Throwdown In Motown (Part 1)

[ Posted Wednesday, July 31st, 2019 – 16:39 UTC ]

OK, I fully admit that I just couldn't resist that title.

Last night was indeed a throwdown in the Motor City, with 10 Democrats sparring on one stage. My overall impression of the first round of the second debates was that this was, in many ways, the debate that I've been personally itching to see for at least four years now. It was a direct confrontation between the "moderate" or "centrist" wing of the Democratic Party versus the "progressive" or "Democratic" wing of the party. It rarely descended into personalities, and instead remained a purely ideological battle of different visions for how to lead both Democrats and the entire country into the future. We almost got such a debate last time, with Bernie mixing it up with Hillary, but there was far too much personality getting in the way of the purely ideological debate. Also, both the country and the Democratic Party have moved significantly since 2016, so the ground for this debate has shifted.

Many are using the term "tag team" to describe how there were clear dividing lines between the "teams" on stage last night. There was virtually no conflict between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren -- indeed, they could have delivered each other's lines without skipping a beat. There was also not much tension between all the moderates attacking the progressives, as they were all fully focused on making a name for themselves by scoring points against either Sanders or Warren. So the night did have a "tag team" feel to it.

The dividing line was pretty clear. The two factions can be summed up as the "Dream Big!" faction versus the "Dream Small!" faction. On one side are the folks who think that presenting breathtakingly ambitious goals is the way to fire up voters, and on the other side are those who caution that pragmatism and incrementalism is really all the voters can hope for, so why not be honest with them? No matter where you personally come down on that sliding scale, last night was an excellent examination of the pros and cons of each side's argument. What it all boils down to is how voters are going to define the nebulous concept of "electability" in the age of Donald Trump -- who was supposed to be the most unelectable candidate ever, right up until he got elected.

Ideological battles aside, though, I do have one specific comment about last night's performance by the Democrats: I was pleased to see so many of the candidates talk about farmers. Farmers are on the front lines of Trump's trade wars, and they're getting hammered. Normally Democrats on the national stage don't talk much about rural or agricultural issues, which is a big mistake. Farming can be part of the discussion on climate change, on international trade policy, and on many other pertinent issues -- but you've got to bring them into the conversation. Last night, many of the candidates did so, which was an improvement on the first round of debates. Farmers are getting sick of taking Trump's subsidies which were necessary because Trump has destroyed the relationship with China and obliterated this market for farm goods. Some of them will be open to considering a different way, but you've got to speak directly to them to get their votes.

CNN did the best they could in terms of presenting the debate. They dithered around far too long at the start (the debate's first question didn't appear until quarter-past the hour), but then they made up for it on the other end by just extending the debate to almost three hours of television time. The moderators obviously had watched the first debates closely, and they were much better than NBC at policing the candidates' speaking time. However, this has led to new complaints from the critics, that CNN didn't let the candidates speak long enough. Seems moderators are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Or, perhaps: everyone's a critic. The debate did have much less of a "free for all" feel to it, at least to me. It was more of a debate than a shouting match between a crowd of people.

I tuned in a bit early last night, and so caught the best performance of the entire evening, as Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez warmed up the crowd. Now, Perez isn't normally this animated, but he certainly blew the roof off last night. He made the case for the entire Democratic Party as strongly as I've ever seen this case be made. He kept it generic, and pointed out that any of the Democrats would be a thousand times better than Trump, so this time around while voters "may fall in love with many candidates," at the end only one of them will be on the general election ballot -- and everyone needs to get out and vote for them. If you can find the video clip online, check it out, as Perez put in a stellar performance during his ten minutes on stage.

OK, on to the individual reviews. I'm going to review everyone's debate performance in alphabetic order, which conveniently allows for a building narrative as well (with a denouement at the end). As always, most of these quotes were hastily jotted down, so they may not be an exact word-for-word match with what was said, but the sentiment should be pretty close.


Steve Bullock

This was Steve Bullock's first debate, since he announced his presidential bid too late to qualify for the first round. His entire campaign is built around a very simple idea: Bullock won a governor's race in a state that voted heavily for Donald Trump. Thus, he can appeal to red state voters and win the presidency. This might have worked in a year with fewer candidates, but as it is he kind of gets lost in the crowd of white guys whose name you can't quite remember.

Bullock apparently believes that to win over red state voters, you have to talk like a Republican. He tried to lead the attack against what he called "wish-list economics" from the progressives, and even accused Medicare For All of being no better than the GOP's "repeal and replace" efforts. This did not go over very well with the audience, it should be noted.

His other theme of the evening (and of his campaign) is that he can beat the Koch brothers. This almost seems quaint, in the era of Trump, but he's got a good case to make. Montana passed laws requiring full disclosure of campaign advertising, which is an impressive legislative feat. But somehow it just doesn't seem enough to base a presidential run on.

Bullock's best moment of the night came on the subject of trade policy, when he related a story told to him by a farmer. This farmer told him: "Every time Trump tweets, we lose $100,000." That is a great line, I have to admit, because it sums so much up so succinctly. Bullock did a good job delivering the line, but it kind of got lost in the larger debate.

Bullock's worst moment of the night was his stumbling response to why he'd support the United States having a policy of not ruling out a nuclear first strike. During his response, he made a serious gaffe: "We need to get back to nuclear proliferation," which he then corrected (after Elizabeth Warren pointed it out) to "non-proliferation." But even without the verbal stumbling, it was still a pretty weak answer.

My overall impression of Bullock is that he started far too late. He might have been able to make an impact in the race had he started when most of the others did, but now he's trying to play catch-up, and not really achieving it.


Pete Buttigieg

Mayor Pete was mostly on defense last night, but in choosing this strategy he largely avoided the fray between the centrists and the progressives. Buttigieg is visibly trying to follow the same ideological route pioneered by Barack Obama -- sound comfortably vague about policies, so that voters all come away thinking you agree with them. Speak of aspirations rather than wonky details. So far, it has been mostly working for him -- he hasn't drawn much attention from any of the other candidates, but he also has continued to struggle to expand his base much. Last night, Buttigieg refused to pile on the progressives with the rest of the moderates, but he also refused to fully support the centrist "Dream Small!" mantra.

Buttigieg is currently in fifth place in the polls, which is a comfortable place for him to be right now. He hasn't yet made it into double digits in the polling, but then again he hasn't fallen too far behind, either (as others have). So he's poised to have a breakout moment, even if he didn't manage to do so last night.

Buttigieg did a better job than most last night of championing "Medicare For All Who Want It" -- using the public option to eventually transition into single-payer. He made the case clearly that those in favor of government-run health insurance should have the courage of their convictions in the marketplace. If Medicare For All is so much better than private insurance, then people will figure it out on their own and gravitate over to it slowly. If your product is the best and cheapest in the marketplace, it will win, in other words. But Buttigieg also wasn't as directly confrontational with Sanders and Warren last night as some of the others were.

Buttigieg's best moment during the debate came early on, when he accurately pointed something out that I've been waiting to hear. During the debate on healthcare, Buttigieg chastised all the others for fearing what Republicans would say about them too much. But it was how he put it that really resonated with me: "Look, it's true that if we embrace a far-left agenda, they're going to call us a bunch of crazy socialists. If we embrace a conservative agenda, you know what they're going to do? They're going to say we're a bunch of crazy socialists." This is absolutely 100 percent true, and it was nice to see Buttigieg point it out.

Buttigieg had other notable lines during the evening, and he even was out in front of everyone at times. When gun control was brought up, Mayor Pete first told the story of crying when a child asked him about school safety, and then later sounded almost revolutionary, calling for constitutional amendments to get rid of the Electoral College, overturn Citizens United, and (just for good measure) let D.C. become a state.

Buttigieg did a much better job than most of focusing on beating Trump and the Republicans last night. He said he'd be eager to face Trump on a debate stage and rip into him for pretending to be disabled to avoid the draft "on the same stage as a combat veteran." When speaking of Afghanistan, he introduced a rather interesting idea, that of limiting all congressional "authorizations of military force" to three years, so that Congress would have to keep coming back to authorize a long-running war. Buttigieg even used scripture to shame Republicans for not backing a minimum wage hike, which the crowd loved.

Buttigieg occasionally was rather stiff in his delivery, and his worst moments came when he was obviously trotting out a prepared talking point that he had memorized. His canned response to criticism of his handling of police shootings as mayor was his low point: "The racial divide lives within me."

All around, Mayor Pete didn't move the needle much either way. He turned in a solid performance, but one without any real breakout moment. He played defense last night, and he did a pretty good job of it. He is obviously trying to be the "stalking horse" in the pack, hanging back from the frontrunners until the right moment arrives to leap into the lead. I have no idea if this is going to work or not, but for now he's doing a good job of lurking in the background.


John Delaney

For some unknown reason, CNN decided beforehand to make John Delaney the breakout star of the moderates. Delaney was referenced in the very first question of the night, given to Bernie Sanders. This allowed him to have a big role before eight of the other candidates even got a chance at all.

Delaney obviously relished the role he was given. He attacked Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren straight out of the box, during his introductory segment, likening them to George McGovern and Michael Dukakis. He gave a full-throated defense of the "Dream Small!" concept, warning over and over again that "going too far left" was dangerous because it would hand the election to Donald Trump. Delaney predicted doom and gloom if any of the progressive ideas ever became law, and in doing so gave an excellent imitation of the Republican Party's talking points. This exasperated the progressives on the stage, which led to the most memorable moment of the entire night, but I'm going to save that for Elizabeth Warren's segment.

Delaney even offered up a full-throated defense of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, and Obama's trade policy in general. This is a touchy subject among Democrats, many of whom have moved away from the free trade mantra in recent years.

Delaney's best moment came when he explained how he was going to tax the rich -- by treating capital gains as straight income. This is a radical idea, but not all Democrats have supported it to date. Delaney was drawing a contrast with Warren's "wealth tax" idea, but no matter the context getting rid of favorable treatment of capital gains is an excellent idea and I was glad to see Delaney champion it so strongly.

Delaney's worst moment was pretty much the entire rest of the evening. As he said in his conclusion, he's running on "real solutions not impossible promises," which is just another way of repeating the Hillary Clinton theme of "Dream Small!"

This may have been Delaney's swansong, no matter how much screen time he got last night. If he doesn't see a big bump in the polls as a direct result, he probably won't be around for the next debate.


John Hickenlooper

Hickenlooper, as usual, kind of got lost in the fray. Just another one of those white guys polling at one percent or less, and last night he demonstrated why this is the case once again.

Hickenlooper was arguing the same "Dream Small!" theme as Delaney, but he didn't do so nearly as well. Part of it is personality -- Hickenlooper is a pretty forgettable presence on stage.

Hickenlooper had one good line over the entire night, when he gave the best answer to Trump's tariffs of anyone on stage: "There is not a single example in history where anyone has won a trade war -- tariffs are not the solution!" This is an excellent point, and it was well made.

For the rest of the night, however, Hickenlooper was doing his best to fade into the scenery. Which he accomplished.

Oh, he did set up one of the funniest moments of the evening, when he was trying to make the case that Bernie Sanders and the other progressives were too extreme. While making the point to Bernie that "America does not want radical change" he wondered about "throwing up your hands" -- which Bernie then did! This clip was heavily featured on the late night shows, because it was indeed pretty funny. But even so, it didn't help Hickenlooper out much, if it all.

Hickenlooper is another candidate that probably won't be at the next debate, so this was likely the last time a national audience will see him in such a setting.


Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar continued the strategy she charted in the first debate -- memorize a bunch of talking points, then awkwardly try to insert them into answers to, at times, unrelated questions. Deliver these talking points in as stiff a speaking manner as possible, so that everyone will know they are canned responses.

Klobuchar early on trotted out the first of these: "I'm a street fighter from the Iron Range." The audience yawned.

The only canned response that actually worked (a little bit) was when Klobuchar ripped into Trump for his "ten thousand lies." That's a line that all the other Democrats really should work into their own speeches, in my opinion.

But for most of the night, it got to the point where in my own notes I would just jot down: "Canned response" for whatever Klobuchar was saying.

To be fair, Klobuchar's best moment of the night came when she actually showed some genuine emotion, responding to the issue of gun control by choking up when talking about the six-year-old who was shot dead in Gilroy, California.

Klobuchar's worst moment was the rest of the evening. She also tried to attack Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, but even these attacks weren't all that notable, when stacked up against John Delaney's performance. Klobuchar really wanted the "moderate lane" all to herself (or perhaps just her and Joe Biden fighting it out), but at this point she's struggling to even keep up in this lane.

Klobuchar may make it to the next debate, but at this point it seems like her campaign is going nowhere fast.


Beto O'Rourke

While it's hard to say who "won" last night's debate, Beto O'Rourke is a strong contender for the biggest loser of the night. Betomania may be dead, in other words.

O'Rourke has been shown up by others in both debates now. The first time around it was fellow Texan Julián Castro who beat him, and this time O'Rourke was shown up by Pete Buttigieg. If the voters are looking for a young candidate to get excited about, O'Rourke has given them nothing but disappointment, in other words.

O'Rourke has always seemed like he's punching above his weight, and last night did nothing to dispel this perception. His biggest argument seems to be that he can put Texas into play in the Electoral College, but that's a hard argument to make when he lost Texas to Ted Cruz. He's never really squared this circle, and he failed to do so last night as well.

I haven't seen a breakdown of who got the most speaking time last night, but I'd be willing to bet that Beto is near the bottom of this list. He rarely spoke, and when he did he often got lost in the weeds of policy or just tripped up in what he was trying to say. He wasn't really a part of the moderate-v-progressive battle, and was barely noticeable for most of the night.

Beto had two standout moments, but neither was big enough to be a breakout moment nationally. He got a big round of applause from the Detroit audience when he strongly backed the idea of reparations for slavery, championing a new Voting Rights Act and a Reparations Act. And he was also perhaps the best candidate of the night when it came to addressing farmers, stating bluntly that tariffs are a "huge mistake" while pointing out that they are "nothing but a tax." He ended with the best summation of the problem of the entire night: "Farmers are bearing the brunt" of Trump's idiotic trade war with China. Again, this is a line that every Democratic candidate should immediately adopt.

But for the most part, Beto failed to deliver on his promise once again. All the hype surrounding his Texas Senate run has all but evaporated by this point. He will probably make it into the third debate, so he's got at least one more chance to get on track, but so far in the polling he's the candidate who has fallen the farthest, so he'll really need an enormous turnaround if he's got any sort of chance.


Tim Ryan

Who? Oh, yeah, that other Midwestern white guy.

Tim Ryan turned in another forgettable performance last night. He tried to occupy the anti-progressive position, but John Delaney got there first. Even Amy Klobuchar did a better job of smacking Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren around. Ryan tried to take the fight against the "radicals" directly, at one point chiding Bernie for his trademarked delivery: "You don't have to yell."

But it all fell flat. In fact, the only memorable moment he had was to set up Bernie for a great line, but we're saving that for the next segment.

Tim Ryan will soon be a trivia question for "that other guy that ran in 2020," because he is definitely not going to be around for the next debate. That's really about all that needs to be said.


Bernie Sanders

Finally we come to the frontrunners (and then the denouement). Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren were front-and-center last night, but they steadfastly refused to attack each other in any way. The most amusing moment was when Bernie thought the moderators were pointing to him and he started to answer an attack, but when Warren pointed out it was her turn, Bernie immediately responded: "Oh, I'm sorry" and let her speak. That moment showed how in tune the two of them were, because either of them could have made the points they were both making all night long, equally effectively.

Bernie defended his positions with passion last night, as usual. He's held his positions for so many decades that he just is not going to suddenly flip-flop on any of them. That's to be expected, and that's what we got last night. Bernie strongly defended his Medicare For All plan against all slings and arrows from the moderates, which they really should have expected. The funniest (and most viral) example of this was when Bernie stated unequivocally that his plan would be as good as the ones Unions had negotiated over the years, and he was challenged by Tim Ryan: "You don't know that!" Bernie shot back with one of the best lines of the night: "I do know that, I wrote the damn bill."

Bernie was eager to take the fight to Trump last night, as well. He called Trump a "fraud and a phony," a "pathological liar," and later on denounced Trump as "a racist, a sexist, and a homophobe." Bernie's best argument was that polls consistently showed him beating Trump in Wisconsin, in Michigan, and in Pennsylvania, as well as nationwide. No other candidate on the stage could make this argument, it bears noting. It may seem strange to hear Bernie make an "electability" argument, but he does have the data to back this claim up.

Bernie summed up the exasperation progressives feel towards moderates with a great line: "I get a little tired of Democrats who are afraid of big ideas." The crowd loved it, and gave him a big hand, even though this was the line Ryan used to chide Bernie for yelling.

Bernie is still leading his revolution. He is still in there fighting. The voters are indeed looking for someone who will fight hard to beat Trump, which is one of the reasons Bernie is doing better than most of the field. Bernie is routinely dismissed by the inside-the-Beltway punditary universe, but his supporters simply do not care. Only Bernie (as he pointed out) and Joe Biden have consistently polled better than Trump in a head-to-head matchup, and it would certainly be an interesting contest were Bernie to win the Democratic nomination.

Last night, Sanders did an excellent job of defending his policies and standing up for what he believes in. He may not have had any breakthrough moments, but unlike most people on the stage with him, he didn't really need one heading into the second debate.


Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders faced down all comers, side to side. If they disagreed at any point, I certainly didn't notice it. They backed each other up and admirably defended progressivism against the "Dream Small!" crowd.

Warren deployed an interesting tactic early on last night, but almost nobody noticed it. She swore, in an excellent opening statement, to work hard for any Democrat who wins the nomination. That is a rather extraordinary statement for a candidate to make, this early in the race. But it shows the unity that all Democrats feel around the ultimate goal of beating Trump in the best way possible. I would enjoy hearing a moderator in the third debate ask the same question of all the candidates: "Will you swear to work for the eventual nominee, no matter who it is?"

Warren, for some reason, decided to break into the debate even when she hadn't been referenced. This was a bit strange, since Warren was one of the two frontrunners on the stage last night -- usually this tactic is used by low-polling candidates desperate for attention (such as Kirsten Gillibrand in the first debate). But nobody seemed to mind all that much, and Warren wound up gaining a whole lot of screen time as a result, so I guess the tactic worked.

Warren joined Bernie in shaming the moderate candidates for not only dreaming small, but for echoing Republican talking points in their attacks on progressive ideas, at one point warning: "Don't play into Donald Trump's hands."

It's hard to say whether Warren or Sanders had the better night last night, because the two were almost interchangeable. Warren did an admirable job of defending progressive policy ideas, and built on the idea of dreaming big: "I know how to fight and I know how to win." She continued to return to the "don't be scared -- fight for what's right" theme all night long, in fact.

Warren and Sanders are both on the same page about who they should be fighting, as well: Donald Trump, Wall Street, big corporations, and the wealthy. Warren, as is her campaign trademark, "has a plan" for just about everything, which was on full display last night. No matter what the subject at hand was, Warren had a well-thought-out plan to make things better. She shows more depth and wonkiness than all the moderates combined, it's easy to see. And her ideas are very popular with the general public, which helps a great deal.

Warren's best moment of the night was when she called out John Delaney for his timidity. This was perhaps the most memorable moment of the entire night, for any candidate, in fact. Nothing sums up the "Dream Big!" progressive argument better than Warren's response to Delaney: "You know, I don't understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can't do and shouldn't fight for. I don't get it."

This is the continuation of the argument that Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton began four years ago, and Warren has more than shown she's a scrappy fighter in this battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. It is pretty easy to picture her on a debate stage with Donald Trump, shredding him into tiny pieces without breaking a sweat. Sooner or later, Bernie and Warren will have to compete directly against each other, but that's far in the future. For now, it was enjoyable to see them fighting as a team, against all comers.


Marianne Williamson

And we saved the best for last. Well, no, we didn't, it just worked out that way alphabetically.

Marianne Williamson showed more passion in her answers -- especially about Donald Trump -- than most of the candidates on the stage last night. Her performance was about the same as her first debate performance, if truth be told, but for some reason the media seemed to take more notice of her this time around.

She's still pretty flaky, of course, from her opening statement ("actualize thriving") to the very end. But she also makes some very good points about what's wrong with politics and what's wrong with the other candidates. In fact, at times she was very close to knocking an answer out of the park. But each time, she let the opportunity slip away.

She shouldn't have. She is a professional speaker, so she should know how to work a crowd. But she misses her own cues.

Williamson would start an answer rather subdued, then move on to hitting core Democratic Party points forcefully (and chiding others for not standing up for them), build her answer into pure outrage and righteousness... but then, in the end, trail off into the weeds for her final sentence or two. She hit the peak too early, or she just doesn't know when to drop the mic and walk away. Which is a shame, because the first two-thirds of her answers were so stunningly effective and well-delivered.

Williamson had a breakout moment, even. In speaking about Flint's water crisis, she landed an excellent hometown reference: "I lived in Grosse Pointe. What happened in Flint would never have happened in Grosse Pointe." She's right, and she's right to point it out. Williamson also was the strongest proponent of reparations on the stage last night. She has an excellent outsider's viewpoint of Democratic politics.

This is all moot, however, because she is never going to convince millions of primary voters to vote for her. She may make it to the next debate, and she should really use her breakout moment to schedule some media interviews, but in the end it's probably not going to help her much in the polls.


OK, that's it. I don't really have time for any overall comments, since I'm up against the deadline of the start of the second night of debates, so that'll have to do for now. Until tomorrow, then....

-- Chris Weigant


Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant


146 Comments on “Throwdown In Motown (Part 1)”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    CW: Enjoyed your assessment!

  2. [2] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Paula -


    Thought Biden did better than expected tonight...


  3. [3] 
    Paula wrote:

    Second Debate:

    Joe Biden did better than last time. As John King said in the after-discussion, JB hung in there but he was part of the pack, not above the pack. I think that's about right. He will get a certain amount of "comeback" coverage but it wasn't him shining so much as him doing ok. He had just a few moments where he stumbled a bit or struggled to find the words, but only a few and they were brief. But I have to say, there was that contrast between him and the rest of the field - he comes across as an elderly man who's just managing to hold his own with ppl a lot younger, but who has to work at it. He's succeeding, but you can tell there's effort applied. When I watch him there's always part of me in pre-flinch, wondering if we're going to see a "senior moment" and relieved when we don't.

    Kamala Harris was, as many have said, uneven. She had some very strong moments and some weak ones. Next to JB she took the most number of incoming attacks and I think if she'd had an additional 30 secs or minute every time she'd have managed sharp responses but she was always cut off before she finished. I think she will be hurt by this debate in the immediate short-term because she was seen as the winner last time and not the winner this time. I don't think there was a winner this time - I think good moments were spread across the field as were weak moments. But there will be a maybe-her-first-win-was-a-fluke dynamic for her to overcome in Debate 3.

    Cory Booker had a good night. He didn't land all his punches but he had a lot of good moments. I think his numbers will go up at least a bit.

    Julian Castro had a relatively good night as well, but not a so-much-better night than several others. He got out "MoscowMitch" though which was great!

    Kirsten Gillibrans ditto - she had some really good moments. But her attack on JB about his op ed from years ago sort of petered out. Her strongest moment to me was when she said the officer who killed Eric Garner should have been fired. She did better than in the first debate but not sure it will be enough to keep her going.

    Jay Inslee was, I think, better than in Debate 1 as well. He's growing on me. But I just don't think he's going to be the nominee. I do think he's doing himself some good in terms of getting national exposure.

    Andrew Yang was a great voice, I think, for everything he talked about. I think he embodies the idea that running to get ideas inserted into the narrative has value. He was always succinct and sharp. He talks about how technology is killing jobs and that we have to address that and he's right.

    Michael Bennet - for some reason I like him. I don't think he's potus material and I don't agree with him when he get's mushy-centrist but on a human level he seems like a good human being. But I don't think his candidacy will last much longer.

    Bill DeBlasio is a decent attack-dog who went after JB 3 times but was fended off each time. He made some great points about what being a Democrat is/should be. But he's another guy who's time is running out.

    Tulsi Gabbard always has a kind of drama about her. I think she'd be a good actress (maybe is). She was dead on about how everyone was lied to re: Iraq war. She went after K. Harris hard - it made me want to learn the whole story about the death row person and I didn't feel Harris had time to adequately defend herself - unless there's no defense. Gabbard goes on FOX and that gives me great pause. She's also leans heavily on her military background which is worthy in itself but not sufficient for her to be potus.

    Overall no one was an idiot or sucked. But with such a large field the challenge is/has been to find ways to stick out and I don't think anyone did that in a big enough way tonight to move out of their tiers with the possible exception of Harris dropping into second tier. We'll see. Biden will remain in the lead for now.

    In the CNN post-discussion the gang spent a lot of time comparing everyone unfavorably to E. Warren. She sat with them last night for 20 minutes post-debate and they kept talking about it - about her energy, about her grasp of detail and ability to mix policy with personal touches, etc. The big showdown is going to be between her and Joe Biden.

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    Great recap of debate 2A, CW; now do 2B!

    2B, or not 2B, that is the question... ;)

  5. [5] 
    Paula wrote:

    Forgot - my favorite Kirsten Gillibrand line: the first thing she'd do as potus would be to "clorox the oval office".


  6. [6] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The two factions can be summed up as the "Dream Big!" faction versus the "Dream Small!" faction.

    Sorry, CW, I have to disagree. The factions could be summed up as the "Talk Big!" faction versus the "Think Reasonably!" faction.

    I (and Kick, I think) were under the impression that Bernie and Warren left the stage bruised and bloodied by the assault. That if anyone won last night, it was Biden.

    Biden also had a great night tonight. Though he didn't win every round, he held his own.

  7. [7] 
    Paula wrote:

    And Castro (was it Castro or Booker - I think it was Castro) came out strong for impeachment, making the counter-argument to all the "but Repub senate will let Blotus skate and Blotus will claim he was vindicated" by saying failure to impeach would allow Blotus to claim he was exonerated or why didn't Ds impeach? AND failure to impeach could be hung on MoscowMitch.

  8. [8] 
    Paula wrote:

    [6] Balthasar: completely disagree.

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:


    We have posted simultaneously for we are indeed mystifying.

    Another great recap. :)

  10. [10] 
    Paula wrote:

    [6] We don't have to debate it - time will tell; polling will tell. I think it will come down to a Biden/Warren showdown. I'm clearly in the "go big" camp and you're not so we're not going to agree.

  11. [11] 
    Kick wrote:


    Sorry, CW, I have to disagree. The factions could be summed up as the "Talk Big!" faction versus the "Think Reasonably!" faction.

    That's a reasonable assessment. I would call it the "Pie in the Sky!" faction versus the "Not Going to Blow Smoke Up Your Ass!" faction. Why? Because if you're going to portray Donald Trump as a con artist, then you're going to need a candidate who is the exact opposite of Trump... the pathologically lying smoke blower. If your candidate is sending up smoke signals themselves, then what's the difference?

    Does that even make sense?

    I (and Kick, I think) were under the impression that Bernie and Warren left the stage bruised and bloodied by the assault. That if anyone won last night, it was Biden.

    I basically thought that the progressives didn't make the case for relitigating the entire health care issue again after its less than 10 years in existence when its passage had been a century in the making since Theodore Roosevelt and progressive health care reformers had first proposed it around the time of the sinking of the Titanic.

    Actually, I think successful passage of another health care bill in such a short time after the one centuries in the making has about as much chance of successful passage as the Titanic.

    Biden also had a great night tonight. Though he didn't win every round, he held his own.

    Joe Biden wins every debate that ends with the voters still believing he is the best candidate to defeat Donald Trump at the ballot box... whether he's on the stage or not. :)

  12. [12] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Kick [11]: Well argued.

    Paula [8]: Sorry to hear that, but it's probably gonna happen. What's important is that we all agree on the final step: voting.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Scarborough blasts 2020 Democrats for attacking Obama's policies more than Trump's

    It's hilarious when Dumbocrats eat their own!!! :D

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    MSNBC "Morning Joe" anchor Joe Scarborough on Wednesday night slammed 2020 Democratic presidential candidates, saying they were spending more time attacking former President Obama's policies than President Trump during the second round of primary debates.

    "These candidates are attacking Barack Obama’s policy positions more than Donald Trump," Scarborough, a former GOP congressman who left the Republican Party to become an independent, said on Twitter. "That is politically stupid and crazy."

    The comments from Scarborough, a frequent Trump critic, came as a cadre of Democratic presidential candidates targeted policies that former Vice President Joe Biden helped oversee during the Obama administration.

    But!! But!!! But!!!

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

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro and de Blasio were among the candidates to target Biden on his record on immigration in the Obama administration.

    “You can’t have it both ways,” Booker said. “You invoke President Obama more than anyone in this campaign; you can’t do it when it’s convenient and then dodge it when it’s not.”

    Oh... SNAP!!! :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mayor Bill de Blasio came under fire tonight for not taking action against New York City police officer, Daniel Pantaleo, who choked Eric Garner to death. Protesters disrupted the debate demanding Pantaleo's firing. Several candidates also called on the mayor to fire the officer.

    Fire the officer?? Why??? He did his job.. Garner is dead because he was fat and he decided to fight the law.

    The law won..

    End of story..

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    As sad as it is to say.....

    Biden stumbles over statistics, phrases, and titles in 2020 debate

    Stick a fork in Joe Biden.. He's done...

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden, 76, repeatedly stumbled over numbers and phrases throughout his second Democratic presidential primary appearance Wednesday night, at one point accidentally endorsing one of his primary rivals.

    Biden told viewers that if they agree with him, "go to Joe 3-0-3-3-0." He likely meant to tell them to text the number 30330, which subscribes supporters to text message Biden campaign updates.

    Near the beginning of the Detroit debate, Biden said that California Sen. Kamala Harris' plan on "Medicare for all" single-payer healthcare "in 10 years will cost $3 trillion," misstating estimates that find "Medicare for all" would cost $32 trillion over a decade.

    The mental acuity is simply not there any more...

    Joe, Joe, Joe.. You should have left on top.. Now your legacy is going to be 3 failed POTUS campaigns.. :(

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Axelrod: ‘Bad News’ for Biden ‘Is This May Be the Best He Could Do’

    It's not me saying it.. It's Obama's guy saying it..

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Booker Stuns Audience By Torching Biden on Crime Bill: You ‘Destroyed Communities Like Mine’

    Typical Democrat.. Blame the lawmaker for making the laws..

    Ignore the criminals who actually actually BREAK the laws..

    Booker, if your community was destroyed do the criminals have ANY responsibility for it???

    Any at all???


  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh snap..

    So much for the 'holster's claim that Democrats can address issues without insults and attacks.. :D

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    Iddn't it amazing..

    Dumbocrats attack President Trump incessantly...

    But Democrats like Harris and Gillbrand and Biden sure didn't mind taking Donald Trump's campaign donations that came to over 10 THOUSAND dollars...

    Funny how that is, eh? :eyeroll:

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Google’s celeb-obsessed search for climate change answers is a hypocritical joke

    Once again, the DO AS I SAY NOT AS I DO celebrities who want the peons and serfs to tighten their belts..

    But not the elites... :eyeroll:

    Apparently, Global Warming is not ALL that big of a threat.... :eyeroll: morons..

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Arrest that cost accused cop-killer his eye was ‘lawful and justified’: prosecutor

    Florida cops used “lawful and justified” force when they arrested an accused cop killer who was so badly beaten that he lost his left eye, a state prosecutor said Wednesday.

    “After carefully examining the report and evidence, I have determined that the use of force used during the arrest of Markeith Lloyd was lawful and justified under the provisions of Florida statues, and no further action will be taken by this office,” State Attorney General Phil Archer said in a statement, WOFL TV reported Wednesday.


    You fight the law.. The law wins... Every time...

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like President Trump is at it again, attacking Baltimore...

    "Community of Baltimore -- a drug-infested area where a lot of the drugs we are talking about today have already taken the lives of so many children. The same children that I watched 14 or 15 years ago as they grew up, now walking around like zombies."

    Oh.. wait..

    That's not President Trump..

    Elijah Cummings said that in 1999

    I guess that must mean that Elijah Cummings is a racist...

    Go figger....

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Under attack for being too moderate, Biden delivered a powerful response when asked how he can appeal to progressives in the Democratic Party. He drew on his past success in winning elections and scoring major achievements in governing during his long career and emphasized his clear appeal to Midwest and working-class voters.

    Sorry, Joe.. Have to tell it like it is.. Your past success in winning elections does not include losing 2 Presidential Elections..

    They only elections you have ever won was in small teeny tiny Delaware..

    Keep it real..

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    CNN’s Cooper knocks 2020 Dems for repeating 'That's a Republican talking point' when 'in a corner'

    heh Just like here in Weigantia... :D

    Whenever ya'all are flailing for facts to rebut (which is all the time) ya'all simply poo-poo it as a Republican Talking Point... :D

    Ya'all aren't much different than the luser Democrats up on the stage..

    Aren't you so proud!? :^/

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    CNN anchor Anderson Cooper called out the 2020 Democrats who fought off tough questions during debates by calling them "Republican talking points."

    Cooper said it was "fascinating" that it appeared these Democrats-- when backed into a corner-- are using their rendition of the "Republican" call of "fake news." Cooper told a post-debate panel that Democrats call these questions a "Republican talking point."

    CNN senior political reporter Nia-Malika Henderson agreed, adding that it's sometimes actually a "Democratic voter talking point."

    Cooper continued, "Even if it is a Republican talking point, you're going to be debating a Republican and if you can't answer..."

    One of the candidates who most notably used the "Republican talking point" line was Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., during a fiery exchange with former congressman John Delaney over Medicare-for-all.

    Yep, exactly..

    "Republican Talking Point" is simply an excuse that REALLY says "I have no facts to rebut your logical and rational argument so I am going to flail in the wind like a limp dick.."

    That's what ya'all are REALLY saying... :D

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Funny how ya'all incessantly and hysterically attacked Republicans for wanting to throw Americans off their health care plans...

    Harris admits people would be 'taken off' employer's private insurance under her health care plan

    But, ya'all enthusiastically support it when a Dumbocrat wants to do it..

    Here, since yer flailing like the afore mentioned limp dick, allow me to give you a response..

    " But... well.. That's different!!!"

    Yer welcome...

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, Marooned Together on Fantasy Island
    These two progressives are in a bold — but awfully risky — place.

    They are in a place that no REAL American would follow..

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    You were expecting the two of them to fight each other, because they have overlapping fan bases and because both of them want the progressive mantle? Hah. They were too busy doing battle with the candidates flanking them.

    Those candidates — especially John Delaney, John Hickenlooper, Amy Klobuchar, Steve Bullock and Tim Ryan — portrayed Sanders and Warren as denizens of some lofty, lefty dreamland that would be unrecognizable and unappealing to swing voters between the coasts.


    There is simply NO WAY that ANYONE on that stage (sans 1) who has a realistic chance of winning the nomination will appeal to 3/4rths of the electorate...

    And the 1 candidate that would (Biden) if he won, the entire progressive base of the Democrat Party would stay home..

    Once again, the facts are clear..

    Democrats have NO path to victory in 2020....

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    {Warren}’s sharp. She’s stirring. I also think she’s wrong — wrong that enough general-election voters will choose a candidate who aims to take away options when it comes to medical insurance, wrong that enough of them want a government at bitter war with all of corporate America, wrong that enough of them would be comfortable with the scope of federal spending that she proposes.

    No Independent, NPA or Trump voter will support Warren.

    That much is fact...

    Given that fact, Warren has no path to victory in the General election..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hickenlooper began the evening with the observation that while Democrats picked up 40 seats in the House in the 2018 midterms, not one Democrat who flipped a district from red to blue did so by running on the kind of agenda that Sanders and Warren are pushing now.

    Yep... EXACTLY...

    You hystericals scream like crazy "WE WON IN 2018 SO WE CAN WIN IN 2020!!!"

    And yet, the FACT is, not a single seat was turned from red to blue by running on the agenda that these moron Democrats are running on..

    NOT... A... SINGLE.... SEAT....

    ALL of the candidates that won those House seats that gave control to the Dumbocrats ran on an Republican-Lite agenda.

    It's the ONLY reason they won..

    So, Hickenlopper's rational FACTS deserves repeating..

    Hickenlooper began the evening with the observation that while Democrats picked up 40 seats in the House in the 2018 midterms, not one Democrat who flipped a district from red to blue did so by running on the kind of agenda that Sanders and Warren are pushing now.

    This is fact...

    NO ONE who pushes the agenda of Open Borders, who pushes the agenda of Free Full HealthCare for Crimmigrants, who pushes the agenda of throwing ALL Americans off their healthcare plans they like, who pushes the agenda of slavery reparations...

    NO ONE who pushes any or all of those agendas can win the General Election in 2020..

    NO.... ONE.....

    "These are the facts of the case.. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    It’s a crucial point and a powerful argument against either Sanders or Warren as the Democratic nominee. But neither of the two of them ever directly addressed or specifically rebutted it.

    Yep.. Just like no one here will address it or can rebut it..

    And, as ya'all established at Charlottesville, SILENCE GIVES ASSENT...

    I accept ya'all's concession.. :D

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    They raised the right questions about it and poked the right holes in it, prompting Warren to complain repeatedly that they were playing into Republicans’ hands by appropriating Republican talking points.

    That was deft of her politically and cheap of her substantively, which made two things abundantly clear.

    One, she’s a better candidate than Sanders, at least in the abstract.

    Two, if she winds up with the nomination, it will be after planting herself as firmly as possible on an island of purity.

    There’s probably no credible toggle toward the center for her, no ready bridge to a messier but potentially bigger mainland. What bold real estate. What risky terrain, too.


    If Warren wins the nomination, she will be unable to tack to the Center.. Or she will try and reveal herself to be nothing but a political opportunist..

    Either way, it means she will lose...

    "These are the facts of the case.. And they are undisputed."
    -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Being a Racist Is Easy Today

    Years ago, it was hard to be a racist. You had to be fitted for and spend money on a white gown and don a pointy hat. You celebrated racism by getting some burlap, wrapping it around a cross, setting it ablaze and dancing around it carrying torches. Sometimes, as did Lester Maddox, you had to buy axe handles for yourself and your supporters to wield to forcibly turn away black customers from your restaurant. Or, as in the case of Theophilus "Bull" Connor, you had to learn to direct fire hoses and vicious police attack dogs against civil rights demonstrators.

    Today, all that has changed. To be a racist today takes little effort. For example, one can sit back in his easy chair and declare that he's for across-the-board tax cuts. That makes you a racist. If you don't believe me, think back to 1994 when the Republican-led Congress pushed for a tax-cut measure. Former U.S. House of Representatives member Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., denouncing the Republicans' plan before a Manhattan audience as a form of modern-day racism said: "It's not 'spic' or 'n-----' anymore. (Instead,) they say, 'Let's cut taxes.'" A few months later, he compared the GOP's "Contract with America" to measures in Nazi Germany saying, "Hitler wasn't even talking about doing these things."

    One can be labeled a racist through a set of "microaggressions" listed in "Diversity in the Classroom, UCLA Diversity & Faculty Development" from 2014.

    Here are a few statements one should avoid: "You are a credit to your race." "Wow! How did you become so good in math?" "There is only one race, the human race." "I'm not racist. I have several Black friends." "As a woman, I know what you go through as a racial minority."

    It's even easier to be a racist.. Just state the fact that a black person is incompetent.. Or state an opinion that a black person is a moron..

    POOF... Yer a racist..

    Easy peasy lemon squeezy...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Perhaps the easiest way to be labeled a racist is to suggest that a wall be built on our border with Mexico in order to keep people from Mexico and points south from entering our nation illegally. Also, a slam-dunk charge of racism is to say that the standard practice of separating children from parents is Nazi-like. But imagine you are stopped with your child in the car and charged with a DUI in any of our 50 states. You're going to be arrested and your child taken to protective child services. The identical practice on our southern border becomes racism.

    It's simply AMAZING how situational racism can be..

    An action (removing present children from their parents when their parents are arrested) done in BumFuq California is perfectly acceptable, PRUDENT and the right thing to do...

    But when that EXACT same action for the EXACT same reason is done at the southern border???

    All of the sudden.. It's racist.. As if by magic...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    As veteran journalist Brit Hume said about the uproar over President Donald Trump's latest bomb-throwing: "Trump's 'go back' comments were nativist, xenophobic, counterfactual and politically stupid. But they simply do not meet the standard definition of racist, a word so recklessly flung around these days that its actual meaning is being lost." The president cleaned up his remarks a few days later saying: "These are people that hate our country. If you're not happy in the U.S., if you're complaining all the time, very simply, you can leave." By the way, leaving isn't Trump's idea. Many leftists pledged to flee America altogether if Trump were elected president.

    Yea, what about that!!?? All you Left wing morons that promised to leave if President Trump was elected..

    What are you morons still doing here???

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    The bottom line is that when leftists have no other winning argument, they falsely accuse others of racism. Republicans cower at the charge and often give the leftists what they want. Black Americans who are octogenarians, or nearly so, need to explain what true racism is, not to correct white liberals but to inform young black people.

    Ding!! Ding!!! Ding!!! We have a winner!!!

    That's it, perfectly..

    When Left Wing Morons (I know, I know.. Redundant) don't have a logical or rational argument to make, they simply accuse their opponents of racism..

    This isn't some nebulous dog whistle.. It was codified and specifically planned by Left Wingers and well-documented in the Journo-List papers..

    So, whenever anyone on the Left, whether here in Weigantia or out in the world... Whenever any Left Winger accuses someone of racism, you now KNOW for a fact, what they are really saying is, "I have no logical or rational response to your argument, therefore I am going to accuse you of racism in a fervent attempt to shut you up!!"

    Ergo, the ONLY logical response a person, Right OR Left (Because it's now common practice to for Left Wingers to call OTHER Left Wingers racist) the ONLY response a person accused of racism needs to give is:

    "Thank you.. I accept your concession as to the superiority of my argument."

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:
  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, of course, what would a morning be without a FUNNY BUT TRUE cartoon.. :D

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    heheheh Now THAT one is just plain funny!!!

    Sad... But funny!! :D

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:
  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:
  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:
  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump: A Brawler for Democracy

    As this column judged early and often, nobody needed to instruct Vladimir Putin’s trolls to promote the Trump boomlet once it emerged in 2015. It was exactly the kind of democratic unseemliness the Kremlin’s troublemakers exist to exploit. Whatever Russia’s effect, it was trivial in the end. It did not conjure 63 million votes for Mr. Trump—votes that came to him despite an onslaught of innuendo, vilification and authentically disgraceful material covering every aspect of his life, from his sex habits to his racial attitudes, to his business practices and even his alleged eagerness to commit treason with Russia.

    The real lesson is the one many continue to ignore: A large part of the electorate so thoroughly defected from the authority of the established media and related elites that it thought anybody with Mr. Trump’s enemies couldn’t be all bad.

    If Democrats want to win in 2020, they need to stop lying to themselves about this. They need to stop trying to ignore or shame these voters somehow out of existence.

    One more thing: In a rare moment of perspicacity, Mr. Schiff allowed to the New Yorker magazine that the Kremlin’s most consequential impact on the 2016 race may have been the role that still-hidden Russian intelligence played in sparking the shambolic interventions of former FBI Director James Comey.

    Mr. Schiff is right about this. Mr. Comey himself indicated that the information is of such sensitivity that it will likely remain hidden “decades from now.” So here’s one reason to support Mr. Trump’s re-election no matter how much nose-holding it requires: It may be the only way to reach the truth of 2016.

    As one independent put it:

    As an independent I have yo say the tactics the democrats used throughout this campaign against every aspect of Trump's personal and professional life have turned me wholly against them, probably for life. They did win one contest, though - the limbo, AKA just how low can you go.

    Our system needed a game changer, someone who would shake things up. Providence gave us Donald J. Trump, a choice ratified by the people.

    I didn't hold my nose in 2016 when I pulled the lever for Mr. Trump, won't hold my nose in 2020 when I pull it again to re-elect President Donald J Trump!

    You see how badly Democrats are losing Independents and NPAs..

    I saids it befores and I'll says it agains...

    Democrats have NO PATH TO VICTORY in 2020...

    Their best course of action is to 'cede 2020 to President Trump and the GOP and get a head start on 2024...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Five takeaways from Democratic debate brawl

    But!! But!!! Didn't the ole cockholster say:

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


  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    This was not the debate that Democrats were hoping for.

    Allow me to paraphrase Mick Jagger...

    You can't always get what ya want...
    You can't always get what ya want...
    You can't always get what ya want...
    But if you try real hard, you just might find..
    You get what {the country} needs....

    And a Democrat Party in the shambles of a civil war is exactly what this country needs...

    "The person that's enjoying this debate most right now is Donald Trump, as we pit Democrats against each,” Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said amid an extended and nasty fight between the candidates over their health care plans.

    “Fact check: True,” Trump campaign spokesman Tim Murtaugh responded over Twitter.


    Point to Trump... :D

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    The split between the centrists and liberals on Tuesday night was back on full display once again on Wednesday, with moderates such as Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) pleading with Democrats to not run too far to the left.

    There were times during the debate, such as during the Gabbard and Harris exchange, where the candidates genuinely seemed to not like each other.

    That’s a sign that the Democratic primary is about to get a lot nastier with 10 more debates and months to go before votes are cast.

    Oh.. Not to worry..

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

    "In a pig's eye!"
    -Dr Leonard McCoy


    Again, the McDonalds slogan comes to mind.

    "I'm lovin' it!!"


  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Harris was the unquestioned breakout candidate from the Miami debates last month after her brutal exchange with Biden on federal busing.

    But her performance in Detroit was much more muddled and mixed, and she sustained cutting attacks over her record as attorney general in California and questions about whether she’s flip-flopped on key issues.

    The first hour of the debate was centered almost exclusively on health care, with Harris’s proposed Medicare for All plan the centerpiece of conversation.

    Harris has been under scrutiny for being unclear on whether her plan would result in a tax increase on the middle class and whether she would abolish private insurance. Critics say Harris’s plan is impossible to implement without doing both of those things, and the subject matter did not seem to be in her wheelhouse.

    Harris fired back, accusing her rivals of using “Republican talking points,” but the sustained attacks from Biden and Bennet were effective and kept her on the defensive.

    Harris was like David Hedison in THE FLY..

    "Heeeellllpppp meee!! HEEEEEELLLLLLLPPPPPP MEEEE!!!"

    :D hehehehe

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    But perhaps the worst moment for Harris came during an exchange with Gabbard, who signaled that she’d go hard after Harris this week when she said the California Democrat should not be put in charge of the military.

    Gabbard accused Harris of locking up scores of racial minorities for low-level drug offenses, accused her of hiding evidence that would free an innocent man on death row and said she kept people imprisoned for longer sentences to use them as cheap prison labor.

    “The people who suffered under your reign as prosecutor, you owe them an apology,” Gabbard said.

    Oh.. SNAP!!!!

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democrats regained the House in 2018 in part by running on a message that they would protect ObamaCare from the GOP’s repeal and replace efforts.

    In 2020, the issue of health care is tearing the party apart and has emerged as the central animating issue dividing centrist Democrats from liberal progressives.

    Whatta difference 2 years make, eh??

    In 2018 Democrats ran on the platform of protecting Americans' health care plans..

    In 2020 Democrats are running on the platform of throwing all Americans OFF their health care plans!!


    You can't make this stuff up!! :D

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Mainstream Democrats say the astronomical cost of Medicare for All would bankrupt the government and warn that taking away people’s current plans is a surefire election loser.

    Yep, yep, yep..

    And yet, people here STILL think that throwing all Americans off their health plans will win them the election!!!

    It's crazy!!!

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I can talk to those white women in the suburbs that voted for Trump and explain to them what white privilege actually is, that when their son is walking down a street with a bag of M&Ms in his pocket, wearing a hoodie, his whiteness is what protects him from not being shot,”

    And, once again, I am forced to explain to Gillibrand about FACTS and reality..

    Martin wasn't shot because of the color of his skin. He was shot because he attacked and tried to kill a fellow human being..

    He was killed because he brought his fists to a gun fight...

    And this world is a better place without Trayvon Martin in it. Who knows how many lives George Zimmerman saved that night...

    The people who always point to the color of one's skin are the real racists here..

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    “There are people right now in prison for life for drug offenses because you stood up and used that “tough on crime” phony rhetoric that got a lot of people elected,” Booker told Biden.

    And, if those people hadn't committed the crime, they WOULDN'T be in prison for life for drug offenses..

    Which is bullshit..

    NO ONE gets sent to prison for life SOLELY for drug offenses....

    It's usually what went along with those drug offenses.. Murder, rape, robbery, etc etc..

    It's as simple now as it was back then..

    If you don't want to do the time, don't do the crime..


  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who’s Using Baltimore?

    The truth behind President Trump’s recent tweets about Baltimore became crystal clear the moment Al Sharpton got involved and the media echoed “racism.” It’s all just another race-hustling con game from the masters of exploiting fake grievances.

    Yep.. The scumbags who scream RACIST!! the loudest and most often are the real racists...

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    When the president riffed on Representative Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) and his failure to help his constituents in West Baltimore—home to some of the most blighted ghettos in America—every liberal journalist in the country jumped to see who could be the first among those outraged by Donald Trump’s supposed “racism.”

    The winner, undoubtedly, was CNN’s Victor Blackwell—who went full “Oscar clip” and pathetically choked back tears while describing the tweets on national television.

    It’s Sharpton’s shameless participation, however, that really pulls the curtain down on the whole farce. As the president aptly pointed out Monday morning, Sharpton basically pioneered this race-hustle game.

    Yep... Sharpton is a master of the Racist Con...

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sharpton has made a career out of promoting hoax hate crimes—most notably the unbelievably harmful lie about New York police officers raping black teenager Tawana Brawley. Sharpton also incited poor black New Yorkers to attack Jews in “Hymietown,” and regularly supports fake accusations of racism against the heads of companies and politicians until they pay up—the “shakedown,” as they call it in New York.

    Nothing has changed. That’s exactly what Sharpton is doing now. The only difference is that, with President Trump in the White House, every liberal journalist wants in on the action.

    None of the people slamming the President are actually looking for “justice” or are genuinely concerned about racism. They’re just looking to score political points.

    Exactly... No one with more than 2 brain cells together honestly believes that President Trump's factual statements about Baltimore are racist...

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    The media didn’t bat an eye when Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) described parts of Baltimore by saying, “You would think that you were in a Third World country.” They didn’t care when Baltimore’s own disgraced Democrat mayor, Catherine Pugh, complained about the same infestation of rats and dead animals that the President mentioned in his tweet.

    “Oh, my God, you can smell the dead animals,” Pugh said during an unguarded walk through part of Cummings’s district last year. “What the hell? We should just take all this [expletive] down.”

    Nor did they call out President Barack Obama when he, in a much more formal setting than a silly Twitter battle, used the phrase, “crime-infested,” to describe Democrat-controlled cities such as Baltimore. Now that President Trump has used it, however, that phrase has the entire left-wing media up in arms, absurdly accusing the President of equating black people to an “infestation.”

    The difference isn’t the language. It’s that, just like Sharpton, the Democrats know their marks for a shakedown—or at least they think they do.

    Democrats have used the SAME words and phrases to describe Baltimore...

    Yet, SOMEHOW, when President Trump uses them, ALL OF THE SUDDEN, it's racist..

    I am dead serious when I ask, how can ANYONE who has more than 2 brain cells to rub together buy into this lame and obvious bullshit??

    {chirrrrrpppppppp} {{cccchhhhiiiiirrrrrpppppp}}

    Yea.. That's what I figgered...

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    They would not, however, keep using the same tactics that led to Baltimore’s latest, horrific murder wave—a crime spree that started exactly the moment Black Lives Matter used Sharpton’s signature shakedown tactics to accuse the city’s police of racism after a drug dealer died in police custody.

    Luckily, President Trump is wise to this game. He was a prominent businessman in New York City throughout Al Sharpton’s heyday. He knows this race-hustling game, and he knows that it never pays to back down to a notorious con man.

    Once again, ONLY Black Lives Matter are at the forefront of the race hustling and race extortion racket...

    tis sad, tis true. tis true tis sad

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in NON Debate news...

    James Comey's next reckoning is imminent — this time for leaking

    Comey's come-uppance is nigh.... :D

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Justice Department’s chief watchdog is preparing a damning report on James Comey’s conduct in his final days as FBI director that likely will conclude he leaked classified information and showed a lack of candor after his own agency began looking into his feud with President Trump over the Russia probe.

    Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz’s team referred Comey for possible prosecution under the classified information protection laws.

    Love to see Comey made ta do the perp walk.. :D

  63. [63] 
    Michale wrote:

    But Comey and others inside the FBI and the DOJ during his tenure still face legal jeopardy in ongoing probes by the IG and Barr-appointed special prosecutor John Durham. Those investigations are focused on the origins of the Russia investigation that included a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant targeting the Trump campaign at the end of the 2016 election, the source said.

    Heads are going to roll.. DEMOCRAT heads..

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:

    But the IG report, at least, reaffirms what has become painfully clear to Americans the past two years: Comey entered the FBI chief’s job with a reputation for excellence but ran a bureau that suffered from ineptitude, political shenanigans, leaking and significant human failings, all of which sharply contrast with the morality lectures he’s become famous for frequently offering since he was fired.

    In short.. Comey's a hypocrite...

    Color me shocked... :eyeroll:

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    well, apparently... I own the morning.. :D

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    Joe Biden Gave Out A Bizarre Website At The Debate And People Were Very Confused
    "is he running for president of space?"

    Poor Joe... :(

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    MSNBC on Tuesday night donated 12 minutes of air time to far-left filmmaker Michael Moore as the director demanded that Democrats nominate a very liberal nominee or risk losing. Of that time, six and a half minutes came totally uninterrupted as host Brian Williams just let Moore go on and on.

    As for a strategy, he declared, “Let's get out the Democratic base of young people, women, and people of color.” Moore warned Democrats: “The worst thing to do is to moderate, to go to the center, and to think that's how we're going to win. This is how we're going to lose.”

    Going to the center is the ONLY way that Democrat MIGHT have a chance..

    Going far Left will lose Independents and NPAs, not to mention Trump voters....

    On the other hand... Going to the center will lose the progressives...


  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    I STILL find it amazing how Democrats can be manuevered constantly into a LOSE-LOSE situation...

    It boggles the mind... :D

    All President Trump needs to do is hold his base (which he can do effortlessly) and then let the Hysterical Left Wingery drive all the Independents and NPAs into the Trump camp...

    RESULT: President Trump landslide re-election :D

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's funny...

    Dressed as she was, I expected Tulsi Gabbard to start belting out Martina McBride's WHERE WOULD YOU BE


  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, for those of you who claim that beating Trump is the priority, that all those who support the losing primary candidates will flock to the nominee...???

    Ya'all said the SAME thing in 2016....

    And yet, it's a bona-fide FACT (at least according to ya'all) that Sanders supporters didn't vote for Hillary and that's why (again, according to ya'all) Trump won..

    So, why is it not possible that the same thing that happened in 2016 will happen again in 2020.??

    Because you don't wish it to happen..

    And ya'all's mentality is that, whatever you wish, is your reality... :eyeroll:

    I miss having SERIOUS fact-filled discussions here..

    We haven't had but a few (Still trying to watch PULP FICTION, JL) of those in the last 3 years...

    Sad, because in the beginning of Weigantia, that was ALL we had...

    Ahh, the good old days..

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    “You can't have it both ways,” Booker jeered. “You invoke President Obama more than anybody in this campaign. You can't do it when it's convenient and dodge it when it's not.”

    So much for the myth that Demcorats don't do personal attacks..


  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden opened the night with a wink and a smile: “Go easy on me, kid.”

    The remark, directed toward Sen. Harris, was picked up on a hot mic and, whether intentional or not, it put on display the friendly charm of the former vice president even as some on the left criticized it as patronizing.

    I didn't watch the debate. Past my bed time..

    Did Joe Biden sniff her hair??? :D

  73. [73] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW- Appreciate you detailed summary.


    With regard to watching or listening or reading the COMPLETE Second Democratic Presidential Debates I might as well be living in North Korea. I don't subscribe to cable TV. I don't think much of CNN. I have suffered from Wolf Blitzer Aversion since the First Gulf War.

    Anybody know where I can download a complete podcast of the last 2 debates?

    Or a complete transcript of the last 2 debates?

    Or a complete video?

    This has never happened before. I hope it's an anomaly ... suspect it is another new normal.

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    In one of the fiercest face-offs of the night, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii appeared to knock Harris off her game with a direct attack on her criminal justice record.

    “Sen. Harris says she’s proud of her record as a prosecutor and that she’ll be a prosecutor president,” said Gabbard, a long shot for the nomination. “But I’m deeply concerned about this record.”

    Gabbard said Harris put more than 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations, “then laughed when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.”

    The four-term congresswoman then plainly cited several other parts of Harris’ record as California attorney general that caused her great concern:

    “She blocked evidence that would have freed an innocent man from death row until the courts forced her to do so. She kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California, and she fought to keep the cash bail system in place that impacts poor people in the worst kind of way.”

    Clearly irritated, Harris began shaking her head, but she never specifically corrected any of part of Gabbard’s attack lines.

    Instead she tried to belittle her accuser, a combat veteran who served in Iraq, by casting her as a run-of-the-mill politician who gives “fancy speeches” and isn’t familiar with the rigors of serving as a state prosecutor and the heavy decision-making that entails.

    :D Looks like Harris is not the end all be all progressive that some here have made her out to be..

    "Well, well, well.. Apparently the driven snow has a few tire tracks thru it.."
    -Joyce DeWitt, THREES COMPANY

    But, Harris checks 2 boxes that are ultimately the most important to Democrats.

    She is a woman and she is black...

    That's why I am predicting she will be the nominee. SOLELY on the basis of her being a black woman..

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I am proud of that work,” Harris said. “I am proud of making a decision, not just give fancy speeches or be in a legislative body and give speeches on a floor but actually doing the work of being in the position to use the power that I had to reform a system that is badly in need of reform.”

    Gabbard made no apologies and quickly shot back.

    “When you were in a position to make a difference and an impact in these people’s lives, you did not,” Gabbard said. “And worse — in the case of those on death row — innocent people? You actually blocked evidence that would have freed them.”

    Oh..... SNAP....

    Harris just got bitch-slapped on national TV!!

    "Asshole??? I'm not the one who just got butt-fucked on national TV!!"
    -John McClane


  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Just to clarify,” CNN’s Danna Bash followed up, “would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration?”

    “No. We would work it out,” he responded. “We would make sure it’s eliminated, and no more subsidies for either one of those, any fossil fuel.”

    Joe Biden just lost the election...

    He is going to eliminate cars, planes, motorcycles anything and everything that requires fossil fuels..

    In short, Biden just promised to eliminate 81% of the energy this country needs to survive..

    Yea... There won't be ANY American on the planet who will vote for such a plan...

    Joe Biden just eliminated himself as a viable Presidential Candidate..

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    Forgot - my favorite Kirsten Gillibrand line: the first thing she'd do as potus would be to "clorox the oval office".

    Maybe Gillibrand could show us exactly HOW she would do that by cleaning up New York first...


  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Just to clarify,” CNN’s Danna Bash followed up, “would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration?”

    “No. We would work it out,” he responded. “We would make sure it’s eliminated, and no more subsidies for either one of those, any fossil fuel.”

    Congrats, Joe... You just eliminated 96% of EVERYTHING America has...

    Here is a VERY small list of everything in the world today that uses or needs fossil fuels:

    Solvents Diesel Motor Oil Bearing Grease Ink Floor Wax Ballpoint Pens Football Cleats
    Upholstery Sweaters Boats Insecticides
    Bicycle Tires Sports Car Bodies Nail Polish Fishing Lures
    Dresses Tires Golf Bags Perfumes
    Cassettes Dishwasher Tool Boxes Shoe Polish
    Motorcycle Helmet Caulking Petroleum Jelly Transparent Tape
    CD Player Faucet Washers Antiseptics Clothesline
    Curtains Food Preservatives Basketballs Soap
    Vitamin Capsules Antihistamines Purses Shoes
    Dashboards Cortisone Deodorant Footballs
    Putty Dyes Panty Hose Refrigerant
    Percolators Life Jackets Rubbing Alcohol Linings
    Skis TV Cabinets Shag Rugs Electrician's Tape
    Tool Racks Car Battery Cases Epoxy Paint
    Mops Slacks Insect Repellent Oil Filters
    Umbrellas Yarn Fertilizers Hair Coloring
    Roofing Toilet Seats Fishing Rods Lipstick
    Denture Adhesive Linoleum Ice Cube Trays Synthetic Rubber
    Speakers Plastic Wood Electric Blankets Glycerin
    Tennis Rackets Rubber Cement Fishing Boots Dice
    Nylon Rope Candles Trash Bags House Paint
    Water Pipes Hand Lotion Roller Skates Surf Boards
    Shampoo Wheels Paint Rollers Shower Curtains
    Guitar Strings Luggage Aspirin Safety Glasses
    Antifreeze Football Helmets Awnings Eyeglasses
    Clothes Toothbrushes Ice Chests Footballs
    Combs CD's Paint Brushes Detergents
    Vaporizers Balloons Sun Glasses Tents
    Heart Valves Crayons Parachutes Telephones
    Enamel Pillows Dishes Cameras
    Anesthetics Artificial Turf Artificial limbs Bandages
    Dentures Model Cars Folding Doors Hair Curlers
    Cold cream Movie film Soft Contact lenses Drinking Cups
    Fan Belts Car Enamel Shaving Cream Ammonia
    Refrigerators Golf Balls Toothpaste Gasoline
    Ink Dishwashing liquids Paint brushes Telephones
    Toys Unbreakable dishes Insecticides Antiseptics
    Dolls Car sound insulation Fishing lures Deodorant
    Tires Motorcycle helmets Linoleum Sweaters
    Tents Refrigerator linings Paint rollers Floor wax
    Shoes Electrician's tape Plastic wood Model cars
    Glue Roller-skate wheels Trash bags Soap dishes
    Skis Permanent press clothes Hand lotion Clothesline
    Dyes Soft contact lenses Shampoo Panty hose
    Cameras Food preservatives Fishing rods Oil filters
    Combs Transparent tape Anesthetics Upholstery
    Dice Disposable diapers TV cabinets Cassettes
    Mops Sports car bodies Salad bowls House paint
    Purses Electric blankets Awnings Ammonia
    Dresses Car battery cases Safety glass Hair curlers
    Pajamas Synthetic rubber VCR tapes Eyeglasses
    Pillows Vitamin capsules Movie film Ice chests
    Candles Rubbing alcohol Loudspeakers Ice buckets
    Boats Ice cube trays Credit cards Fertilizers
    Crayons Insect repellent Water pipes Toilet seats
    Caulking Roofing shingles Fishing boots Life jackets
    Balloons Shower curtains Garden hose Golf balls
    Curtains Plywood adhesive Umbrellas Detergents
    Milk jugs Beach umbrellas Rubber cement Sun glasses
    Putty Faucet washers Cold cream Bandages
    Tool racks Antihistamines Hair coloring Nail polish
    Slacks Drinking cups Guitar strings False teeth
    Yarn Petroleum jelly Toothpaste Golf bags
    Roofing Tennis rackets Toothbrushes Perfume
    Luggage Wire insulation Folding doors Shoe polish
    Fan belts Ballpoint pens Shower doors Cortisone
    Carpeting Artificial turf Heart valves LP records
    Lipstick Artificial limbs Hearing aids Vaporizers
    Aspirin Shaving cream Wading pools Parachutes

    On what PLANET, in what UNIVERSE would ANY American want to vote for a President that wants to eliminate ALL that plus THOUSANDS more???

    IT.... WON'T.... HAPPEN.....

  79. [79] 
    Kick wrote:
  80. [80] 
    neilm wrote:

    Stupidity plus cut/paste - well at least Michale is wasting his time here rather than somewhere where anybody might be naive enough to read any of the posts. It is like the 5 seconds on Youtube as you scroll down before the "Skip Ad" appears :)

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another point to keep in mind..

    If the nominee ISN'T Biden... If the nominee is one of those Infanticide/Free HealthCare For Crimmigrants/Throw Americans Off Their HealthCare/Open Borders morons??

    You can bet that Schultz will mount a third Party bid.. Maybe even Bloomberg...

    Heads Trump Wins, Tails Democrats Lose


  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stupidity plus cut/paste - well at least Michale is wasting his time here rather than somewhere where anybody might be naive enough to read any of the posts. It is like the 5 seconds on Youtube as you scroll down before the "Skip Ad" appears :)

    Still living rent free in yer head, eh Neal?? :D

    What you call "stupid" is nothing but the facts... The FACTS that you can't counter.. :D

    Yer PWNed, Neal.. :D

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's why I own the mornings and the afternoons and early evenings here.. :D

    Yer lucky if you get a few hours at night while I am sleeping.. :D

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Paula,

    Forgot - my favorite Kirsten Gillibrand line: the first thing she'd do as potus would be to "clorox the oval office".

    You DO realize that, when you use bleach.....

    It takes colored thingk and make them WHITER, right???

    You DO realize that, right???


    Congrats Paula...

    You just applauded a Dumbocrat who has promised to get rid of all the colored things and make it all WHITE!!!


  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    So, we have a Democrat who is going to make the Oval Office whiter and our very own Paula applauds her for it..

    My gods, you can't make this stuff up!!! :D

    It's HILARIOUS....

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    It keeps getting better and better!!

    If Gillibrand win's the Presidency, her first official act as President Of The United States..



  87. [87] 
    dsws wrote:

    Biden is the nominee, and Trump has a second term.

    We want a winner more than we want a candidate who can articulate a vision that would actually get anyone to bother showing up on election day. The lesson we learned from losing with Hillary is that this time we should lose with an old white guy who gropes women and brags about how well he gets along with overt segregationists.

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    HOLY SHIT!!!!!!


    I have really missed ya!!! Honestly.. These current crop of hysterical Dumbocrats just don't measure up to you..

    There are some holdovers from the good old days.. NYPOET and LIZ...

    But the rest?? Jeeesh.... :eyeroll:

    Biden is the nominee, and Trump has a second term.

    Yep.. When yer righ.... factually accurate, yer factually accurate.... :D

    Good ta see ya!!! :D

    That makes my day.. Thank you...

  89. [89] 
    Michale wrote:
    Introducing the First Woman President Of The United States


    Oh boy I am gonna have fun with this one all day!!! :D

  90. [90] 
    lharvey16 wrote:

    neilm (80)

    There's a good podcast of Al Franken talking to Howard Fineman about Moscow Mitch. It's pointed out that McConnell's personality is such that he's fine with being hated because he interprets that as fear and respect. He just doesn't want to be ignored.
    The analogy to this blog should be obvious. Our scroll monster fears being ignored. In Gremlin terms, remember, "don't get him wet, don't feed him after midnight, and keep him away from direct sunlight." ;)

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:


    We want a winner more than we want a candidate who can articulate a vision that would actually get anyone to bother showing up on election day.

    Who doesn't want a winner? But screw election day, I would wait in a long line on the first day of early voting and cast a ballot for a Q-tip versus the human shit stain currently in office.

    Those who value democracy will do likewise.

    The lesson we learned from losing with Hillary is that this time we should lose with an old white guy who gropes women and brags about how well he gets along with overt segregationists.

    Oh, I totally disagree with your description, but if an old while guy who gropes women and is an overt segregationist isn't to your liking, then I suggest you vote him out of office.

    If you can't stomach the Democratic nominee, then might I suggest you cast a vote for Democracy? Just saying. :)

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Kid,

    The analogy to this blog should be obvious. Our scroll monster fears being ignored. In Gremlin terms, remember, "don't get him wet, don't feed him after midnight, and keep him away from direct sunlight." ;)

    You DO realize that just by talking about me, you are proving I am residing in your head..

    If I wasn't always on the mark, you could easily ignore me..

    The FACT that you can't ignore me proves how factually accurate I am... :D

    But since yer here, lemme ask ya..

    How do you feel about Gillibrand's first official act is to get rid of coloreds and make the Oval Office whiter...

    Do you, as Paula does, like that idea???

    Silence Gives Assent.. :D


  93. [93] 
    neilm wrote:

    lh [90]

    You are right - don't feed the troll folks.

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    There's a good podcast of Al Franken talking to Howard Fineman about Moscow Mitch.

    Al Fraken?? Was that he guy who quit in disgraced because he was groping women???

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    You are right - don't feed the troll folks.

    And yet, here you are.. Doing EXACTLY that!!!


    So, Neal.. How do YOU feel about Gillibrand wanting to get rid of coloreds and make the Oval Office whiter??

    Paula loves that idea...


  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    AOC's once-radical campaign agenda now embraced by 2020 Democrats

    This is why Democrats will lose in 2020..

    Because a bartender, Occasional Cortex, is calling the shots...

  97. [97] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, you can take the ho off of HBO....

    Lena Dunham awkwardly tries to kiss Brad Pitt at London premiere of 'Once Upon a Time ... in Hollywood'

    Lena Dunham??

    Was that the Dumbocrat who confessed to sexually assaulting her baby sister??

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Didn't hear much about the Gilroy shooting in last night's debate...

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted that Democrats would ignore the mass shooting that didn't fit their agenda??

    Oh... Wait.. :D

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of trolling..

    California’s pathetic attempt to troll Trump

    Why let a little thing like the US Constitution get in the way of a dig at President Trump? That’s the attitude of the Democrats who run the Golden State.

    California and Pathetic... Synonymous...

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    No joke: California Gov. Gavin Newsom just signed a law Tuesday that aims to bar Trump’s name from the state’s primary ballot unless he releases his tax returns for the past five years, which Trump refuses to. Several other states, including New York and New Jersey, have eyed similar bills.

    Dems pushing such laws see them as a win-win: If the president releases his returns, they can mine them for evidence, however weak, to justify new witch hunts and calls for impeachment. If not, they keep him off the ballot, harming his re-election chances.

    Except that it’s almost surely unconstitutional — as then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a lifelong Democrat, noted when he vetoed a similar bill in 2017: “A qualified candidate’s ability to appear on the ballot is fundamental” to democracy, he noted. Banning candidates is what nations like Russia and Iran do.

    Well, Dumbocrats like to be like Russia and Iran.. So it fits... :eyeroll:

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Constitution spells out requirements — a minimum age (35), US citizenship and 14 years of US residency — for presidents. And the Supreme Court has ruled, regarding congressional term limits, that states can’t set requirements for federal ballots beyond what’s in the Constitution.

    So all California has done is set up Trump for yet another victory — this time, in court.

    Yep.. Another court victory for President Trump...

    Dumbocrats just LOVE to lose and lose and lose and lose.. :D

  102. [102] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Chinese seem to have decided that:

    i/ their economic slowdown has leveled out
    ii/ it was probably going to happen anyway
    iii/ their major lever over their economy is their internal investment spigot, which they can dial up and down as they need
    iv/ Trump is a useful idiot and the trade war is giving them an external enemy who is mouthing off and taking the blame

    We can see this in their approach to the latest round of talks - they were getting worried earlier this year, but the mitigation policies they have put in place are working well enough for them to hold out until late next year (a significant date).

    Trump is going to have to capitulate (he'll call it an amazing win of course) since Powell isn't playing along and the business cycle (which precedes the customer sentiment cycle) has turned down already.

    Mark Zandi (who I once shared a stage with at an event in the NYSE - trumpet blowing alert) paints two outcomes:

    "Something has got to change. Either consumers hold tough and cheer up businesses and they resume investing again, or businesses lose faith and cause consumers to pack it in, and we go into recession."

    The ball is in Trump's court and the Chinese know it. There are many good reasons to re-evaluate our business relationship with China, but unfortunately we have a moron blundering around who is likely to close the door on a productive outcome.

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of the courts..

    Judge dismisses DNC hacking lawsuit against Trump team, says claims 'entirely divorced from the facts'

    "Entirely divorced from the facts"

    Hay! That describes the entirety of the Democrat Party and almost everyone here...


  104. [104] 
    Michale wrote:

    The ball is in Trump's court and the Chinese know it. There are many good reasons to re-evaluate our business relationship with China, but unfortunately we have a moron blundering around who is likely to close the door on a productive outcome.

    And yet, things are really REALLY good.. :D

    Yunno, yer prediction incompetence is only matched by your economic incompetence.

    You yourself have stated how awesome President Trump has been for your portfolio...

    Once again, you get tripped up by yer own bullshit. :D

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    But, getting back to the courts..

    A federal judge in frank terms Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) against key members of the Trump campaign and WikiLeaks over hacked DNC documents, saying they "did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place" and therefore bore no legal liability for disseminating the information.

    The ruling came as Democrats increasingly have sought to tie the Trump team to illegal activity in Russia, in spite of former Special Counsel Robert Mueller's findings that the campaign in fact refused multiple offers by Russians to involve them in hacking and disinformation efforts.

    Once again, the courts bitch slap the Dumbocrats all over the place....


  106. [106] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald J. Trump
    · Jul 30, 2019
    Wow! A federal Judge in the Southern District of N.Y. completely dismissed a lawsuit brought by the Democratic National Committee against our historic 2016 campaign for President. The Judge said the DNC case was “entirely divorced” from the facts, yet another total & complete....

    Donald J. Trump
    ....vindication & exoneration from the Russian, WikiLeaks and every other form of HOAX perpetrated by the DNC, Radical Democrats and others. This is really big “stuff” especially coming from a highly respected judge who was appointed by President Clinton. The Witch Hunt Ends!

    You almost have to feel SORRY for the Democrats.. They are losing every which way but loose.. :D

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    Com'on Neil!!!

    Try and keep up!!! :D

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    The suit did not allege that the stolen materials were false or defamatory but rather sought to hold the Trump team and other defendants liable for the theft of the DNC's information under various Virginia and federal statutes, including the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, Wiretap Act, Stored Communications Act, Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and laws protecting trade secrets.

    However the judge wrote in his 81-page opinion Tuesday that the DNC's argument was "entirely divorced" from the factual record in the case.

    Get that???

    "ENTIRELY DIVORCED" from the facts in the case.. :D

    How many times do Democrats have to get slapped down because they realize that they are only doing themselves harm.???

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    The DNC first filed its suit in April 2018, and the defendants responded that the First Amendment legally protected the dissemination of stolen materials.

    "In short, the DNC raises a number of connections and communications between the defendants and with people loosely connected to the Russian Federation, but at no point does the DNC allege any facts ... to show that any of the defendants -- other than the Russian Federation -- participated in the theft of the DNC's information," the judge said.

    "Nor does the DNC allege that the defendants ever agreed to help the Russian Federation steal the DNC's documents," he added.

    The DNC claimed the defendants illegally compromised their trade secrets contained in some of the stolen documents -- including donor lists and strategies. But, the judge said, any such claim to trade secrecy was lost when the documents became public in the first place, and in any event, the newsworthiness of the matter trumped the trade secrecy issue.

    No matter how many times the Democrats try to skin this cat...

    It just won't fly... :D

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    And THIS is the BIG one..

    {CRS.. Yer gonna love this.. :D}

    But, even if the Russians had provided the hacked documents to the Trump team directly, the judge wrote, it would not be criminal for the campaign to then publish those documents, as long as they did not contribute to the hacking itself. Similarly, the judge said, it is not criminal to merely solicit or "welcome" stolen documents.


    Hear that????

    That's the AIR going out of the Democrats and their entire Russian Collusion case...... :D

    Once again..

    *I* have facts???

    Ya'all have hysterical bullshit... :D

  111. [111] 
    TheStig wrote:


    Thanks, the streaming link doesn't work, but the transcript does. I actually prefer the transcript - reading takes much less time than listening.


    don't feed, amen to that.


    Zandy quote. Does "consumers hold tough" mean that consumers will continue to buy the same quantities of consumer goods at higher prices? That seems unlikely to me, I think they'll defer purchase and/or purchase cheaper models. Unless retailers suck it in and accept lower profits to keep sales up. I guess that's the "businesses lose faith" part of the quote.

    I'm not sure Trump is paying any attention to reality any more. Most of his waking hours seem devoted to Fox News, rants and golf.

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, people.. Gonna take a break..

    I'll give ya'all a few to catch up... :D

    Don't say I never do anything for ya... :D

  113. [113] 
    neilm wrote:

    Does "consumers hold tough" mean that consumers will continue to buy the same quantities of consumer goods at higher prices?

    I think he means that consumers have the confidence to keep borrowing (HeLOCs, Credit Cards, Auto Loans, etc.) to keep consumer spending going.

    We are in a phase where consumer confidence is high - people feel good about the economy (this is Trump's biggest asset frankly) and so are willing to risk purchasing large ticket items.

    However auto sales have slowed considerably, shifts at plants are being cut, and discounting is getting more aggressive.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    people feel good about the economy (this is Trump's biggest asset frankly)

    Holy shit, Neil!!!

    First you praise President Trump and slap down Odumbo over drug prices!!!

    Now you are conceding that President Trump deserves chops for the economy!!!!

    I mean, I always knew you would turn into a Trump supporter..

    I just didn't think it would happen this soon.....


    "Welcome to the party, Pal!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD


  115. [115] 
    Paula wrote:

    Here is a defense of Kamala Harris re: Gabbard's accusation that she "withheld evidence that would have exonerated a man on death row".

    The defender is assuming Gabbard was referring to a man named Kevin Cooper.

  116. [116] 
    Paula wrote:

    Here Kamala Harris explains the distinction that was "lost" in last night's debate when, I think it was JB, said people would lose their employer-provided insurance under her plan.

    What she basically says is that private insurers would be able to offer policies (if they meet standards) but they would be offered to people directly, not through their employers. I think that's an important difference and one I applaud. She wants to decouple healthcare from jobs. I've supported that for a long time. It would free people from having to keep jobs they don't like purely to hang onto insurance and it would free companies from having that expense.

    What we'll no doubt soon find out is that a lot of people will somehow think that getting insurance through a job makes that insurance somehow superior to getting the same policy through something like the ACA Exchanges.

    I don't think people should have to select "policies" at all but I bow to the fact that a big chunk of the public can't stomach the idea of Single Payer, at least not yet.

  117. [117] 
    Kick wrote:

    House incumbents who have announced their retirement from public office:


    AL-02 Martha Roby
    GA-07 Rob Woodall
    IN-05 Susan Brooks
    MI-10 Paul Mitchell
    TX-11 Mike Conaway
    TX-22 Pete Olson
    UT-01 Rob Bishop

    NY-15 Jose Serrano
    IA-02 Dave Loebsack


    Retirements by incumbents generally signal the Party lawmakers believe will control the House.

  118. [118] 
    Paula wrote:

    Of note: FBI memo warns QAnon poses potential terror threat: report

    An FBI document, first reported by Yahoo News, identifies conspiracy theories as potential domestic terrorism threats, specifically identifying QAnon, a group that believes there is a "deep state" working against President Trump, in the memo.

    The FBI specifically points to QAnon and Pizzagate, a conspiracy theory that claims Hillary Clinton and other top Democratic figures are running a child sex-trafficking ring beneath a pizza shop in Washington, D.C., as examples of groups whose messages could lead to “violent acts.”

    “The FBI assesses these conspiracy theories very likely will emerge, spread, and evolve in the modern information marketplace, occasionally driving both groups and individual extremists to carry out criminal or violent acts,” the document, dated May 30, reads.

  119. [119] 
    Kick wrote:

    Qualifications for Third Debate
    September 12, Houston, TX

    * At least 2% in four national DNC-approved polls
    * At least 130,000 unique donors

    Qualifying for Third Debate(s)

    * Joe Biden
    * Cory Booker
    * Pete Buttigieg
    * Kamala Harris
    * Beto O’Rourke
    * Bernie Sanders
    * Elizabeth Warren

    Meeting the polling but not donor requirement:
    * Amy Klobuchar

    Meeting the donor but not polling requirement:
    * Julián Castro
    * Andrew Yang


    The fourth debate has the same requirements as the third, but candidates having additional time to qualify might actually mean there are more candidates who qualify.

  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    Here is a defense of Kamala Harris re: Gabbard's accusation that she "withheld evidence that would have exonerated a man on death row".

    There is no defense of Harris withholding evidence..

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of note: FBI memo warns QAnon poses potential terror threat: report

    Come talk to me when yer ready to acknowledge the Democrat AntiFa terrorist threat...

    :eyeroll: moron..

  122. [122] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:


    Actually, all the air went out of the retards' "collusion delusion" balloon quite some time ago, but of course, the morons are not about to ever admit publically that they were full of shit all along for 3 full yrs. The fact that they've shut up about it is as close as you're ever gonna get to an admission of terminal stupidity on their part.

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    Actually, all the air went out of the retards' "collusion delusion" balloon quite some time ago, but of course, the morons are not about to ever admit publically that they were full of shit all along for 3 full yrs. The fact that they've shut up about it is as close as you're ever gonna get to an admission of terminal stupidity on their part.

    Yea, I know...

    I just find it so hilarious that after all their bloviations and all their hysterical bullshit claims, a federal judge comes along and says:

    it would not be criminal for the campaign to then publish those documents, as long as they did not contribute to the hacking itself. Similarly, the judge said, it is not criminal to merely solicit or "welcome" stolen documents.

    ... and TOTALLY decimates ALL of their hysterical bullshit claims!!!

    I dunno about you, but I find that totally, unequivocally and 1000% hilarious!!! :D

    I am gonna be laughing about that for at least a week.. :D

  124. [124] 
    Michale wrote:

    DNC attempts to block Andrew Yang from future debates with technicalities

    And once again, the DNC is putting their thumb on the Primary scales.. The DNC only wants "approved" candidates to participate in the debates..

    Apparently, the DNC does not like Americans who are of asian descent to participate..

  125. [125] 
    Michale wrote:

    “We did it #YangGang!” Yang posted to Twitter. “As of today, we are officially the 8th candidate to qualify for the fall debates. We are in this for the long haul. Thank you all for your support.”

    The post featured a short clip of a Yang cartoon dancing, surrounded by the logos for the four qualifying polls, from NBC/Wall Street Journal, Quinnipiac University Poll, Fox News, and NBC/SurveyMonkey.

    "Oh crap!!!!" Says the DNC!!! We can't have an American of Asian descent in our debates!!!

    Shortly after the post, DNC senior advisor Mary Beth Cahill emailed the candidates to inform them only one of the two NBC sponsored polls could be used to qualify, effectively sidelining the Yang Gang for now, The Hill reports.

    Cahill wrote “candidates may only count one NBC-sponsored national poll released during the current qualification period,” alleging the reason is “to avoid scenarios in which a single poll sponsor or media outlet is responsible for qualifying a candidate through multiple sets of results in the same geography.”

    Same old bigoted and racist DNC... :eyeroll:

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Man says he was beaten in NYC for wearing MAGA hat

    Ahhh yes.. The "tolerance" of the Democrat Party on full display..

    Funny how no one condemns these attacks...

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democratic Party Is Culling the Field Too Soon

    Candidates should be focusing on retail politicking in Iowa and New Hampshire. Instead, they're wasting money trying to meet arbitrary debate requirements.

    Same old DNC....

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    Today's Memorandum Opinion in United States v. Roger Stone

    Summary: Loser, loser, stupid loser

    Notable Loss: Separation of Powers Argument

    There are several problems with this attack on the prosecution. First of all, Roger Stone is not the President of the United States. So it is not clear how any prohibition against investigating the chief executive would apply him. ~ Judge Jackson

    Roger Stone... next in a long line of Trump Trash currently residing in or headed to prison unless he swings a deal.

    More to come. :)

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    Roger Stone... next in a long line of Trump Trash currently residing in or headed to prison unless he swings a deal.

    Except Stone has nothing to do with Trump...


    "But like a poor marksmen, you ALWAYS miss the taget!!"
    -Admiral James T. Kirk


    So, what's yer take on Gillibrand wanting to get rid of coloreds in the Oval Office and make it whiter??

    Paula LOVES the idea..



  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama allies fume as Dem candidates blast legacy to score points on Biden: 'Wrong and terrible'

    Awwwwm lookie here...

    Odumbo's minions are trying to protect Odumbo's legacy..

    Well, I guess, like throwing all Americans off their healthcare plans, Dumbocrats are also taking over the GOP talking point that Odumbo was a moron..


  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden – who served as a senior official on Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign and senior adviser in his administration – noted on Twitter that “the GOP didn't attack Reagan, they built him up for decades.”

    And she highlighted that “Dem Candidates who attack Obama are wrong and terrible. Obama wasn't perfect, but come on people, next to Trump, he kind of is. This is my outrage of the day.”

    Democrats are coming to recognize that Odumbo was a mess... And he frak'ed up big time..

    Not "Republican Talking Point" any longer.

    NOW it's a Democrat Talking Point..


    LOVE IT... :D

  132. [132] 
    Paula wrote:

    [128] Kick: Yeah, the Roger Stone decision was cool.

  133. [133] 
    neilm wrote:

    The Mueller Report keeps on kicking ass - Roger Stone is in deep doodoo.

    The best bit of the Mueller Report will be its impact in 2021 when Trump and his family get indicted.

  134. [134] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Mueller Report keeps on kicking ass - Roger Stone is in deep doodoo.

    Which has NOTHING to do with President Trump, the election or Russians.. :D

    The best bit of the Mueller Report will be its impact in 2021 when Trump and his family get indicted.

    "President Trump is going to be frog marched from the Oval Office!!"


    "The best bit of the Mueller Report will be its impact in 2021 when Trump and his family get indicted."



    Apparently, for Neil... Denial is NOT just a river in Egypt..

    Give it up, son.. You LOST...

    Again and again and again, you LOST...

    I can see you, 20 years from now, a senile old man, sitting in a nursing home where you got dumped and snickering and muttering, "Trump's gonna get his!! Any day now!! Trump's going down!!!"

    It's sad.. It really is sad that your hate has consumed you so much..

  135. [135] 
    neilm wrote:


    8/1/19: We look forward to continuing our positive dialogue with China on a comprehensive Trade Deal, and feel that the future between our two countries will be a very bright one!

    Things are going so well, in fact that ...

    8/1/19: U.S. will start, on September 1st, putting a small additional Tariff of 10% on the remaining 300 Billion Dollars of goods and products coming from China into our Country. This does not include the 250 Billion Dollars already Tariffed at 25%..

    What a bozo.

  136. [136] 
    Paula wrote:

    This is a nice little video from Senators' Tammy Baldwin & Tina Smith, using a bit of humor to introduce info about Climate Change's impact on the Great Lakes:

  137. [137] 
    Patrick wrote:

    neilm 135

    Speaking of bozo.

    Undecided Democratic Primary Voter: If Bozo The Clown Were A Democrat I'd Vote For Him Over Donald Trump

  138. [138] 
    neilm wrote:

    Paula [136]

    Very cute - we need to keep reminding Americans of the scientific realities.

  139. [139] 
    dsws wrote:

    Kick 91 --

    I'm going to vote against Biden in the primary, although it will be recorded as a vote for whoever is still running by that point, probably Bernie Sanders. And I will vote against Trump in the general, even though it will be recorded as a vote for Biden.

    Michael 101 --

    I haven't read most of your EULA-length stream of posts, for much the same reason that no one reads actual EULAs. But I noticed that one as it went by. The Constitution gives the state legislatures carte blanche as to how to choose electors. Precedent having to do with congressional elections doesn't apply.

  140. [140] 
    Kick wrote:


    I'm going to vote against Biden in the primary, although it will be recorded as a vote for whoever is still running by that point, probably Bernie Sanders. And I will vote against Trump in the general, even though it will be recorded as a vote for Biden.

    I hear you, but... who knows? It's still early and things change. You might well yet get to vote for someone you can stomach, and I might be the one holding my nose. ;)

    If the Democrats are smart this time around, I think they'd be wise to form a "tag team" to take out Trump where the majority of Americans will have someone they'll be happy to vote for that'll send the remainder of the Trump Trash and the Trump/Kushner crime families where they belong.

  141. [141] 
    Kick wrote:

    Another One Bites the Dust

    Wow. I did not even make it through a single day without having to update my list. Will Hurd has announced today that he will not seek reelection. Hurd almost lost his seat in the Blue Wave of 2018, and his opponent in 2018 is running again. TX-23 is ripe for the flipping, and that is one huge chunk of Texas.

    House incumbents who have announced their retirement from public office:


    AL-02 Martha Roby
    GA-07 Rob Woodall
    IN-05 Susan Brooks
    MI-10 Paul Mitchell
    TX-11 Mike Conaway
    TX-22 Pete Olson
    TX-23 Will Hurd
    UT-01 Rob Bishop


    IA-02 Dave Loebsack
    NY-15 Jose Serrano

    Retirements by incumbents generally signal the Party lawmakers believe will control the House; the insiders are predicting Blue.

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:


    Undecided Democratic Primary Voter: If Bozo The Clown Were A Democrat I'd Vote For Him Over Donald Trump

    Yea.. We know you Dumbocrats would vote for Hitler over Trump..

    That's just how you Dumbocrats roll..


  143. [143] 
    Michale wrote:

    Retirements by incumbents generally signal the Party lawmakers believe will control the House;

    Facts to support??

    HA.. Look who I'm asking for FACTS...

    Victoria... :eyeroll:

  144. [144] 
    Michale wrote:

    Very cute - we need to keep reminding Americans of the scientific realities.

    Your "scientific reality" is nothing but hysterical fear-mongering..

    Global Warming is the Russia Collusion Delusion of the "science" world..

  145. [145] 
    Michale wrote:


    But I noticed that one as it went by

    I know.. I am quite noticeable.. :D

    The Constitution gives the state legislatures carte blanche as to how to choose electors.

    I disagree..

    If that were true, a state could enact the requirement that a candidate must provide completely health records.. Or Birth Certificates... Or only be of a certain race... Or gender..

    The Constitution sets the requirements for being President.. States cannot amend the Constitution with additional requirements..

    President Trump will win another court case on this..

    This is fact..

    Good to see ya again.. Hope ya stick around..

    It's nice to have ANOTHER logical mind around here.. :D

  146. [146] 
    Michale wrote:


    If the Democrats are smart this time around,


    Now THAT's funny!!! :D

    will have someone they'll be happy to vote for

    I hear Hillary's not doing anything these days.. :D

Comments for this article are closed.