swalwell was outclassed all night long, and will be one of the first candidates who is forced out of the race, most likely.

 

Marianne Williamson

Who? Oh, yeah -- she knows Oprah.

Sigh. I'm not going to pile on Williamson too much for being woefully outclassed on the stage last night, because it seems that everyone else is doing a more-than-adequate job of doing so today. The snark over Williamson is flying fast and thick already, in other words, so I won't add much to it.

Williamson is no stranger to speaking to large audiences, and this showed at times as her answers were well-received by the crowd. It wasn't until her closing statement that she got too loopy, and she did a better-than-average job of taking the fight directly to Donald Trump (much better than some of the other candidates, it must be admitted).

Her best moment of the night was kind of out of place, since she really should have used the line earlier, when the age question first arose. But she was responding to one of Eric Swalwell's many "pass the torch" moments, and she shot back: "Just because you have a young body doesn't mean your ideas aren't old." Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden should really send her a thank-you gift today for such a brilliant job of framing this issue.

Williamson, however, went full-on flaky in her closing statement, which was about as lovey-dovey as you'd expect from a personal counselor to Oprah Winfrey. Again, though, so many other people have ridiculed her closing statement that I'm just going to leave it at that.

 

Andrew Yang

Who? Oh, yeah -- the guy who wants to give everybody money and then tax everybody to pay for it.

Yang was perhaps the biggest loser of the debate last night, jockeying with Williamson for this prize. Yang got the least amount of screen time of any of the candidates, and when he did speak he didn't exactly shine. When asked to explain his "Universal Basic Income" plan -- the sole reason he's running, really -- he stumbled and wasn't very persuasive. Yang turned in one of the most forgettable debate performances I've ever seen.

 

Overall impressions

My overall impression about both nights of the first debate is that I'll be glad when the third debate rolls around, because that is when the Democratic National Committee will be imposing stricter limits as to who qualifies to be on the stage. There were just too many candidates, period. Granted, the D.N.C. is bending over backwards to be inclusive this year, after the fiasco last time around, so the first two debates are going to be nothing more than cattle calls.

Even so, there are obviously people who don't have any chance of winning the nomination on the stage, and they distract from the people who do. They are at times entertaining, but they can also at times be downright bizarre. I mean, if we're going to be full-on exclusive, then why not let in Mike Gravel, who can be both entertaining and bizarre at the same time? No, that was not a serious suggestion, but it sure would have been amusing to see.

The D.N.C. also tried mightily not to have a "kiddie table" and "adult table" debate, by randomly drawing not just the participants, but also holding a separate draw for the frontrunners. However, they widened their definition of "frontrunner" too much -- they would do better in the second debate to hold a drawing between only the top four contenders, so we get two of them on each night. This would have precluded the frontloading that happened in the draw for last night's debate.

Overall, though, for the second night in a row, it was indeed refreshing to see intelligent people discussing serious problems and coming up with what they believed were the best solutions in adult language. There was no bullying, there was no personal attacks, and there was no measuring of body parts on stage. This is a sea change from the 2016 Republican debate cycle, and it was a welcome change indeed.

It will be very interesting to see what happens in the public polling over the next two weeks, because that is going to be the biggest takeaway from the first debates. Who will rise and who will fall? Several candidates who had only been getting tepid support now have the chance to capitalize on excellent debate performances, but even a good debate doesn't guarantee such success. They've got to have the campaign infrastructure and the strategy to follow up on their one-night performance. So it will be fascinating to see what happens next.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

165 Comments on “The First Democratic Debate (Round 2)”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:
  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I know you like to provide your analysis of these debates before reading what other analysts have to say.

    And, so, I can tell you that your fair analysis of Biden's performance is the only one I've heard or read since the debate, including all of the CNN analysts and pundits and journalists (save, perhaps, Chris Cuomo) who completely panned his performance and questioned whether he has the capacity to survive.

    I have to say, given the last short while, that your Biden analysis was a wonderful surprise - so much so that I may be finally coming out of my acute depression.

  3. [3] 
    Bclancy wrote:

    I for one did not appreciate Swallwell’s ageism towards Biden.

  4. [4] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Kamala comes off as a bit too slick herself, but her attacks on Biden hurt him.

  5. [5] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Whether it is school busing, his crime bill in the 1990s, his Iraq War vote, or defending Barack Obama's deportation record, Biden just cannot bring himself to say the words: "I was wrong."

    Well, except for the Hyde Amendment stuff :D

    Biden did have some fresh ideas that none of the other candidates brought up, as when he supported "smart gun" technology that only allows the owner to fire the weapon. This is a hugely contentious issue with Second Amendment supporters, even though none of the other Democrats has ever (to my memory) spoken about it.

    Yea.. Own a weapon that can be hacked or shut off by the government.. What could go wrong!?? :^/

    One of the more stoopid suggestions of the anti-gun nutz...

    One of the other candidates shot back that he should just fire the police chief, leaving Buttigieg trying to explain that that simply wasn't possible under Indiana law, which didn't help his case one bit.

    WHY should he fire the Police Chief??

    No one can explain that to me...

    Buttigieg also had a good moment in his answer on immigration, where he dove into an issue that few Democrats have ever used -- shaming the Christian right over their absolute hypocrisy on subjects like how we treat immigrants.

    IMMIGRANTS are not treated badly whatsoever.

    It's ILLEGAL immigrants that are treated as the criminals they are..

    I don't understand how ANYONE who is a patriotic American could have a problem with that..

    Now don't get me wrong, I personally love Bernie and would thoroughly enjoy seeing him become president. I think he's got an excellent shot against Trump, and the polls so far have backed this feeling up. I think he would have run a much better 2016 race than Hillary Clinton did, too.

    Bernie had a shot in 2016.. He was, like Donald Trump, new and exciting and could have possibly maybe bested Trump in the General..

    But now, Bernie is one of a whole crowd of Bernies... Bernie is now Democrat "Establishment" because practically the whole Dem Party is whack-a-doodle crazy..

    As such, Bernie won't stand a chance against President Trump in 2020

    All in all, the Adult Table Democrat Debate proved that none of the Dem candidates have a snowballs chance in hell of beating President Trump..

    Biden has been pushed so far to the Left that President Trump would destroy him in the General, even if miracle of miracles he manages to win the Dem nomination..

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    I for one did not appreciate Swallwell’s ageism towards Biden.

    Welcome to The Democrat DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO Party.. :^/

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden loses support of top campaign fundraiser in Bay Area after comments on segregationists and Hyde amendment
    https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/28/biden-loses-support-of-top-financier-after-segregationist-comments.html

    And so it begins.... :^(

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democratic Candidates Are in a Bubble on Immigration

    There is now a photograph that sums up everything wrong about America’s broken and overwhelmed immigration system. You’ve seen it, and it is hard to let it leave the mind or the conscience. Together with the accounts of horrifying abuse of children in detention — and “abuse” is not hyperbole — we can see the crisis as it is. We can no longer look away.

    The starkness of the crisis is a good thing, though. Until now, many have denied that any crisis existed at all. They have, in fact, denied that the highest levels of mass immigration since the Bush years are an issue at all. As Byron York has noted, Speaker Pelosi called the arrival of close to a million asylum seekers “a fake crisis”; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said that hundreds of thousands of men, women, and many children, overwhelming any attempt to process them with the current resources, was “a crisis that does not exist.” This included many Never-Trumpers, like Bill Kristol (“a fake crisis”), and Max Boot (“a faux crisis”). The editors of the Washington Post denied the facts reported by their own Nick Miroff, claiming it was “a make-believe crisis.”

    None of these people will admit they were gravely mistaken, or that their denial and delay in acting clearly exacerbated the situation. But now that we’re on the same page, the question is: Where do we go with this now?
    http://nymag.com/intelligencer/_pages/cjxg9ymru007yl6y6zstts42l.html

    That is EXACTLY the problem with the Democrat Party.. They are in a bubble when it comes to immigration..

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yea.. Own a weapon that can be hacked or shut off by the government.. What could go wrong!?? :^/

    One of the more stoopid suggestions of the anti-gun nutz...

    AND, I might add, a suggestion that will do NOTHING to stop crowd-based mass shootings, unless it is confirmed that government CAN shut off any weapon at will, which would totally negate the 2nd Amendment..

    Once again, all one has to do is imagine a comparable restriction to OTHER Constitutional rights to see the impracticability of it. Would any of ya'all want to give the power to President Trump to shut off ya'all's ability of free speech on a whim??

    As always.. One needs to think these things thru...

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hoisted by my own Picard!! :D

    That is EXACTLY the problem with the Democrat Party.. They are in a bubble when it comes to immigration..

    That should read:

    That is EXACTLY the problem with the Democrat Party.. They are in a bubble when it comes to ILLEGAL immigration..

    :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Booker is at it again.. :eyeroll:

    Cory Booker calls out Biden over 'kid in hoodie' remark, says better 'language' needed to talk about race

    Sen. Cory Booker accused Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden on Friday of not having the right "language" to talk about race that's needed to win the party's 2020 nomination.

    Booker's comment came after Biden spoke about race relations in the U.S. during an appearance in Chicago earlier in the day.

    “That kid wearing a hoodie may very well be the next poet laureate and not a gangbanger," Biden said, making a rhetorical point during his remarks at the headquarters of the Rainbow PUSH Coalition, a group of nonprofits organized by the Rev. Jesse Jackson.

    But Booker, an African-American senator from New Jersey, took issue with Biden’s use of the word “hoodie.”

    “This isn’t about a hoodie," Booker wrote on Twitter. "It’s about a culture that sees a problem with a kid wearing a hoodie in the first place. Our nominee needs to have the language to talk about race in a far more constructive way.”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cory-booker-joe-biden-kid-in-hoodie-2020-democratic-nominee-language-race

    Apparently, Joe Biden doesn't have the right "language" to talk about race.. :eyeroll:

    Someone remind me again how Democrats are able to have differing opinions on how we best solve problems without having to resort to name calling and insults.

    I seem to have forgotten, what with all the FACTS to the contrary...

    If there is ANYONE who is a blatant racist, it's Booker..

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    “You don’t joke about calling black men ‘boys.’ Booker said responding to Biden's speech. "Men like James O. Eastland used words like that, and the racist policies that accompanied them, to perpetuate white supremacy and strip black Americans of our very humanity,”

    Of course, Booker fails to mention that Eastland was a DEMOCRAT....

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    In a recent thread, I wrote the following about Senator Harris and her attack on Biden:

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

    That was said in a small amount of anger and a large pool of sadness over how her attack played out on that stage, especially knowing that Biden supported the bussing of that little girl in California.

    I know that's not how Biden would react and she may very well be part of a future Biden administration if it all shakes out that way.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know that's not how Biden would react and she may very well be part of a future Biden administration if it all shakes out that way.

    Given Harris' past, how she got her Senate seat and her obvious pandering for racists' votes, a Joe Biden Administration would do well to steer far far clear of Harris...

    Given the FACT that she was responsible for an explosion of black American incarcerations, her claims as a anti-racist warrior are a joke....

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, I certainly cast her planned and personal attack on Biden knowing he wouldn't have time to justify his position in a very, very bad light.

    Perhaps, she will apologize for her unwarranted action on that debate stage.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Let me rephrase that with the needed commas:

    Well, I certainly cast her planned and personal attack on Biden, knowing he wouldn't have time to justify his position, in a very, very bad light.

    Perhaps she will apologize for her unwarranted action on that debate stage.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps she will apologize for her unwarranted action on that debate stage.

    Yea... And perhaps President Trump will turn into Barack Obama :D

    Harris will never apologize. Because for her to apologize she will have to admit she was wrong..

    And I don't believe she has the integrity for that..

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Wouldn't it be neat if Biden took it upon himself to do just what Harris did and ignore the moderators and just start taking directly to Harris and explain to her, ad Bidenitum, why she was wrong and how he supported the bussing that took her to school everyday … all in very polite but firm Biden form?

    That would be something to see!

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    That would be something to see!

    Agreed...

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kamala Harris raises $2 million in 24 hours after debate
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/29/kamala-harris-biden-debate-1390512

    Big woop...

    President Trump raised $24 million in 24 hours..

    I guess we know where the excitement is... :D

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Kamala Harris raised 2 million and 24 hours and Trump raised 24 million in 24 hours.

    As it is likely that neither raised that majority of their money from small donors, what is your point?

    Is it that Trump is 12 times worse than Harris?

    The only point that is relevant is the 26 million reasons not to vote for either.

  23. [23] 
    Paula wrote:

    And Dems are up against this kind of crap from Repubs:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/29/us/politics/biden-trump-consultant-disinformation.html

    "For much of the last three months, the most popular Biden website has been a slick little piece of disinformation that is designed to look like the former VP's campaign page, yet is most definitely not pro-Biden. It is the work of a Trump consultant."

    They'll do that to every Dem as their (the Dem's) stature rises because - this is important - Republicans/Trumpers are dishonest bags of crap who can only win by lying and cheating.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    As it is likely that neither raised that majority of their money from small donors, what is your point?

    My point is that the national excitement seems to be with President Trump.. :D

    Is it that Trump is 12 times worse than Harris?

    "Worse" is in the eye of the beholder.. Apparently, Americans are 12 times more excited about President Trump than they are about Kamala I SLEPT MY WAY TO MY SENATE SEAT Harris...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    They'll do that to every Dem as their (the Dem's) stature rises because - this is important - Republicans/Trumpers are dishonest bags of crap who can only win by lying and cheating.

    Yea..

    Democrats would NEVER stoop to that, eh?? :D

    It's so cute that you actually think so... :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    AUSTIN, Tex. — For much of the last three months, the most popular Joseph R. Biden Jr. website has been a slick little piece of disinformation that is designed to look like the former vice president’s official campaign page, yet is most definitely not pro-Biden.

    From top to bottom, the website, JoeBiden.info, breezily mocks the candidate in terms that would warm the heart of any Bernie Sanders supporter: There are GIFs of Mr. Biden touching women and girls, and blurbs about his less-than-liberal policy positions, including his opposition to court-ordered busing in the 1970s and his support for the Iraq war. Pull quotes highlight some of his more famous verbal gaffes, like his description of his future boss, Barack Obama, as “articulate and bright and clean.” The introductory text declares, “Uncle Joe is back and ready to take a hands-on approach to America’s problems!”

    All the site says about its creator is buried in the fine print at the bottom of the page. The site, it says, is a political parody built and paid for “BY AN American citizen FOR American citizens,” and not the work of any campaign or political action committee.

    Is anything about the site factually not accurate???

    Democrats create parody websites about Trump and Republicans all the time.

    NOW you whine because GOP is responding in kind??

    Would you like some cheese to go with that whine???

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senate makes House ‘eat it’ in border funding fight, as liberals fume at ‘betrayal’
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/senate-makes-house-eat-it-in-border-funding-fight-as-liberals-fume-at-betrayal

    Once again.. House Dumbocrats get played...

    Howz Impeachment coming along??

    BBBWWHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is a pretty lame showing for a Friday Commentary...

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Com'on people!! I can't do ALL the work around here!!!

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden sees support from Democrats slip 10 points after debate
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/450958-10-percent-fewer-democrats-say-theyd-vote-for-biden-after-first-debate-poll

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this???

    Oh.. Wait....

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny... You people go on and on hysterically about President Trump and his supposed "lies"...

    Florida Dem ends campaign after claim she removed ‘77 bullets’ from Pulse shooting victims challenged

    A Democratic candidate for Florida’s House reportedly has ended her campaign after being challenged on her detailed and graphic claims she treated victims of the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting.

    “I personally removed 77 bullets from 32 people … It was like an assembly line,” candidate Elizabeth McCarthy had claimed at a gun safety event earlier this year.

    HARRIS TAKES CRITICISM FOR POST-DEBATE SHIRT SALE

    But FloridaPolitics.com published a report earlier this month challenging her claims she worked as a cardiologist at Orlando Regional Medical Center
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-campaign-pulse-shooting

    Yet, you are totally silent about Democrats and THEIR total and unequivocal lies...

    Funny how that is, eh?? :eyeroll:

    What else can you expect from hysterical anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment, anti-America fanatics... :eyeroll:

  32. [32] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    You have reached a dubious conclusion that the amount of money raised somehow translates into excitement aboot a candidate by citizens that did not donate that money.

    The bigger the donations are the smaller the amount of people are involved in making those donations.

    Size matters.

  33. [33] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this?

    Everyone. And anyone could have imagined the rest: that somewhere in Asia, Trump has the cart overturned. He and Putin smirked through a photo-op, and I'm sure that there's no record of what they discussed, except of course, on THEIR side.

    Is the meeting-up with the liddle dictator on or off? I forget. It's comical.

  34. [34] 
    Paula wrote:

    Russian bots on twitter are posting Kamala Harris isn't a citizen junk - same old birtherism bs. GOP and Russian bots, together again, trying to recapture the magic of 2016 election interference. Blotus meets with Putin and plans the next interference campaign: blotus wants to be an illegitimate potus twice and will happily cheat to do it!

  35. [35] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Don Harris,

    The bigger the donations are the smaller the amount of people are involved in making those donations.

    Size matters.

    So based on your logic, candidates that accept smaller donations would have the largest number of donors? Why is that it?

  36. [36] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    keyboard broken

  37. [37] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    even James Harris whose wrestler name was Kamala wasn't really from Uganda.

  38. [38] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Size matters.

    only small dongnations?

  39. [39] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    keyboard broken ;p

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Likely story.

  41. [41] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    you can go ahead and make mine a double, thank-you very much

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,
    see link in [5]
    JL

  43. [43] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    you know I have a deep aversion to links, right?

  44. [44] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    oh, no, that looks like a very, very scary link to me

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    You have reached a dubious conclusion that the amount of money raised somehow translates into excitement aboot a candidate by citizens that did not donate that money.

    True... But it's the conclusion that every one (sans you, of course :D ) else here reaches when Democrat candidates have a good haul..

    Size matters.

    "That's what she said" :D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    He and Putin smirked through a photo-op, and I'm sure that there's no record of what they discussed, except of course, on THEIR side.

    Wasn't that HILARIOUS!!??

    Dumbocrats were up in arms about Trump's and Putin's joke.. :D I loved it!! :D

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russian bots on twitter are posting Kamala Harris isn't a citizen junk - same old birtherism bs. GOP and Russian bots, together again, trying to recapture the magic of 2016 election interference.

    "Of course, you can PROVE that, right!? Oh that's right, I forgot.. You were absent the day they taught LAW at Law School.."
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Blotus meets with Putin and plans the next interference campaign: blotus wants to be an illegitimate potus twice and will happily cheat to do it!

    "Please relay to Vlad that I need some help to win my next election. Then I can be more flexible for him"
    -Barack Odumbo

    Funny how you didn't care when Odumbo was "flexible" for Putin... :eyeroll:

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Killer robots declared ‘existential human threat’ by expert who fears fatal AI uprising
    KILLER robots will be an “existential human threat” unless manufacturers are slapped with strict regulations, an AI expert has warned.

    https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/787029/killer-robots-human-threat-ai-tech-news

    Ooooooo Another "existential human threat", just like when the planet's climate changes!!!

    Oooooo Scary.....

    Morons... :eyeroll:

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of the planet's climate changing..

    NEWSFLASH!!! IT'S HOT IN EUROPE IN THE SUMMER!!

    OOOoooooo We're all gonna die!!!! We have to give more money to the UN and Al CRAZED SEX POODLE Gore!!!

    Funny how, when it's unusually hot, hysterical fanatics call it "Climate Change"...

    When it's unusually cold, those same hysterical fanatics call it "weather"...

    :eyeroll:

    There was a .JPG floating around that showed it perfectly.. Can't find it.. :(

  50. [50] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22,

    only small dongnations?

    Whew! Thought I’d typed that by mistake! Siri’s transcription likes mistakes like that — I said “dictates” and she typed “dick tastes”. Lucky thing my parents already knew that I was gay, because that text would’ve outed me.

  51. [51] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Funny how you didn't care when Odumbo was "flexible" for Putin... :eyeroll:

    Funny that you think it is wrong when it’s the black guy, but not when it’s the white guy!

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny that you think it is wrong when it’s the black guy, but not when it’s the white guy!

    Actually, I don't think it's wrong in either case..

    POTUS gets to do diplomacy as they see fit... Whether black or white, Republican or Democrat.. Funny how you don't see that..

    It's NOT funny, but rather sad, that you are such a racist that EVERYTHING with you is about race..

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, seriously... Don't you yearn to live in a world where the color of a person's skin doesn't matter!!???

    Maybe that world COULD happen if we didn't have Dumbocrats trying to divide everyone by race, gender, sexuality...

    Wouldn't it be nice where the ONLY "movement" was the American movement.. Or the human race movement...

    THAT's the world I want to live in.. THAT's the world that Democrats are always trying to prevent..

  54. [54] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Listen (35)-
    Why is that it?

    If you meant why is that then the answer is mathematics.

    How is your statement that candidates taking smaller donations would have the largest number of donors based on my logic when it is based on mathematics?

    Certainly, if a small donor candidate raised the same amount of money as a big money candidate then the small donor candidate would have more donors.

    Dividing a number by 200 yields a different result than dividing it by 2800.

    My logic was that the amount of money raised was not a good barometer of support from citizens.

    What is the logic behind your comment to explain whatever point your comment was trying to make?

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    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...

    Isn't it funny??

    When the Republicans were trying to get rid of TrainWreckCare, practically EVERYONE here attacked and denigrated the Republicans for wanting to throw all Americans off their healthcare plans.. Plans they like...

    And NOW....

    NOW it's Democrats who want to do the **EXACT SAME THING**...

    And NOW... all of the sudden...

    NOW it's a GOOD thing...

    Do you understand why it's impossible for me to take ya'all seriously on anything???

    Because it's clear that everything you do, everything you say, everything you want is ALL based totally and completely on the Party agenda...

    Kicking Americans off their healthcare plans... When Republicans want to do it, it's bad... When Democrats want to do it, it's good..

    Democrat "logic".... :eyeroll:

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Certainly, if a small donor candidate raised the same amount of money as a big money candidate then the small donor candidate would have more donors.

    Dividing a number by 200 yields a different result than dividing it by 2800.

    Logical

    My logic was that the amount of money raised was not a good barometer of support from citizens.

    MY point was that, according to most everyone here, it IS a good barometer of support from citizens... When it's the Democrats who are raising the money.. :D

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    With regards to your comment in the previous commentary about being respectful..

    If you want to call on everyone to take a week off from their hate and treat President Trump and the GOP and even their fellow Democrats with respect..

    I'll surely follow suit..

    I doubt you would have any takers, though.. With a few exceptions, people like their hate..

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, I all for that except that it should last for the duration, not just a week. It should become a habit that when criticizing don't resort to name-calling.

    But, I just don't believe that we have to wait for those who don't wish to be respectful.

    All I'm asking for is to use the proper names for public officials. I think that's a doable start.

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Very nice comment in [56], Michale. It made me feel so good just to see 'Democrats' instead of you know what. :)

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I all for that except that it should last for the duration, not just a week. It should become a habit that when criticizing don't resort to name-calling.

    No argument from me...

    But it needs to apply to everyone equally or it doesn't work..

    "This was not written for chiefs. Hear me! Hear this! Among my people, we carry many such words as this from many lands, many worlds. Many are equally good and are as well respected, but wherever we have gone, no words have said this thing of importance in quite this way. Look at these three words written larger than the rest, with a special pride never written before or since. Tall words proudly saying We the People. That which you call Ee'd Plebnista was not written for the chiefs or the kings or the warriors or the rich and powerful, but for all the people! Down the centuries, you have slurred the meaning of the words, 'We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution.' These words and the words that follow were not written only for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well! They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing! Do you understand?"
    -Captain James T Kirk, STAR TREK, The Omega Glory

    All I'm asking for is to use the proper names for public officials. I think that's a doable start.

    I do.. When I talk with you.. And usually Joshua...

    I only use cutsey name-calling when I am confronted with it..

    Very nice comment in [56], Michale. It made me feel so good just to see 'Democrats' instead of you know what. :)

    Oh, I *CAN* do it.. I just choose not to when I am confronted with it..

    The funny thing is the people who attack President Trump and the GOP and even Democrats they don't like..

    THEY do it because they are consumed with hate..

    *I* simply do it to illustrate a point..

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden puts foot in mouth with ‘gay waiter’ comment at Pride weekend fundraiser
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-puts-foot-in-mouth-with-gay-waiter-comment-at-pride-weekend-fundraiser

    The professional "offendees", the morons that SEARCH for things to be offended by, strike again... :eyeroll:

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    If Democrats simply followed the teachings of Sarek Of Vulcan, they would be a lot happier...

    "There can be no offense where none is taken.."

    But Nooooooooo

    Now Democrats are saying Joe Biden is homophobic in addition to being a racist.. :eyeroll:

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    Billionaire Bernie Marcus to donate majority of fortune, support Trump for re-election

    Billionaire Bernie Marcus has already given more than $2 billion to upwards of 300 organizations, and he said he plans to donate majority of his fortune while he’s still alive and support President Trump for re-election in the 2020 presidential election.

    Rut Roh.... Bad news for Democrats.. :D

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    AntiFa, Terror Faction.

    AntiFa has been lionized by politicians, the media, and celebrities. But the latest violence in Portland proves law enforcement officials correct: AntiFa is a domestic terror group.

    ByRaheem KassamonJune 30, 2019
    https://humanevents.com/2019/06/30/antifa-terror-faction/?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclearpolitics.com%2F

    This has been really Joe Biden's ONLY mistake since he announced his candidacy..

    Call this designated terrorist group "courageous Americans"....

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    I guess there was a big movement in the UK to toss milkshakes at people they don't like..

    https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1145196089815044096/photo/1

    AntiFa terrorists mixing up cement "milkshakes"..

    How can Democrats support this group of terrorists??

    Oh yea, that's right. Because they attack and assault the "RIGHT" people... :eyeroll:

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unhappy With Their 2016 Coronation, the Democrats Start a 2020 Circus

    After the maelstrom in Miami, the presidential candidates and their campaign staffs are talking openly about a long, divisive primary.
    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/30/democratic-candidates-2020-debates-227252

    Anyone who thinks that the Democrat Party Primary will be smooth and friendly discussion over policy and issue differences is deluding themselves...

    This is going to be a knock down dragged out brawl with every weapon imaginable...

    And whoever emerges from this brawl will NOT be stronger, but will be weaker..

    It's likely already too late.. What with EVERY candidate stating they will give away full and complete medical coverage to illegal immigrant criminals (something that not even all AMERICANS get!!) AND every candidate taking the first step towards completely open borders...???

    NO Democrat candidate will survive that in the General Election...

    All President has to do is point to the Dem Debate...

    Viola.. President Trump wins the election in a landslide..

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ironic..

    10 years ago, Barack Obama stood before a joint session of Congress to allay Congress' and the American people's fears..

    ObamaCare would NOT cover illegal immigrants.

    ObamaCare would NOT give healthcare to illegal immigrants..

    Ten years later when Americans STILL have a problem getting quality healthcare at an affordable price???

    The Democrat Party platform is to GIVE full medical benefits to illegal immigrants...

    Keeping in mind that this is a "REALITY BASED" forum, this begs the question..

    How can ANYONE here think it's a winning platform to run on??

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why the Democratic debates were a gift to Trump and Republicans

    President Trump must have looked at the Democratic debates the way Bruce Willis looked at the famous wall of weapons in Quentin Tarantino’s “Pulp Fiction.” Should he choose the crossbow or the mace or the samurai sword or the baseball bat or …?

    It was as if the Democratic Party’s goal was to give Trump objects with which to bash it.

    Julian Castro says he wants to turn illegal border crossings into a parking ticket. Park yourself in America, get a fine! President Castro probably isn’t going to make you pay that fine, by the way. Kamala Harris wants to abolish private health insurance. Elizabeth Warren wants to forgive student debt. Oh, and everybody in the Thursday debate wants Uncle Sam to buy health insurance for however many Guatemalans, Hondurans and El Salvadorans manage to sneak across the border.

    One minute Democrats are waxing poetic about the humanitarian crisis down at the border; the next minute they’re proposing to make it 100,000 times worse by issuing engraved invitations to the couple hundred million people south of the border who would love to be ushered into the American health-care system. Bring all your ailments to El Norte, illegal immigrants. American workers will pay your bill.
    https://nypost.com/2019/06/29/why-the-democratic-debates-were-a-gift-to-trump-and-republicans/

    Can't ANYONE here take a step back from Party loyalty and see what a major MAJOR mistake the Democrat Candidates have made??

    Imagine how Independents Joe & Jane Sixpack who struggle to pay the premiums on crappy health insurance are going to feel when they hear Democrats want to give full Cadillac Health Care Coverage to illegal immigrant criminals??

    In the manual HOW TO LOSE ELECTIONS:

    Step #1 Promise that illegal immigrant criminals will receive full Cadillac Health Care coverage...

    It's like Democrats WANT to lose in 2020....

    Democrats are pushing millions and millions of Independents and NPAs to vote President Trump in Nov of 2020...

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    10 years ago, Barack Obama stood before a joint session of Congress to allay Congress' and the American people's fears..

    ObamaCare would NOT cover illegal immigrants.

    ObamaCare would NOT give healthcare to illegal immigrants..

    Irony upon irony...

    When Obama made that pledge, Congress Critter Joe Somebody yelled out from the audience, "YOU LIE!!!"

    Remember that?? Remember the horror all of you proclaimed that someone would do that to the President Of The United States??

    Well, not only have Democrats far surpassed such rudeness towards the President Of The United States....

    NOW it turns out that Congress Critter Joe Somebody was dead on ballz accurate..

    Obama DID lie...

    Democrats proved it..

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's pretty sad for the Democrat Party that Marriane Williamson proposed the LEAST crazy and LEAST harmful plans...

    It's unlikely that things could be worse for the Democrat Party if it was Republicans who planned and scripted the entire kiddie table and adult table debates...

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats have an election truther problem

    For all the effort the press puts into agonizing over right-wing conspiracy mongers, it would be nice if newsrooms devoted even an ounce of that same energy to worrying about the Left’s conspiracists.

    I am talking about the Democratic election truthers. They are loud, they are proud, and they are a hell of a lot more high-profile than social media trolls. What's more, their lunacy goes basically unchallenged by the same national reporters and commentators who have written nonstop for the last three years about the dangers of right-wing political agitprop.
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/democrats-have-an-election-truther-problem

    Democrats have become the Birthers of this day and age...

    And the funny thing is, no one bats an eye...

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden and the Obama Admin Are Finally Getting the Reckoning They Deserve

    From immigration to tax deals, Thursday night’s debate saw the troubling records of both Biden and the Obama administration put on trial. It’s long overdue.

    The debate indicated that cracks are forming in the Obama-Biden administration's invulnerability to Democratic criticism.

    Joe Biden could have sat this campaign out, retired, and been fondly remembered by the American public as Barack Obama's goofy yet loveable vice president. Instead, he chose to run for president one last time, and as a result guaranteed that he’ll be remembered for his actual record.
    http://inthesetimes.com/article/21940/biden-obama-2020-democratic-debate-kamala-harris

    Couldn't have said it better myself..

    Wait a tic...

    I DID say it!!

    "Would you say you got a better look at them going in and not so good a look coming out?"
    "You could say that.."
    "I DID say that.. Would YOU say that.."

    -MY COUSIN VINNY

  73. [73] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    hmm, a bit surprised at jimmy carter. not so sure it's full on birtherism yet...

  74. [74] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @liz,
    i know you don't like links, but that picture of the other "kamala" Harris is worth at least a few hundred words if not quite a thousand

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:
  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:
  77. [77] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    biden wants Dems to win. with him at the top of the ticket, they will.

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    hmm, a bit surprised at jimmy carter. not so sure it's full on birtherism yet...

    Really??

    Ask any Democrat here.. Did Russian help get President Trump elected???

    Everyone here (with a couple exceptions) will say yes...

    Any Democrat in the country will say yes..

    If that's not full on birthism then what is??

  79. [79] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    still working with the onscreen keyboard, wife spilled her drink on my chromebook and the whole middle row is kaput

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    biden wants Dems to win. with him at the top of the ticket, they will.

    I would dispute that they would win, even with Biden..

    But it's not going come to that because there is simply no path to victory for Joe Biden..

    I take no pleasure in acknowledging this reality..

    Biden will be gone from the race by the end of the year, if not the end of summer..

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    still working with the onscreen keyboard, wife spilled her drink on my chromebook and the whole middle row is kaput

    ACK!!!

    Do you have a USB keyboard you can plug into the Chromebook???

  82. [82] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ask any Democrat here.. Did Russian help get President Trump elected???

    there is certainly plenty of evidence they tried to. whether or not their efforts were decisive is impossible to tell.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    It was bound to happen sooner or later..

    Byron York: Anti-Trump fever takes threatening turn

    The toxicity of the resistance to President Trump has risen in recent days, with the nation's most respected newspapers publishing rationalizations for denying Trump supporters public accommodation and for doxxing career federal employees, while a journalist found himself under physical attack from the so-called anti-fascist group Antifa, which has stepped up its violent activities since Trump's election.

    The justification for denying public accommodation came from the Washington Post in an op-ed by Stephanie Wilkinson, the owner of a farm-to-table restaurant in Lexington, Virginia. Wilkinson became famous in June of last year, when she refused to serve White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders and and told Sanders and her family to leave the restaurant. Wilkinson's staff then followed the Sanders group in protest as they tried to find another place to eat.

    Wilkinson later told the press she ejected Sanders because the Trump administration is "inhumane and unethical" and because the Red Hen "has certain standards that I feel it has to uphold, such as honesty, and compassion, and cooperation."
    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-anti-trump-fever-takes-threatening-turn

    The alleged "peaceful" and "tolerant" Democrats attack Trump supporters...

  84. [84] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Do you have a USB keyboard you can plug into the Chromebook???

    nope

  85. [85] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    So, what's going on?

    Nuthin. Jus' watchin' Michale post all of his conspiracy videos.

    Do they say anything new?

    Oh, hell no. Jus' the same ol' drivel the Republican party spits out every day!

    Nothing?

    Nuthin'.

    Okay. Well, enjoy yourself...

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    there is certainly plenty of evidence they tried to. whether or not their efforts were decisive is impossible to tell.

    And yet, practically every Democrat you ask says it IS easy to tell, because it DID happen..

    Go ahead.. Do a poll here:

    Is President Trump president because of Russian interference??

    I can accurately predict who will answer YES and who will answer NO to this question..

    I am that good.. :D

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you have a USB keyboard you can plug into the Chromebook???

    nope

    You can pick one up at any thrift store for a few bucks.. You can use that until your CB de-toxes :D hehe

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh, hell no. Jus' the same ol' drivel the Republican party spits out every day!

    AKA FACTS

    Do you have any facts of your own to counter my facts??

    Nothing?

    Nuthin'.

    Okay. Well, enjoy yourself...

    :D

    I was actually wondering why it was so quiet on a FRIDAY commentary??

    Reading back over everything I figured it out..

    No one has any FACTS to counter the reality..

    Can't really blame anyone for hiding out..

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar, you can be the first guinea pig...

    Is President Trump president because of Russian interference?

    Yes or No??

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    In the Arizona Desert, an Elite Border Patrol Unit Responds to Desperate Cases

    Twelve children have died crossing the U.S.-Mexico border so far this year, and rising summer temperatures are increasing the risk
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-the-arizona-desert-an-elite-border-patrol-unit-responds-to-desperate-cases-11561887052

    The unsung heroes of the US Border Patrol..

    You think Democrats give them any credit?? :^/

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthasar, you can be the first guinea pig...

    Is President Trump president because of Russian interference?

    Yes or No??

    Silence gives assent.. :D

  92. [92] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    that was silly

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    that was silly

    Yes it was..

    Just as silly when Democrats used it at Chancellorsville...

  94. [94] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale, I'm actually reading your comments again. It's almost a pleasure! :)

  95. [95] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, Joshua, I'll check it out.

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, I'm actually reading your comments again. It's almost a pleasure! :)

    Awww pshaw.. You say the sweetest things..

    I'll make a sincere effort to keep the cutesy insulting nicknames out of it.. :D

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    You can pick one up at any thrift store for a few bucks.. You can use that until your CB de-toxes :D hehe

    Just make sure you get a USB Keyboard and not an old style PS2...

  98. [98] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I'll make a sincere effort to keep the cutesy insulting nicknames out of it.. :D

    And, I'll make sure everyone else does … just between you and me and the four walls. :)

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    biden wants Dems to win. with him at the top of the ticket, they will.

    Now, THAT is music to my ears.

    I think I'll frame it!

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    biden wants Dems to win. with him at the top of the ticket, they will.

    Then the only question is..

    Are Democrats smart enough to realize this??

  101. [101] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think the majority of Democrats are … and, I'll leave it at that.

  102. [102] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Question - "Was Russian meddling determinative in the 2016 presidential election?"

    Democratics' response - "Hell yes it was, because there is no other possible explanation, when ALL the poll-takers, ALL the pundits, and ALL the tea-leaf readers told us it couldn't possibly happen!!!"

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democratics' response - "Hell yes it was, because there is no other possible explanation, when ALL the poll-takers, ALL the pundits, and ALL the tea-leaf readers told us it couldn't possibly happen!!!"

    Exactly.... :D

  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    The MSNBC and NBC hosts deserve some blame for the confusing chaos on the debate stage, and the moderators continually tried to shove the Democrats ever more leftward on the issues, especially immigration. But most of the fault rests squarely on the shoulders of the candidates. When, on the second night, they all raised their hands in support of free health care for illegal immigrants, they were virtually conceding defeat 16 months early.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/07/01/no_debate_america_last_dems_will_lose_to_trump__140679.html

    Yep.. Exactly...

    When each and every candidate promised full healthcare for illegal immigrants, they lost the election..

    Pure and simple..

  105. [105] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, I agree with the assertion that the NBC moderators were just awful but, very good examples of the dangerously devolutionary media.

    As for healthcare for illegal immigrants, that's a complicated subject.

    Surely Americans don't want the millions of undocumented immigrants now living and working and paying taxes in the US to go without any healthcare, do they?

    This part is simple - unhealthy people who are around healthy people can make the healthy people sick. Now, let's pretend that the unhealthy undocumented immigrant gets infected with a type of influenza that can be easily spread and fatal. (Let's say they get it from an unhealthy American but the American gets treatment)

    What then?

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden looked confused about this, by the way.

    I saw that part of the debate and he actually put his finger up as to make a clarifying statement about healthcare for illegal immigrants. And then, if I recall correctly, he was asked by the incompetent moderator if he had put his hand up and I think he said yes???

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    As for healthcare for illegal immigrants, that's a complicated subject.

    Surely Americans don't want the millions of undocumented immigrants now living and working and paying taxes in the US to go without any healthcare, do they?

    If you call quarantining them until they are medically checked "healthcare" then I doubt you would find ANY American who wants to give illegal immigrants "healthcare"...

    But THAT is not what is generally understood when someone says "health care"..

    This part is simple - unhealthy people who are around healthy people can make the healthy people sick.

    Why should illegal immigrant criminals have "health care" that Americans do not???

    Now, let's pretend that the unhealthy undocumented immigrant gets infected with a type of influenza that can be easily spread and fatal. (Let's say they get it from an unhealthy American but the American gets treatment)

    What then?

    You keep them quarantined until they can be deported back to their country..

    Do you honestly believe that an illegal immigrant will go to the hospital even if they have health care??

    No, they won't.. Because they are too afraid they would get deported..

    The long and short of it is, we need to get every American on health care before we even MENTION health care for illegal immigrants..

    Now, if you are talking medical services while they are in detention, I have no problem with that.. Neither would any one else who is rational..

    But Democrats aren't talking about that kind of healthcare.. They are talking about the same kind of healthcare that American citizens have...

    And THAT is a non-start from the word... er.. start...

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you call quarantining them until they are medically checked "healthcare" then I doubt you would find ANY American who wants to give illegal immigrants "healthcare"...

    If you call quarantining them until they are medically checked "healthcare" then I doubt you would find ANY American who DOESN'T want to give illegal immigrants "healthcare"...

    A double negative with a full gainer twist.. :D

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    But hay... I am a fair guy..

    Democrats get EVERY American on Health Care.. Which is their goal anyways, right??

    So get EVERY American on Health Care and THEN we can talk about giving away health care to illegal immigrant criminals..

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    More Calls for Mayor Pete’s Resignation
    'Pete is a fraud'

    "Right now there's no way he can stand on the stage and honestly talk about the issues pressing this country when he can't even successfully address the dire issues of race, lack of diversity, and poverty, not to mention the homeless issue in this city," Sims said. "If you can't even address those issues in a city of 100,000, my God, how can you address those issues in 50 states?"
    https://freebeacon.com/politics/more-calls-for-mayor-petes-resignation/

    Let's face the reality here, Weigantians..

    Buttagig's ONLY reason he's a Dem Party Candidate is because he checks a VERY large box on the Democrat Party checklist.. He's gay...

    Other than that, he has absolutely NO QUALIFICATION for being President Of The United States..

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Mayor Buttigieg's focus on this incident is solely for his political gain and not the health of the city he serves. Mayor Buttigieg's comments have already and will continue to have a detrimental effect on local law enforcement officers and law enforcement officers nationwide. Mayor Buttigieg’s comments and actions are driving a wedge between law enforcement officers and the community they took an oath to serve."
    -South Bend Fraternal Order Of Police

    Like I said.. Absolutely NO QUALIFICATION for POTUS other than he is gay...

    THIS is what the Democrat Party has been reduced to...

  112. [112] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Maybe being gay is an important qualification for a president.

    At least this way all the ordinary Americans that have for decades been taking it up the ass from both big money CMPs will be able to believe that president when he says "I feel your pain."

  113. [113] 
    Michale wrote:

    Maybe being gay is an important qualification for a president.

    At least this way all the ordinary Americans that have for decades been taking it up the ass from both big money CMPs will be able to believe that president when he says "I feel your pain."

    OK, that was funny.. And oh so wrong.. But funny... :D

  114. [114] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Did you mean butt funny?

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    hehehehehe

    Stop it! Yer killing me!! :D

  116. [116] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale[109],

    Well, the Dem candidates were talking about healthcare PLANS and their plans talk about universal healthcare which means everyone gets access to affordable healthcare.

    I take issue with the 'affordable' part unless, of course, they are talking about it being affordable for the government or single-payer, with citizens' contribution coming through taxation based on ability to pay. And, yes, some people who can't afford to pay income tax will contribute to the country in other ways.

    They are certainly not talking about given illegal immigrants healthcare that many Americans don't have.

  117. [117] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, latest poll has Biden at 33, Harris 12, Booker 3.

  118. [118] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Sorry. It's just that gay humor is so easy.

    You just follow the basic formula: Insert tab A into slot B.

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    They are certainly not talking about given illegal immigrants healthcare that many Americans don't have.

    Then, for their own benefit, they need to clarify that they are NOT talking about universal health care, but rather talking about health care as it ONLY pertains to their incarceration and possible placement into legal American society....

    Because the way it SOUNDS is that they are talking about giving the same healthcare that Americans have to BUY, they are talking about giving that away FREE to illegal immigrant criminals..

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Clarifying and explaining is not one of Democrats' strong suits and that certainly includes Biden.

    It could be their downfall.

  121. [121] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Take 'open borders' for another example. They are letting the Republicans and President Trump clarify that for them!

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, honestly..

    When did being an ILLEGAL immigrant, a criminal that violates our own laws, become such a virtue that it is REWARDED...

    Can you imagine the crisis at the border if Democrats get their way and announce not only has the border been made an OPEN Border, but NOW illegal immigrants can actually get free health care!!

    It would make the horror of the border right now seem like a day at the park, by comparison..

  123. [123] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden's plan for (US policy in) Iraq was decidedly NOT about partition.

    But, everybody thinks it was.

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    Clarifying and explaining is not one of Democrats' strong suits and that certainly includes Biden.

    It could be their downfall.

    Troo... That's because Democrats speak from the 'cuff without thinking thru what they are saying...

    Take 'open borders' for another example. They are letting the Republicans and President Trump clarify that for them!

    There is not much more you can make "CLEAR" by saying "We want to decriminalize border violations.."

    It pretty much says OPEN BORDERS all on it's own...

  125. [125] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Democrats are NOT for open borders.

    No one is for open borders.

  126. [126] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    There is not much more you can make "CLEAR" by saying "We want to decriminalize border violations.."

    Oh, I think THIS is what Biden put his finger up for to make a clarifying statement that never came … or maybe he put his finger up for healthcare for illegal immigrants too … I now he put his finger up a few times :)

    Can anyone help me out with this one?

  127. [127] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    There is not much more you can make "CLEAR" by saying "We want to decriminalize border violations.."

    Oh, I think THIS is what Biden put his finger up for to make a clarifying statement that never came … or maybe he put his finger up for healthcare for illegal immigrants too … I now he put his finger up a few times :)

    Can anyone help me out with this one?

  128. [128] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats are NOT for open borders.

    That's like saying Decriminalize Marijuana is NOT legalizing Marijuana...

    If you decriminalize illegal border crossings, you are giving an engraved invitation to illegal border crossings.....

  129. [129] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is Biden for that?

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    I mean, honestly...

    Is there ANYONE here who honestly believes that decriminalization of border crimes will actually make the border MORE secure???

    Anyone???

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Is Biden for that?

    TBH, I don't know..

    But he hasn't come out against it, so......

  132. [132] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I don't know what decriminalization means.

    Does it mean that ICE can no longer do their raids on undocumented immigrants whose only crime was to cross the border illegally?

  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    Anyone here want to take a Sherman on decriminalizing border crimes??

    I am guessing.. NO... :D

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't know what decriminalization means.

    Does it mean that ICE can no longer do their raids on undocumented immigrants whose only crime was to cross the border illegally?

    yep.. It means that crossing the border illegally is no longer a crime...

    It would be reduced to an "INFRACTION" which carries all the seriousness of running a stop sign or speeding..

    Do you think it's a good idea??

  135. [135] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, I don't think it's going to stop your border crisis.

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Salvadoran president says his country is to blame for migrants drowning in Rio Grande
    https://www.foxnews.com/world/salvadoran-president-says-his-country-is-to-blame-for-migrant-drowning-in-rio-grande

    Guy makes a very good point...

    The problems in the host country are more contributory to the issue than the border laws of the country that is being invaded...

    Seems Trump/America haters don't even want to consider THAT possibility...

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, I don't think it's going to stop your border crisis.

    It won't...

    Decriminalization will exacerbate the crisis beyond belief...

  138. [138] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Do you think it's a good idea?

    Sorta depends on your opinion of Mexicans, I suppose.

    Y'know, there are a lot of folks who think that Mexico is a very cool place. They trek down there every fall to catch those last few rays of summer, and a bunch of Pina Colada's.

    There are bikers that go down to drink Tequila, and sports men that go down to participate in one of their weekly (it seems) Baja races.

    In all, about a million folks a day cross that border for all sorts of reasons. A very few of that number stop and ask for asylum.

    That's where Trump has outdone his fellow presidents. Asylum used to be a sleepy sort of process that involved getting a court date, and then waiting the time out in a trailer court or motel.

    Not these days. These days asylum seekers are thrown into detention for weeks. They're separated from their families. Why? Because we don't want them to stay AT ALL, even though the conditions they're fleeing are awful, much worse then we're meting out.

    Right now, they're just pawns in a much bigger game that the Right Wing is playing, not just here, but also in the former Russian satellites, in Italy, and elsewhere. NO REFUGEES is the message, being sent worldwide.

    It's the old Bible story being played on a large scale, and I have to echo Buttigieg on this - it is awfully strange that the party that insists on its Christian roots, to answer the question "am I my brother's keeper?" with a resounding "No".

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorta depends on your opinion of Mexicans, I suppose.

    Really???

    A law (or lack of law) for the United States Of America and YOU think it depends on the opinions of NON-Americans..

    :eyeroll:

    If ever there was a PERFECT example of what is wrong with the Democrat Party... THAT was it...

    Y'know, there are a lot of folks who think that Mexico is a very cool place. They trek down there every fall to catch those last few rays of summer, and a bunch of Pina Colada's.

    There are bikers that go down to drink Tequila, and sports men that go down to participate in one of their weekly (it seems) Baja races.

    In all, about a million folks a day cross that border for all sorts of reasons. A very few of that number stop and ask for asylum.

    ALL of it, legally..

    And if we were talking about LEGAL, then you would have a point..

    But we're not, so you don't..

    That's where Trump has outdone his fellow presidents. Asylum used to be a sleepy sort of process that involved getting a court date, and then waiting the time out in a trailer court or motel.

    No.. It USED to be that illegal immigrants would get a court date and then skip out and ignore it.

    THAT is why we have the problem we do now..

    Not these days. These days asylum seekers are thrown into detention for weeks. They're separated from their families. Why? Because we don't want them to stay AT ALL, even though the conditions they're fleeing are awful, much worse then we're meting out.

    Then WHY are they coming here???

    If it's SOO bad, then they should stay in Mexico where they have escaped the "awful" conditions...

    t's the old Bible story being played on a large scale, and I have to echo Buttigieg on this - it is awfully strange that the party that insists on its Christian roots, to answer the question "am I my brother's keeper?" with a resounding "No".

    And yet, YA'ALL (NEN) treat your fellow Americans who happen to support the legally, fairly and freely elected POTUS *WORSE* than illegal immigrant criminals are treated...

    Don't quote christian beliefs..

    You don't have the moral platform to do so...

    Neither does Buttajig...

  140. [140] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    It USED to be that illegal immigrants would get a court date and then skip out and ignore it.

    But that was a very low number. The reward of US Citizenship usually brought them in.

    Then WHY are they coming here???
    If it's SOO bad, then they should stay in Mexico where they have escaped the "awful" conditions.

    So it should be someone else's problem, you say. Damned decent of you. Of course, the fact that Mexico is also a poor country doesn't enter into it.

    And yet, YA'ALL (NEN) treat your fellow Americans who happen to support the legally, fairly and freely elected POTUS *WORSE* than illegal immigrant criminals are treated.

    Cry me a river. I never saw a bigger wallow of crybabies in my life.

  141. [141] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Don't quote christian beliefs..

    Oh, I'm sorry. What? Do I have to declare myself a minister to do that?

    Look around. All sorts of folks quote Christian verse, most of whom have no idea what it means.

    I'm just pointing out the obvious one.

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    But that was a very low number. The reward of US Citizenship usually brought them in.

    Not factually accurate..

    90% of illegal immigrants skipped out after their initial court appearance..

    So it should be someone else's problem, you say. Damned decent of you. Of course, the fact that Mexico is also a poor country doesn't enter into it.

    America First, baby..

    Why do you care more for Mexico than America??

    Are you an American?? or a mexican???

    Cry me a river. I never saw a bigger wallow of crybabies in my life.

    And yet, it's YA'ALL who are the biggest cry babies..

    Your identity politics platform is NOTHING BUT crying and whining..

    Oh, I'm sorry. What? Do I have to declare myself a minister to do that?

    No.. You just have to have morals.. But, being a baby-killing Democrat, morals are not available to you..

  143. [143] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    90% of illegal immigrants skipped out after their initial court appearance..

    A fact issue! Well, that one is false. In fact, the numbers are the opposite: According to DOJ numbers, 92% actually attended their hearings between 2013 and 2017.

    Why do you care more for Mexico than America?

    The question is: why don't you? If there is, as Trump says, all of this stuff coming across our border, we ought to be VERY concerned about it. Can't keep treating Mexico as our trash can forever.

    it's YA'ALL who are the biggest cry babies

    Uh Huh. Do you know how infantile that sounds?

    Your identity politics platform is NOTHING BUT crying and whining..

    Nope. It's actually a lot of hard data about the ways the right finds to brutalize folks.

    But, being a baby-killing Democrat, morals are not available to you..

    Oh, sure. The butt-fucking minister gets off with a warning. Didja ever hear the one about "casting the first stone"? Good New Testament story.

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    A fact issue! Well, that one is false. In fact, the numbers are the opposite: According to DOJ numbers, 92% actually attended their hearings between 2013 and 2017.

    Attended their INITIAL court hearing... Basically where the courts said, "OK yer in the system, come back in 6 months"

    How many come back in 6 months??? Less than 10%...

    The question is: why don't you?

    Because I am an American who has fought and bled and killed for this country..

    America and Americans will ALWAYS come first..

    You, never having served, can't understand that and I forgive you..

    Uh Huh. Do you know how infantile that sounds?

    Not as infantile as when you said it..

    Nope. It's actually a lot of hard data about the ways the right finds to brutalize folks.

    Yea?? The Right brutalizes folks??

    https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/08/gettyimages-830775558.jpg

    Think again, luzer....

    Oh, sure. The butt-fucking minister gets off with a warning. Didja ever hear the one about "casting the first stone"? Good New Testament story.

    I am not a bible thumper so I wouldn't know..

    I DO know that those who claim the moral high ground and yet turn around and advocate killing babies AFTER they are born are going to hell.. If there is a hell..

  145. [145] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Attended their INITIAL court hearing...

    Nope. Attended all of their hearings. Only about 8% didn't make it to their hearings and dropped out. That's where the 92% number comes from.

    Bla, bla, bla, American, bla, bla, infantile, bla, luzer, bla, bla hell. Sorry, the rest is just bull.

    And so is Trump's asylum policy.

  146. [146] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Attended their INITIAL court hearing..

    Nope. Attended all of their hearings. Only about 8% didn't make it to their hearings and dropped out. That's where the 92% number comes from.

    Bla, bla, bla, American, bla, bla, infantile, bla, luzer, bla, bla hell. Sorry, the rest is just bull.

    And so is Trump's asylum policy.

  147. [147] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nope. Attended all of their hearings. Only about 8% didn't make it to their hearings and dropped out. That's where the 92% number comes from.

    Exactly.. They didn't make it, so they just vamoosed.. ILLEGALLY..

    Thank you for proving my point..

    Bla, bla, bla, American, bla, bla, infantile, bla, luzer, bla, bla hell. Sorry, the rest is just bull.

    yes.. Exactly.. You think America is bull...

    THAT is exactly you problem..

  148. [148] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    (DOJ) figures show that 89 percent of all asylum applicants attended their final court hearing to receive a decision on their application.

    That's a big hole in your argument.

  149. [149] 
    Michale wrote:

    92% of Illegal Immigrant Criminals abscond after their asylum claims are deemed bullshit and they are denied..

    EXACTLY what I said..

    THAT is why it's better if they wait for their asylum claims to be adjudicated in Mexico..

    THAT way, they are not raping and killing Americans..

  150. [150] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Thank you for proving my point..

    What point? That immigrants are mostly trustworthy people? Most can be trusted for years and years! Say that about your sister's kid.

    Are you worried about the rest? Don't be. Most of them just got tired, and went back to Mexico.

  151. [151] 
    Michale wrote:

    What point? That immigrants are mostly trustworthy people?

    That don't obey the laws of our country...

    Are you worried about the rest? Don't be. Most of them just got tired, and went back to Mexico.

    Yea??? Prove it..

    You can't because yer full of shit..

    Whose side are you on??

    Obviously not your own country...

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    (DOJ) figures show that 89 percent of all asylum applicants attended their final court hearing to receive a decision on their application.

    That's a big hole in your argument.

    The "big hole" is a Left Wing activist group..

    No wonder you didn't want to link it..

    The FACT is over 90% of illegal immigrants don't show up for their full legal journey.. They abscond..

    They are criminals.. Pure and simple..

    But you want to protect those criminals that rape and murder Americans because they vote Democrat...

    It's all so plain...

  153. [153] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Detective Luis Alvarez
    New York City Police Department, New York
    End of Watch: Saturday, June 29, 2019

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  154. [154] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Whose side are you on?

    Ours, idiot, though you won't see it.

    See you tomorrow. Toodle-oo

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ours, idiot, though you won't see it.

    And yet, you are an advocate for those who rape and murder and assault Americans..

    You'll forgive me if I don't take you at face value..

    See you tomorrow. Toodle-oo

    I get it... See ya...

  156. [156] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "Clarifying and explaining is not one of Democrats' strong suits.."

    Understatement of the decade.

    This just demonstrates that Democrats are doing their job well as their job is to make things unclear which is part of their role in the show for the rubes that they have no intention of explaining.

    It's time that citizens stopped buying the deception and put up a finger so the Democrats understand with clarity we are no longer fooled and no explanation will be needed.

  157. [157] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    5

    trump when asked what he thought of taking her on, asked "wasn't she born in uganda?"

    Trump isn't a real American anyway since his mother was a wench of the Clan MacLeod from the Outer Hebrides.

  158. [158] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    in the united states 96%+ lose their asylum cases. what happens next?

  159. [159] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    24

    "Worse" is in the eye of the beholder.. Apparently, Americans are 12 times more excited about President Trump than they are about Kamala I SLEPT MY WAY TO MY SENATE SEAT Harris...

    Neither you or Trump have any moral authority whatsoever to keep whining about anyone else since Trump is the biggest whore and adulterer to ever hold the office of POTUS, and you have admitted to being a whore on multiple occasions on this blog.

    You're obviously just jealous because you admittedly slept your way to rock bottom. :)

  160. [160] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL
    79

    still working with the onscreen keyboard, wife spilled her drink on my chromebook and the whole middle row is kaput

    First your upper case and now this. This calls for........ pie! :)

  161. [161] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    141

    Oh, I'm sorry. What? Do I have to declare myself a minister to do that?

    Two Corinthians ;)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EIgHsGZAmk

  162. [162] 
    Michale wrote:

    in the united states 96%+ lose their asylum cases. what happens next?

    What SHOULD happen next is they should leave the country..

    THAT is why they need to stay out of the US until their cases are adjudicated..

  163. [163] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since 96%+ of illegal immigrant criminals lose their asylum cases, it makes absolutely ZERO sense to let those hundreds of thousands of people into this country while their cases are adjudicated...

    Let them wait out their cases in Mexico.. Since it was Mexico who let the immigrants in, the immigrants are Mexico's problem.. Not the US'...

  164. [164] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hispanic pastors tour border facility lambasted by AOC and say they are ‘shocked by misinformation’
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/immigration-border-facility-aoc-hispanic

  165. [165] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    164

    Hispanic pastors tour border facility lambasted by AOC and say they are ‘shocked by misinformation’
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/immigration-border-facility-aoc-hispanic

    Fox News accusing anyone else of misinformation!

    Now that's side-splitting comedy. Keep them coming. :)

Comments for this article are closed.