ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

My Snap Reactions To The Third Democratic Debate

[ Posted Thursday, September 12th, 2019 – 22:48 UTC ]

Finally, everyone on one stage! That was my reaction before the third 2020 Democratic presidential debate even began, because for the first time it's a one-night affair. Unfortunately, at least 11 candidates have already qualified for the next debate, with a few other candidates hovering on the brink of qualification, so it's looking like we're going to have to wait for the fifth debate to see all the frontrunners on the same stage together again.

Overall, I would like to address whichever network hosts the next debate, and make one simple plea: more ad breaks, please. The first such break didn't take place until roughly an hour and twenty minutes in, which is too long for those of us viewers who are guzzling caffeine to stay alert. Hmmph.

Also, I'd like to say I'm becoming less of a fan of the format of multiple debate hosts vying for question time with each other. I think these debates would flow a lot better with a single moderator, or perhaps a team of two (at the most). This isn't a direct criticism of ABC, but rather the whole modern debate format everyone seems to have adopted.

Moving on from technical nitpicking, I do think tonight's debate was the best by far. There was very little odor of desperation from the candidates on stage, which was a notable difference from the previous two debates. The candidates weren't striving so hard for that magic "breakout moment" since each of them had qualified to be in the top ten already. The level of flakiness on the stage was also a lot lower, as almost all of the candidates tonight are definitely ready for prime time. This was different than the previous two debates as well, and it was a welcome improvement.

Of course, there were plenty of subjects that didn't come up, but a debate can't go on forever, so that's going to be true of any such event. What did surprise me a bit was the absolute lack of questions about very current events, though. I thought for sure the candidates would be asked about whether they'd invite the Taliban to Camp David on the week of 9/11, for instance, but the moderator just glossed over this altogether. This debate could have happened a month ago, to put it a different way, since it had very little specific "up to the minute" discussion at all.

The moderators pretty much gave the candidates free rein to answer as long as they wished (something Joe Biden snarkily pointed out, towards the end, which was one of his most amusing moments). There were no verbal battles between moderator and candidate, the way there were in the first two debates. This made for a smoother evening, because such verbal tussles are pretty distracting.

Overall, I thought the night went well for just about everyone on stage. Nobody had a "face plant" sort of moment, although there were a few minor stumbles. There were several very heated back-and-forth moments, but everyone seemed to weather them fairly well. At one point at the very end, Joe Biden was interrupted by protesters inside the arena chanting incomprehensibly about something. Or maybe "incomprehensibly" is the wrong word -- the chants were simply impossible to make out, not that their issue was incomprehensible or anything. Later online reports said that they were chanting "three million deported" and that the protesters were wearing anti-ICE shirts. If this is true, they missed their moment by a mile, because Biden was actually asked about the 3 million deportations, much earlier in the night -- so why didn't the protest happen then, during his answer?

One odd format change was that ABC had announced that they weren't going to have closing statements, but then they de facto went ahead and did so anyway. The final question posed to the candidates was basically (when stripped of the verbiage) for each candidate to tell a biographical story about themselves -- which they likely would have done anyway. The wording of the question could have been something like: "Please describe how rough-hewn the walls were in the log cabin in which you were born," in fact. And that's not even that much of an overstatement. Almost all the candidates did a great job answering this softball, which really makes you wonder why ABC insisted on arranging it this way, instead of just giving each candidate a few minutes to make a closing statement.

Anyway, let's take a quick look at how everyone did, from lowest-polling right up to Joe Biden. As always, here's my standard caveat to these snap-reaction columns: I hastily jotted down my notes while watching, so some of these quotations may not be word-for-word perfect, but they all capture the heart of what was said.

 

Julián Castro

If anyone had the whiff of desperation about him, it was Castro. Well, Castro and Klobuchar, but we'll get to her in a moment.

Castro obviously planned to go after Biden in a big way tonight, and he did so not once but twice. The first dustup happened over healthcare reform, which was not only the first subject of the night but also perhaps the most contentious. The sparks flew early on between a number of candidates arguing both for and against Medicare For All or the public option. ABC probably did the right thing to put this subject first, because they got some compelling arguments right off the bat.

Castro didn't get a chance to weigh in until after Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders had a three-way free-for-all on the subject, but by the time they called on him Castro was ready to pounce. He ripped into Biden for his reform plan still leaving 10 million uninsured, and then said that unlike Biden's plan, his would automatically enroll people who needed it rather than having to opt in. Biden denied this, and said his plan would also automatically do the same thing, which led to a shouting match with Castro repeatedly yelling: "You just said 'buy-in' two minutes ago!"

Castro came off as a little too feisty, and when you look at the transcript, Biden did actually say his plan had automatic enrollment, so Castro may have been totally wrong on the facts as well. In the midst of the shouting match, Pete Buttigieg interjected: "This is why these debates are unwatchable," to which Castro testily responded: "It's called a Democratic primary."

Castro's second set-to with Biden happened right after the moderator tried to get Biden to answer for the 3 million deportations. Biden had a long-winded answer where he praised Barack Obama for all the good things he tried to do on immigration reform, but didn't actually address the question. The moderator tried again, to which Biden replied: "I'm the vice president of the United States." He probably meant "I was..." but his point was clear -- he simply wasn't in charge.

Castro spoke next, and hit Biden again (Biden's been called on this before) for taking credit for all the good things that happened under Obama while disavowing any responsibility for the bad things. It was a very timely point to make, and it forced Biden to answer back: "I stand with Obama for all eight years; good bad, and indifferent." Castro, unlike his first attempt, truly landed this punch, because he was calling Biden on exactly what Biden just tried to do.

Whether it'll do Castro any good or not with the voters is yet to be determined, but I doubt it's going to change many people's minds. Castro had perhaps his best moment of the night in his closing statement, where he told the story of quitting a job at a law firm to cast a vote against a golf course being built. This ended the night for Castro on a good (and principled) note.

 

Beto O'Rourke

Beto O'Rourke didn't drop any "F-bombs" tonight, which some were worried he'd do (he's been selling T-shirts with his new signature line: "This is fucked up!" on it). All around, he looked pretty comfortable, even though by any rights he should be about as desperate as Castro or Klobuchar by now.

O'Rourke really shone the brightest when talking about the El Paso shooting, which hit him very close to home. He was even praised by many of the other candidates during the segment on gun control, for his response to the tragedy. He spoke from the heart about Trump, starting with his opening statement, where he pointed out that Trump's "racism and violence" was what led to a shooter "inspired to kill by our president." He later stated, while talking about racism and his support for reparations: "We have a white supremacist in the White House."

His standout moment came when he was asked about mandatory buybacks for assault weapons, which O'Rourke strongly supports: "Hell yes, we're going to take away your AR-15s and AK-47s."

Beto didn't get nearly as much screen time as the other candidates, or at least it seemed that way. He turned in a respectable performance, but other than a few moments, it wasn't all that memorable.

 

Amy Klobuchar

If I had to choose who "lost" tonight's debate, I would have to go with either Amy Klobuchar or Kamala Harris. Both women seemed too scripted, in differing ways. Klobuchar has always seemed rather scripted in the debates, launching previously prepared soundbites that almost always fall flat on the floor. Maybe it's her stiff delivery of these lines, or maybe the lines themselves just aren't that good -- it's hard to tell. But either way, she's not doing herself many favors and should strive instead to be more authentic.

Klobuchar's first such moment came when she responded to Bernie's "I wrote the damn bill" (on Medicare For All) with: "I read the bill." She moved on to say it was a "bad idea, not a bold idea." She's strongly for a public option and strongly against Medicare For All.

Her most animated moment came when she was challenged on her record as a prosecutor in Minnesota on police shootings, where she flatly contradicted the questioner: "That's not my record." She went on to extol her record and told a few name-dropping stories of how she prosecuted shooters, but I have no idea whether she was more right than the moderator (it'll be interesting to see the fact-checking on this one, in other words).

She also had a good moment on the gun control question where she took the fight directly to Mitch McConnell -- something no other candidate bothered to do. She pointed out that McConnell already has three good bills passed by the House on his desk that he is refusing to act upon, which was an excellent point to make.

But then, in her final answer before the closing statements, Klobuchar again had a prepared quip fall flat again, as she had a long setup ("On Day One, I will... On Day Two... On Day Three..." etc.) to get to her punchline: "On Day Seven, you're supposed to rest, but I won't!" It was pretty cringeworthy, at least to my ears.

 

Andrew Yang

Andrew Yang has surprisingly been climbing in the polls of late. Of course, this climb is only from about one percent to maybe three percent, at best, but then again that's better than anyone else at the bottom of the heap has managed, so he deserves some credit.

But without Marianne Williamson on the stage, he came off as the flakiest one. Now, I don't fault him for his refusal to wear a necktie (the way that some do), but I do fault him for a campaign that increasingly seems to be about the gimmick of handing money out to the voters. He announced that ten lucky families will start getting his $1,000-per-month payments right away (how he'll choose them will be interesting to watch), and he later said something almost in passing about handing everyone "100 Democracy Dollars" to give back to politicians as donations? Or something? I have no idea what he's talking about, but it also seemed like more of a stunt than an actual policy proposal.

But Yang's worst moment came when he did something he's done before -- make a comment about "Asians" which seems to do nothing short of reinforce stereotypes. This is not exactly what liberals are for these days, in case anyone's missed it. Yeah, he's Asian, so he's allowed to use self-depreciating humor (I guess), but even so why would anyone say "I'm an Asian, so I know lots of doctors" in a presidential debate? Yang keeps trying to play "the Asian card," but it always kind of makes me cringe when he does so.

Yang's best moment came during the discussion on immigration reform, when he said: "My dad grew up on a peanut farm in Asia in a house that had no floor, and now his son's running for president. That is the type of immigration story we need to hear." It seemed heartfelt and authentic, and he delivered it well. It got a big hand from the audience, too.

 

Cory Booker

Cory Booker is still running in sixth place, where he's basically been for the entire race. His candidacy probably won't be his last, which is a good thing because he more than anyone else on stage tonight seems like the wrong candidate for this particular point in time. Not that he's a bad candidate, mind you, just that he seems mismatched to the Trump moment. Maybe if he runs again, he'll be a better match in some future race.

As always, Booker was asked about racism and as always he responded in a very heartfelt way. His best line of the night was when he talked about a criminal justice system that is "savagely broken," saying that "the system treats you better if you're rich and guilty than if you're poor and innocent." Like Klobuchar, the line was obviously scripted, but unlike her, Booker delivered it naturally enough for it to seem spontaneous. He got off another one of these during the gun debate, pointing out that there were more gun deaths in this country during his lifetime than all the soldiers who have died in all the wars we've ever fought. Booker didn't always land the soundbite, however. He had a line about the Canadian prime minister's hair that fell pretty flat (to my ears, at least).

Booker did manage to have two of the funniest moments of the night, again from pre-scripted quips. In his closing statement he talked of the documentary about his first unsuccessful run for office being nominated for an Oscar, but then losing to "The March of the Dagnab Penguins," which was pretty funny. But his funniest moment came when he subtly poked fun at others on stage (both candidates and moderators) by answering an unrelated question he was directly asked with: "I'm going to say 'no,' and I want to translate that into Spanish as well: 'no'."

As I said, Cory Booker is an impressive politician with sometimes-great delivery, but he just doesn't seem like the right guy this time around.

 

Pete Buttigieg

Also in the category of "after he loses, we'll probably hear from him again" is Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg started off the night by wading into the healthcare fray with the best possible defense of his "Medicare For All Who Want It" position (which is, essentially, adding the public option to Obamacare). He frames the issue as other progressives not having the courage of their convictions, because after all if the public option is so superior to private health insurance, and if everyone hates their insurance company, then everyone will organically move to the public option anyway and we'll wind up with single-payer.

This is a good case to make, no matter how you feel about the "Medicare For All versus public option" issue. As Buttigieg put it: "The problem with 'that damn bill' is it doesn't trust the American people" to know what is right for them. Of all the candidates onstage who were essentially arguing for the same thing, Buttigieg made the best and most understandable argument for his position.

Buttigieg's best line came towards the end, when speaking of education reform. He began by flatly stating that he'd get rid of Betsy DeVos, which got a big hand from the audience. But he stated his best idea in almost poetic terms: "We need to respect teachers the way we do soldiers, and we need to pay teachers the way we do doctors."

Buttigieg had one funny line, when leaning upon his experience as the only veteran on the stage: "I served in Afghanistan under General Dunford... way under General Dunford." This got the laugh it deserved.

All around, though, I have to wonder if Buttigieg would be doing a lot better in the standings now if Elizabeth Warren hadn't run. Warren has pretty much cornered the market on being the wonkiest one in the race, but if she wasn't there Buttigieg would probably have worn that crown. He's got a well-thought-out plan for everything, even if he isn't as progressive as some of the other candidates. So even if he fails in his bid this time, it's a sure bet we won't have heard the last of him in national politics.

 

Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris easily won the "most awkward" award tonight. It was bizarre at times to listen to her, because she sounded like she had been schooled by some high-priced political consultants who told her: "You've got to be more likeable, therefore you should laugh at random moments so people can relate to you."

She did so, and it wasn't pretty. Hillary Clinton famously got criticism for her awkward laugh (especially from Saturday Night Live), and now Harris seems to want to follow the cackling route that Clinton pioneered, or something. It really was that bad.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Harris in general (I'm one of her constituents, and I voted for her). But she needs to stop with the forced laughter, because it isn't doing her any good at all. The first time this appeared was in the middle of an argument with Joe Biden about how far executive orders could go on gun control. Biden took the position that "it's unconstitutional" to do what Harris was proposing, and Harris took him to task with the line: "Hey, Joe, instead of saying 'no, we can't,' how about saying 'yes, we can'?" This was supposed to be a play on the Obama campaign theme, but she ruined any impact it could have had by giddily laughing at her own supposed joke, for much longer than was comfortable. She did end up with a better line, about the El Paso shooting: "Donald Trump didn't pull any triggers, but he certainly was tweeting out the ammunition."

Later, when talking about Trump's trade war with China, Harris again stepped on her own good lines ("Export American products, not American jobs!") by another weak attempt at humor: "Trump is like when the Wizard of Oz pulls back the curtain and it's a really small dude." She followed this with the same weird laughter, again for a prolonged period of time. It wouldn't surprise me a bit to hear people make jokes about the cackle of the Wicked Witch, after this cringeworthy performance.

Harris turned in an otherwise normal debate performance. For the most part, she held off on attacking Biden (which she so successfully did in the first debate). She got big hands from the audience whenever she mentioned that she was a graduate of an H.B.C.U., and she even landed a solid joke in her first answer, when she directly addressed Trump through the camera ("since we all know he's watching,") and then finished her bit with: "And now, President Trump, you can go back to watching Fox News." Without her own strange forced laughter, the crowd itself actually got a big laugh out of it.

Harris has struggled to gain any traction after her first debate gave her a bump in the polls, and I seriously doubt tonight is going to help her do so in any meaningful way.

 

Bernie Sanders

This brings us to the big three -- the only candidates polling in double digits. Bernie Sanders had a weak night, mostly because he appeared to be losing his voice. He always sounds pretty raspy, but from the start he sounded a lot raspier than normal. Losing your voice is an occupational hazard for presidential candidates, since all they do all day long is give speeches to as many groups as possible, so it's not like this is Bernie's fault or anything.

He also wasn't given as much time as the other two leading candidates, and it wouldn't surprise me if he was only fifth or sixth in total time for the entire night. This might have been the fault of the moderators, or it might have just been because the other candidates just blew through the time limits they were supposed to be paying attention to. Either way, we saw less of Bernie than usual.

As in the second round of debates, Bernie and Elizabeth Warren continued their no-aggression pact, and didn't lob any attacks at each other. Since their stances are so similar, it didn't make a whole lot of difference which one was defending them against the moderates on stage. Bernie did a good job of defending Medicare For All, pointing out that it is the cheapest possible way to deliver healthcare and that it will mean people can choose any doctor they like because they'll all be in the same plan.

Bernie's best moments really came at the beginning, as the first 10 minutes or so of the debate was taken up in a three-way argument between him, Biden, and Warren -- where both Sanders and Warren were criticizing Biden for being too timid. As always, Bernie had the facts at his fingertips and made the strongest case that single-payer was indeed the way to go.

Sanders had one more good moment against Biden later in the evening, after Biden spoke of his support for the Iraq War. Bernie pointed out the difference between the two: "I never believed what Bush and Cheney said about Iraq" (when they were making the case for the Authorization for the Use of Military Force).

All around, it was classic Bernie, although a little raspier than normal.

 

Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren took some incoming tonight, more so than in the first two debates. But she pushed back against criticism, and as always out-wonked everyone else on the stage with her command of all her plans for everything.

Warren both started and finished by talking about her ties to the region, both in Oklahoma and in Houston, where she went to college and had her first job in the legal profession. This went down well with the hometown crowd.

Along with Sanders, Warren also did a good job of defending the Medicare For All proposal, mostly from attacks from Joe Biden. She pointed out repeatedly that the system we have now has a huge profit margin built in for the insurance companies and the drug companies, which would disappear under single-payer.

I appreciated one moment Warren had, because it is a subject I really wish one of these debates would tackle directly (moderators, please take note...). In her response to the gun control question, Warren stated plainly that the way to move forward was to get rid of the filibuster. She pointed out that a gun control measure failed after the Sandy Hook shooting even though it had 54 votes in the Senate. I'm still not sure where I personally stand on jettisoning the filibuster, and the president really wouldn't even have any direct role in doing so, but even having said that I think it is a valid and important topic for the candidates to weigh in on, which Warren did without being prompted.

Warren had many strong moments during the night, as when she answered a question about teachers by pointing out that she was the only one on the stage who had actually been a teacher. She had other great moments on the subject of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan ("We're not going to bomb our way to a solution" and "Stop asking our military to solve problems that cannot be solved militarily") as well as on trade, when she promised that instead of allowing the system to be rigged by "giant corporations" she would instead give the Unions, small farmers, human rights activists, and environmentalists a "seat at the table" for any trade deal negotiations.

All around, Elizabeth Warren probably had the best night of any of the candidates. It was her first debate with Biden, and while she did challenge him repeatedly, none of it could really be called "an attack" on Biden, because she did it how she does most things: methodically and with plenty of facts and figures to support her positions.

 

Joe Biden

Joe Biden, of course, had the biggest target on his back of anyone on the stage. This is due to his first-place standing in the polls. As the primaries get closer, all the other candidates know that for them to improve their standings significantly (which they all really need to do to have a chance at the nomination), they've got to chip away at Biden's support.

Tonight, though, because (as mentioned) there weren't as many truly desperate candidates on the stage, there weren't as many scathing attacks on Biden. There were disagreements and even multiple shouting matches, but none of it seemed as vicious as some of the moments from the first two debates. Somehow it seemed more respectful, but maybe that was just my own bias as a viewer (which is certainly possible).

The most heated exchange came at the very start, when the healthcare subject was debated. Biden went on the offensive first, challenging both Sanders and Warren to say how they'd pay for their plans. Sanders and Warren held their own against Biden, but it was notable that he was the first out of the box in terms of going on the offensive. The entire extended exchange (they all kept naming each other in their responses, which triggered the moderators to allow them to respond, back and forth, without anyone else being allowed into the fight).

Overall, Biden was engaged and feisty. He spoke fast and had facts and figures to back his positions up. He was never caught at a loss for something to say, and he seemed much better than he did in the second debate (to me, at least).

Biden's worst moment came when he was trying to defend Obama's record on immigration. Biden's problem is that Obama did actually try to make things better for immigrants, but he didn't really do so until his second term. In his first term, he earned the title "Deporter In Chief," which still rankles many. Biden's tactic is to point to all the good stuff (on Dreamers, etc.) Obama tried to do while completely ignoring (or misstating, as Biden did when he claimed Obama didn't "lock people up in cages") all the bad stuff. This earned him the rebuke from Buttigieg about only claiming credit for the good Obama did.

Biden's best moment, however, outweighed his worst. For the first time, Joe Biden took solid responsibility for being wrong about the Iraq War. He flatly stated: "I never should have voted for the A.U.M.F." (which gave Bush the ability to launch the war). He also -- prompted, no doubt, by a recent article which fact-checked an assertion Biden's been making for a while -- admitted that he has been misstating his opposition to the Iraq War. Previously, he's said he "opposed it from the moment Shock and Awe started," which just is not true. Tonight, he fully admitted that this was in error, and he took responsibility for the mistake.

This is bigger than just one campaign fudge, because Biden has shown a real reluctance to ever so honestly admit not only that he was wrong about something he did in the past (vote for the Iraq War A.U.M.F.) but also that he's been overstating the case for his opposition to the war after it started. This shows he's got the ability to admit his mistakes and move on from them -- which had been in doubt before tonight (in my mind, at least). So I have to give Biden full credit for doing so, because I've been waiting for just this sort of thing (on any issue he's been wrong about) for a while now. I'm much more comfortable casting a vote for a politician with the ability to admit he was wrong than for one who never does, even when the proof is obvious.

All around, I'd say Biden had a pretty good night.

 

Conclusions

As I stated before, I thought tonight's debate was much more substantive and weightier than the previous two. It still had its shortcomings -- I'm getting tired of hearing about the same four or five issues over and over again at these debates, to the exclusion of literally dozens of other things I'd love to hear discussed. But all told, it was more productive because all the frontrunners were together and none of the "polling below one percent" wannabes was present.

Some of the candidates did their image and their campaigns a lot of good tonight, and some didn't. But nobody fell flat on their face, and nobody really had such a breakout moment that we'll be talking about it for months to come.

That's my unvarnished opinion, written before I've taken the opportunity to read anyone else's. I'm now going to go do so, to see if anyone agreed with me or if the punditocracy is all obsessing over some moment that completely escaped me. Such is the fun of writing up snap reaction columns, and I doubt tonight will be any different.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

64 Comments on “My Snap Reactions To The Third Democratic Debate”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    When it comes to the Iraq AUMF, we have to remember that this vote was complicated.

    And, Biden got personal assurances from Secretary Powell and President Bush that giving the president strong congressional support for authorization to go to war was to be used to force the UN Security Council to put weapons inspectors back into Iraq and avoid war.

    I remember the debate at the time in the senate and there were all sorts of debating points about how this authorization would be used by the president. Biden's floor debates are instructive.

    So, Biden was opposed immediately to how President Bush mishandled the authority he was given before exhausting all muscular diplomatic efforts through the UN. And, make no mistake, these efforts were underway between the time of congressional authorization and bombs over Iraq. In other words, war wasn't inevitable to all the players.

    Biden did support the war for a short period of time because he supported the troops. As soon as chaos began to reign because there weren't nearly enough troops to win and keep the peace when the Saddam regime collapsed, then Biden called for a surge and kept advocating for a surge until it was too late for US troops to be in a position to stop the chaos, no matter how many they were.

    Before the time that a troop surge became counterproductive, Biden began working on a strategy for US policy in Iraq in an effort to end US military involvement there. His plan for US policy in Iraq to support a new Iraqi government based on federalism was adopted by the US Senate in September of 2007 by a vote of 75-23 in what was called a non-binding Sense of the Senate resolution.

    Unfortunately, the Bush/CHENEY administration engaged in a classic case of looking a gift horse in the mouth and wrongly called Biden's plan 'partition' from the get-go and that, sadly for Iraq, was the end of that.

    As far as I know, Senator Biden was the only human being on the planet who was devoted to finding a practical solution to the Iraq problem (Leslie Gelb was not that involved) that all sides would find acceptable. And, no other presidential candidate in 2004 was working on any such thing. That kind of devotion to making things right should count for something on the Iraq file.

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale, there is no future for fossil fuels.

    And we have no society NOW without fossil fuels..

    Here is a list of many of the things we will lose if Democrats ban oil.

    Pleas note that this is simply a PARTIAL list..

    Americans consume petroleum products at a rate of three-and-a-half gallons of oil and more than 250 cubic feet of natural gas per day each!

    A partial list of products made from Petroleum (6000 items). One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline.

    Although the major use of petroleum is as a fuel, (gasoline, jet fuel, heating oil), and petroleum and natural gas are often used to generate electricity, there are many other uses.

    Here are some of the ways petroleum is used in our every day lives. All plastic is made from petroleum and plastic is used almost everywhere: in cars, houses, toys, computers and clothing. Asphalt used in road construction is a petroleum product as is the synthetic rubber in the tires. Paraffin wax comes from petroleum, as do fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, detergents, phonograph records, photographic film, furniture, packaging materials, surfboards, paints, and artificial fibers used in clothing, upholstery, and carpet backing. 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

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    This country will cease to be a country if Dem candidate wins the election and makes good on their promise to ban fossil fuels..

    Given this FACT, A> there is NO WAY Texas will EVER go Blue... and B> there is NO WAY that a Democrat will win the election in 2020...

    And it should be noted that the Dem candidate to BAN fossil fuels is VIDEO TAPED and ON THE RECORD...

    So, there will be NO WIGGLE ROOM whatsoever to back pedal for the eventual nominee..

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    As to the debate??

    I can sum it up in one word..

    PUMA :D

    Liberal, moderate divide on display in Democratic debate

    HOUSTON (AP) — Joe Biden parried attack after attack from liberal rivals Thursday night on everything from health care to immigration in a debate that showcased profound ideological divides between the Democratic Party’s moderate and progressive wings.
    https://apnews.com/efa3405d69ec46b38d375924d63cb404

    Where was this alleged unity??

    Last night, it was no where to be found.. :D

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, of course, flailing BETO get's the Moron Of The Evening Award..

    O’Rourke noted that there weren’t enough ambulances at times to take all the wounded to the hospital.

    “Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15, your AK-47,” he said as the crowd cheered.

    Yea?? Based on what criteria??

    You see, this is were Democrats ALWAYS fall apart. They are big on emotional hysterical ignorant proclamations.. Yet when it comes down to actual FACTS, they are left speechless..

    Based on the FACTS, here is what a Democrat Gun Ban would look like:

    Any firearm that looks scary and shoots lots of bullets and has 1 or more sticky outty thingies will be banned.

    THAT is what a Dumbocrat gun ban will look like..

    Democrats are LAUGHABLE in their ignorance..

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trump was silent on social media during the event. But Kayleigh McEnany, his campaign’s national press secretary, said in a statement: “Thank you to ABC and the Democrat Party for another infomercial for President Trump!”

    Earlier in the day, Trump said he’d likely have to watch a re-run because of travel conflict. He predicted the Democratic nominee would ultimately be Biden, Warren or Sanders.

    Once again, the overall winner of this debate was President Trump.. :D

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Democratic Debate Gets Personal As Candidates Go For The Jugular
    https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/12/democratic-debate-highlights-joe-biden-elizabeth-warren-andrew-yang/

    So much for Democrats forgoing personal attacks..

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    His standout moment came when he was asked about mandatory buybacks for assault weapons, which O'Rourke strongly supports: "Hell yes, we're going to take away your AR-15s and AK-47s."

    OK... Beto wants to ban the AR-15 simply because of the name???

    What about the hunting rifle that has the EXACT same capacity, uses the EXACT same ammo, has the EXACT same fire power..

    The ONLY difference between an AR-15 and the Ruger Mini 14 is that the AR has black plastic outer shell and the Ruger Mini 14 has a wood grain base...

    So, Beto is going to ban one because it looks scary and has sticky outty thingies and is going to OK the other one even though it has the exact same firepower and the exact same magazine capacity as the AR-15..

    Somone.. ANYONE.. Can you explain the logic of that?? Explain the logic of banning a rifle **SOLELY** because of the way it looks??

    No. No one CAN explain the logic of that because there simply IS NO logic in that..

    NONE.. ZERO.. ZILCH... NADA.....

    :eyeroll:

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    PUMA rears it's ugly head.. :D

    Debate descends into melee over health care, Obama, socialism as Dems struggle to show unity
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-debate-houston-biden-warren

    By the time the Dems actually pick a champion they are gonna be so broken and battle-worn, they will be a push-over for President Trump...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Long-simmering policy disputes between Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and a slew of other candidates exploded into the open during Thursday night's Democratic primary debate, as the candidates -- often with raised voices -- laid bare their fundamental disagreements on "Medicare-for-all," immigration and more.

    Intermittent efforts by some candidates to show unity and keep the heat on President Trump repeatedly failed, with most striving instead to score an aggressive debate "moment" onstage in Houston.

    Amid the melee, Pete Buttigieg offered an exit ramp from the feuding as he criticized the Democrats for "scoring points against each other" -- prompting Julian Castro to interject, "That's called an election!"

    Try as they might, Democrat Candidates simply could NOT keep the focus on President Trump..

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    The economy, which has performed well by virtually all major metrics in the past year, went largely undiscussed during the raucous three-hour debate. And, even as House Democrats made a push towards potentially impeaching the president this week, that topic conspicuously did not come up either.

    Of course the economy or impeachment did not come up..

    The economy is doing splendid and Democrats who AREN'T hysterical fanatics know that impeachment is the surest way to guarantee a President Trump re-election..

    President Trump... WOW.. That just sounds so awesome!! Didja every think you would EVER hear President Trump... :D

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    "For a socialist, you've got a lot more confidence in corporate America than I do," Biden shot back at Sanders shortly afterward, after the U.S. senator from Vermont suggested corporations would return the money they currently make on high insurance premiums if his sweeping plan were implemented.

    Sanders responded by referring to cancer treatment, leading Biden to sharply reply, "I know a lot about cancer — it's personal to me." Brain cancer killed Biden's son Beau four years ago.

    WOW.. Bernie got REAL personal and went for Biden's jugular...

    So much for the claim that Democrats don't resort to personal attacks.. :^/

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    She also had a good moment on the gun control question where she took the fight directly to Mitch McConnell -- something no other candidate bothered to do. She pointed out that McConnell already has three good bills passed by the House on his desk that he is refusing to act upon, which was an excellent point to make.

    Which bills would those be??

    Closing the mythical gun show loophole?? Gun registration that we already have??

    What bills???

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yang's best moment came during the discussion on immigration reform, when he said: "My dad grew up on a peanut farm in Asia in a house that had no floor, and now his son's running for president. That is the type of immigration story we need to hear."

    And if the issue was IMMIGRATION, then Yang would have a point..

    But the issue is **ILLEGAL** immigration, yunno.. crimmigrants... So Yang's story, while heartwarming, is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand..

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    She did end up with a better line, about the El Paso shooting: "Donald Trump didn't pull any triggers, but he certainly was tweeting out the ammunition."

    Only a MORON would equate a tweet with bullets that kill innocent people..

    I'll reserve judgment on those who actually BELIEVE such bullshit as the two are identical..

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    (or misstating, as Biden did when he claimed Obama didn't "lock people up in cages")

    's OK.. Every one here in Weigantia ALSO ignores that it was OBAMA who locked kids in cages and President Trump simply followed the same policy that Obama did, albeit more aggressively because, well.. that's what he was hired to do..

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Paula,

    Beto did his best debate tonight - the El Paso shooting has centered him and given him sort of a thematic place to work from. I LOVED his answer to whether he'd confiscate assault weapons: a blunt YES. Will it be enough?

    Many things wrong with your claim.

    First off, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon"...

    ANYTHING that can be used as a weapon is an "assault weapon".. A broomstick can be an "assault weapon" insofar as it can be used to assault someone..

    "Assault weapon" as it pertains to firearms is a media construct and has absolutely no meaning amongst those who actually KNOW guns..

    So, when Beto says he is going to ban "assault weapons" he means he is going to ban all semi-automatic firearms..

    Which is a LARGE, VERY large portion of all firearms in America..

    One has to wonder.. Has Beto ever heard of the 2nd Amendment??

    Has ANYONE on the Left ever heard of the 2nd Amendment??

    "Anyone?? Anyone?? Buehler??"

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Beto says that he will impose a mandatory buy-back of "assault rifles"...

    So, in addition to totally ignoring the 2nd Amendment, Beto wants to eviscerate the 4th Amendment..

    Well, a prominent Democrat has stated that Democrats hate the Bill Of Rights..

    So I guess this is simply an example of that..

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    And the plot, as they say, thickens..

    Sidney Powell’s Latest Motion In Michael Flynn’s Case Is A Russiagate Bombshell

    Lawyer Sidney Powell’s bigger plan is to expose the breadth and depth of SpyGate and how flaying Michael Flynn lay at the heart of the soft coup attempt.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/12/sidney-powells-latest-motion-michael-flynns-case-russiagate-bombshell/

    It is my fervent hope that Ms Sidney Powell has a crack security team..

    Because those who engineered this attempted coup are going to be gunning for her..

  20. [20] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW- My compliments on your summary. A very rapid response, and completely on target (as I see it). Like you, I'm reading the rest of the responsible pundit-ocracy for their collective take on the night.

    EM- I agree with much of your Iraq:Biden assessment, but IMHO Iraq is not Biden's biggest problem. His front runner status, his age (or maybe other people's age bias?), and some rather weak performances in earlier debates that raised concern about his mental sharpness are his biggest problems. Biden showed focus this round and had a good night. As front runner, he still has a big target on his back. This nomination is not going to be a coronation.

    Biggest losers: the protesters. Enunciate!

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    As far as Mitch McConnell goes..

    If Democrats hate Mitch McConnell so much.....

    Did Mitch McConnell Recruit His Opponent?
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/09/13/did_mitch_mcconnell_recruit_his_opponent_141247.html

    Why did they recruit such a shitty candidate to take him down???

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    A very rapid response, and completely on target (as I see it)

    Of course.. Ya'all are watching the same fictional movie.. :D

    I laid out the facts for you.

    Yer welcome..

    As front runner, he still has a big target on his back. This nomination is not going to be a coronation.

    As much as Democrats WANT it to be.. :D

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Goodwin: Trump the real winner as Biden again proves he’s not cut out to be nominee
    https://nypost.com/2019/09/13/goodwin-trump-the-real-winner-as-biden-again-proves-hes-not-cut-out-to-be-nominee/

    Biden's "electability" argument is fading and fading fast..

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biggest losers: the protesters. Enunciate!

    Protesters!!??? At a Democrat Party debate!!???

    But!!! But!!! UNITY!!!!!????

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Beto says he wants to ban "all battlefield weapons" such as the AR-15...

    ANYONE who thinks that the AR-15 is a "battlefield weapon" has their head so far up their ass, they are tickling their tonsils with their tongue...

    Is it too much to ask for Democrats to show SOME semblance of intelligence when it comes to firearms??

    It's rather ironic.. Those Democrats who ARE familiar with guns, who can talk intelligently about them.. They are PRO gun..

  26. [26] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    I grew up in the heart of the Rocky Mtns in the 1950's, when there was twice as much game and half as many people as today. I spent every free moment fishing or hunting. I eventually had 26 firearms, including 4 shotguns, 20 rifles, and two handguns. I had a specific hunting weapon for everything that walked, crawled or flew in my part of the world that could be hunted.

    I loaded all my own ammo, and I can still quote you muzzle velocities for most popular cartridges with different propellants and different bullets.

    My arsenal included 3 weapons classified as semi-auto, , and many that could have qualified as "battlefield weapons", depending on which era you were talking about. One was a muzzle loader, and in its day, even it qualified as a "battlefield weapon".

    But I never owned a single weapon of the type that are considered "battlefield weapons" today (AR15 style). Those things are worthless for hunting.

    I hate to see any restrictions on 2nd Amend rights, but I think the current situation justifies banning AR15 style weapons.

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    I hate to see any restrictions on 2nd Amend rights, but I think the current situation justifies banning AR15 style weapons.

    But what would the parameters of that "ban" be??

    That's the important question..

    The devil is in the details.

    Are we just going to ban the gun called "AR-15"?? Gun manufacturers just change the name..

    What is the parameters to ban "AR-15"??

    Funny story about the 1994 "assault rifle" ban..

    One of the specifics is that any rifle that had a bayonet mount would be banned.

    So gun manufacturers simply made AR-15s without the bayonet mount..

    Viola.. Instant "legal" rifle with all the exact same capability, capacity and fire power..

    What EXACTLY are the specs of a "banned" rifle, vs a "legal" rifle..

    It's that question that trips Democrats up every time..

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    The reality is that, unless Democrat ban ALL guns, any law they put forth will have NO effect on any of the gun violence..

    At BEST it would be nothing but a placebo to give the illusion that something is being done.

    At WORST (and most likely) it's simply a stepping stone to further and further bans..

  29. [29] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Yeah, I'm well aware of all those problems and I do not have solutions, becausw there likely are no solutions.

    How about we ban any and all weapons (knives. clubs. sticks and stones, etc.,) that happen to "appeal to CRAZY people"???

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yeah, I'm well aware of all those problems and I do not have solutions, becausw there likely are no solutions.

    How about we ban any and all weapons (knives. clubs. sticks and stones, etc.,) that happen to "appeal to CRAZY people"???

    The sad thing is, there IS a solution..

    But for it to be possible, Democrats have to get rid of their Partisan hatred of guns and address the ROOT cause of Crowd Based Mass Shootings..

    Mental health breakdowns..

    It's a given that any Crowd Based Mass Shooter is mentally ill. Only someone crazy would want to massacre dozens and dozens of innocent people..

    Half the mass shooters have shown mental health issues in the run up to their massacres..

    If those psychotics can be IDENTIFIED and monitored, then we can actually put a dent in Crowd Based Mass Shootings..

    But doing so violates the Democrat Party platform..

    And here we are..

  31. [31] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    You can't expect Democratics to get much down on crazy pople - they're mostly all crazy themselves, or they wouldn't be Democratics!

    How about a compromise - All firearms firing cartridges larger than .22 cal rimfire be restricted to capacity of 5 rounds.

    I guarantee you, something's gonna happen, because it simply can't keep going the way it's going now.

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    You can't expect Democratics to get much down on crazy pople - they're mostly all crazy themselves, or they wouldn't be Democratics!

    "Touche salesman. Do come in"
    -Homer Simpson

    :D

    While true, I just expect that people hysterically screaming about that problem would actually have a viable solution...

    How about a compromise - All firearms firing cartridges larger than .22 cal rimfire be restricted to capacity of 5 rounds.

    The problem is, unless you build in an actual self-destruct mechanism, IE a "disposal" gun, the reality is such a weapon cannot exist..

    Perhaps down the road when we design phasers.. :D

    I guarantee you, something's gonna happen, because it simply can't keep going the way it's going now.

    Yes.. Something is going to happen..

    And here's what it is..

    Americans will come to accept the 10K-15K dead annually from gun violence and the occasional and sporadic Crowd Based Mass Shooting as the price of having the 2nd Amendment

    Just as Americans have come to accept 30k+ dead in traffic accidents as the price of having the convenience of owning a car..

    The ONLY thing that will pre-empt such acceptance is if Democrats come to realize that their efforts are better focused on the root cause of Crowd Based Mass Shootings (IE Mental health issues) and stop trying to penalize law abiding Americans who simply exercise their Constitutional rights..

    Taking innocent people's guns because of the actions of a few is akin to taking everyone's cars because of drunk drivers...

    It's not logical.. It's not rational.. It's hysterical based emotionalism..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not logical.. It's not rational.. It's hysterical based emotionalism..

    But, I digest... :D

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    "To be clear, you should keep your AR-15s. If you purchased that AR-15, if you own it, keep it. Continue to use it responsibly. If you own a gun, keep that gun. Nobody wants to take it away from you — at least I don’t want to do that."
    -Beto, Apr 2018

    "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore!"
    -Beto, Sep 2019

    Yea, we can trust Democrats.. :eyeroll:

  35. [35] 
    Paula wrote:

    This is an interesting tweetstorm about Biden's record player comment: https://twitter.com/RottenInDenmark/status/1172519465138835456

    Michael Hobbes
    @RottenInDenmark
    If you can get past the poor expression, what Biden is doing here is repeating a common, debunked claim that African-American children grow up in homes where they don't hear enough words.

    He goes on to explain this notion has been debunked and was based on a very faulty study from the 1980's.

    The ultimate point: For two decades, politicians like Biden have seen the 'word gap' as a problem in itself rather than a symptom of a much larger one. Black kids don't hear enough words? Put on the TV! Play records! That'll fix it!

    Children need loving, stable, enriching interactions with adults. That means well-funded childcare and schools. That means jobs with parental leave policies. It means adults being able to leave at 3pm to get their kids from school.

    It means living wages.

    The whole tweetstorm is good.

  36. [36] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/drop-out-joe-biden-democratic-primary-884047/

    That’s the current front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination a) first appearing to treat the mere mention of an old segregationist quote of his as ridiculous, then b) responding to a question about repairing the legacy of slavery by saying that the government needs to have teachers go into the homes of kids in poor schools to teach the parents how to raise those children. And what color are the children, disproportionately, going to those poor schools? Nowhere in that answer is a prescription for making the poor families less so, nor for improving the schools. It’s the kind of paternalistic racism that has so long existed in both liberal and conservative circles, and was on Thursday night spilling out of the mouth of the former vice president on the campus of an HBCU. It was all quite a sight to behold.

    I mentioned Biden's word-salad response to the reparations question last night - I thought it was problematic. But I didn't know at the time what, precisely he was referring to. I think that makes it worse. It seems he went groping through his memory for something to build a reply to a question about reparations on, and what he came up with was some junk-beliefs from decades ago.

  37. [37] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Trouble is, Paula, that you're reading some wonky takes from the left about Biden. Most folks just didn't hear all that, but thanks for pointing it out.

    Thing is, what these liberal congresspeople don't tell you is how many votes they've garnered for their ideas on capitol hill.

    The Left always has a field day during the presidential elections, because it's the one time that they can air their policies. Eventually, folks don't vote for them, and they return to the Senate for more thrashings.

    Biden did fine. Nothing to alarm people, nothing that will stick like glue to him. Trump is the target, and Biden knows it.

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    For those of you screaming and hysterically pointing the finger at President Trump over the Scotland/USAF nothing burger???

    Air Force deal to refuel near Trump’s Scottish resort reportedly signed under Obama
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/air-force-deal-with-airport-turnberry

    It was OBAMA who signed the agreement that made that happen..

    WOW.. Boy, you people must be SOOOOO embarrassed, eh?? :D

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    The controversial arrangement by the U.S. Air Force to refuel at a Scottish airport near President Trump’s Turnberry golf resort apparently was signed under the Obama administration, according to multiple reports.

    The details emerged as the Air Force was called to explain a March stopover in the Scottish resort -- with Democrats on the House Oversight Committee writing to Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan as part of their investigation into alleged conflicts of interest by the president. The twist revealing that the airport deal predates his administration could boost Trump's case.

    Politico, which was among the outlets to publish stories this week examining the relationship between the Air Force and the resort, reported that the Air Force crews stayed at Trump’s Scottish resort up to 40 times since 2015.

    It also reported that the contract with the Prestwick Airport was in fact signed during the Obama administration. The Washington Post also reported that the airport was sending visiting crews to Trump’s course before he ran for president.

    Hehehehehehehehehehe

    Wow... How small and pissy do ya'all feel, eh??

    This is like when ya'all blamed President Trump for putting kids in cages and it turns out the pictures ya'all used were from the Odumbo years.. :D

    Aw, come on.. Take a step back and look at it..

    It's frakin' hilarious!!! :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya really have to wonder..

    Does President Trump maneuver and connive and manipulate Democrats into losing face, stepping on their wee-wees and getting embarrassed all the time??

    Or is he just the luckiest son of a bitch in history??

    hehehehehehehehe

    "Do you think he plans it all out?? Or does he just wing it?"
    -Leftinent, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN-Dead Man's Chest

  41. [41] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Paula -36

    Thirty years ago a child might have heard predominantly "white" speech on the TV and most radio programming. When my son started listing to audio mass media 20-ish years later he gravitated to predominantly black music, which was easily obtained on the radio, cds, and later thru the web. He still embraces it, a lot like many of my parents' generation embraced the Afro American music they heard in their youth. He's a multi-media artist, and he makes a semi-decent living in large part from his cross cultural tastes and connections. He is also the least prejudiced person I know.

    So, excluding the un-referenced study, which may well have been flawed, there is good reason to believe that cross cultural exposure is a good thing in a melting pot like the USA.

    As for Biden's word salad presentation, I take your point, it was awful to listen to. Biden does not seem to be comfortable with pausing to collect his thoughts....he just rushes on headlong.

  42. [42] 
    Paula wrote:

    https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-september-poll/

    FiveThirtyEight.com partnered with Ipsos to do a post-debate poll.

    Results were positive for EW (more than I expected), more negative for Kamala (which I didn't expect), mixed for the rest on various fronts.

  43. [43] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Paula-42

    That article is a confusing mess!

    The first graph and the following table are wonkish and confusing. Go directly to the third item. Overall order of support did not change for the top 8 rated candidates....Klobuchar moved up to take next to last from Castro. The gap between the top three and the bottom 7 is still large. Next graph, Biden is still rated the most likely to beat Trump, Warren and Sanders are roughly a dead heat in second place. Final graph, Warren noses out the highest favorability rating, but it's virtually a 3 way tie between her and Biden and Sanders.

    For practical purposes, the 3rd debate settled nothing...according to 538's poll. On to number four. At some point, candidates will run out of money and/or optimism.

  44. [44] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    Last nights debate was a joy to behold, ten folks intelligently discussing the issues of the day, how very different than the nonsense that passes for political discourse in the news today. At the same time the front runner demonstrated a weakness that I fear may prove fatal should he capture the nomination and be forced to face the Trumpian Dragon. I have always liked Joe and think him to be a fine person, but last night he showed a lack of mental agility and sharpness that will be necessary to go up against the Donald. He was unable to marshal his thoughts into a coherent argument on just about any question. In an attempt to show energy he spewed words and thoughts without any rational organization, I’m sorry, but the correct description would be: “word salad”. In this regard he stood in stark contrast to pretty much all the other candidates. On a number of questions he appeared dazed and unable to respond at all, then, panicking he started spewing words at random. Now, normally this ability to think on your feet and to adroitly spar with others is not a crucial skill, but in this fight, with this opponent, it is crucial. Donald Trump and Moscow Mitch have turned our politics into a blood sport. Any encounter with Trump is like entering the coliseum as a gladiator and Donald will use every dirty trick and foul move he can to not just defeat his opponent but to dismember him (or her), the bloodier the better. His supporters know that they are not supposed to enjoy this sort of blood spectacle, but in their living room, on their couch, they will yell and high five every time he strikes his opponent severing limbs and spewing blood.

    In such a contest Joe will be taken aback by every lie and personal attack Trump makes, he will be too slow to block the blow. Bewildered by what is happening he will be torn limb from limb and left on the floor of the arena a bloody mass of bones and organs. To the chagrin of all civilized people, the crowd will erupt in wild celebration and Donald will get another term. Joe’s friends should recognize the danger and pull him out of this race, for he is too good a person to meet such a terrible end. (I’m looking at you Elizabeth Miller)

    In the arena with Trump, Bernie would roar like the lion he is and fearlessly face the beast. However, Trumps coat of slimy ego limits the damage Bernie’s logical claws can do, and Trump lands blow after blow finally piercing the Socialistic heart of the old lion.

    Any woman has an advantage in combat with Trump, for his misogyny and paternalism leaves him clueless as to how women think, and how they respond to his crude and cumbersome attacks. Ms Warren’s off the charts intelligence and rapier wit allows her to simply dance around Trumps lumbering attacks. He swings and misses, over and over again, while her pointed thrusts penetrate his skin every time. Trump exhaust himself and bleeds out in front of a stunned and silent audience. Eventually, hosannas are heard and they build to a deafening crescendo. The crowd led by none other than our own Michale, hoist her on their shoulders and triumphantly carry her to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. When latter asked about his change of heart, he said that Trump committed the only sin that could never be forgiven; “He Lost”.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Any woman has an advantage in combat with Trump,

    Yea.. Cuz Hillary faired so well.. :eyeroll:

    As for Warren besting Trump in a debate??

    Simply will not happen.. President Trump has already proven he can bitch-slap Warren silly.. Trump already bent Warren to his will when he forced her to do that devastating DNA test and made her admit to the world that her claims of Native American ancestry was complete and utter bullshit..

    As far as Warren winning the election??

    Puuulleeeese...

    There is simply NO WAY that Independents and NPAs will vote for a socialist that has promised full and free healthcare to crimmigrants, open borders and eliminating fossil fuels... It simply WON'T happen..

    So, enjoy yer delusions while you can...

    They are about to be totally and utterly decimated..

    :D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    In such a contest Joe will be taken aback by every lie and personal attack Trump makes, he will be too slow to block the blow. Bewildered by what is happening he will be torn limb from limb and left on the floor of the arena a bloody mass of bones and organs. To the chagrin of all civilized people, the crowd will erupt in wild celebration and Donald will get another term. Joe’s friends should recognize the danger and pull him out of this race, for he is too good a person to meet such a terrible end. (I’m looking at you Elizabeth Miller)

    In this regard, you are simply repeating what I have said since Day 1...

    Biden should have retired and rested on his laurels, of which are quite a few... He could have left the political world on top.. Or, at least, as on top as he will ever get...

    But now.. Now he will simply be known as an Also Ran.. A 3 time loser who is now, like the Clintons before him, a political joke.. A punchline for the late night comics...

    The Clintons deserve such a fate..

    Joe Biden did not..

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    @Stig,

    That article is a confusing mess!

    No shit, sherlock.. It's 538...... DUH...

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Any woman has an advantage in combat with Trump,

    Yea.. Cuz Hillary faired so well.. :eyeroll:

    Oh wait.. You said any woman.. You didn't say "any lying sack o shit bitch".. OK my mistake.. :D

  49. [49] 
    Paula wrote:

    [44] TS: I didn't think the debate changed anything materially. The poll simply shows that EW gained some points and increased her favorability; others lost fav or stayed where they'd been and/or shifted point-wise a bit.

  50. [50] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale [2]

    As for your “partial list” of things made from petroleum — why did you feel the need to repeat products previously listed? Toothbrushes, eyewear, artificial limbs, petroleum jelly (shocker!), and hair care products are just a few of the items that I found repeated in multiple places....and that was just me eyeballing the list quickly.

    Now I do not believe that you actually took the time to make this list yourself (unless you got your hands on some really strong weed), but to whoever did create it: your attempt to make the list longer had the opposite effect from what you were hoping it would — it’s not impressive; it just comes off as desperation.

  51. [51] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Sf Bear,

    Not sure that I agree with your assessment of Biden’s performance or how you think he’d do against Trump in a live debate, but loved your scenario for a Warren vs, Trump battle! The ending had me laughing and clapping so hard that it scared my dogs!

    I tip my cap to you and say, “Bravo!”

  52. [52] 
    Paula wrote:

    [45] SF Bear: Yep!

  53. [53] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    Great recap! I especially thought your points on Cory Booker and Mayor Pete both being people that we can expect to see even stronger versions of in future campaigns.

    One thing I would love to see candidates asked at these debates would be to bring a list of their “dream team” cabinet picks and advisors. Unlike Trump, most presidents rely heavily on having the best people advising them in making policy decisions — so I think it would be interesting to know who the candidates believe would best serve the country under them.

    I could see Kamala Harris being multiple candidates first choice for running the DOJ.

  54. [54] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Paula - 49

    I agree with your assessment. I just get amused when 538 decides to wildly over complicate a simple problem. Must have been a slow political week for them.

  55. [55] 
    TheStig wrote:

    LWYH-50

    The hazards of cut and paste high volume trolling. As the old saying goes: "How did we go morally bankrupt? Volume!"

  56. [56] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    As for Warren besting Trump in a debate??

    Simply will not happen.. President Trump has already proven he can bitch-slap Warren silly..

    You mean that Warren has frazzled Trump so often with her criticisms of him that instead of addressing what she was criticizing and defending his positions, Trump is left resorting to 5th grade name-calling as his only response?

    Trump already bent Warren to his will when he forced her to do that devastating DNA test and made her admit to the world that her claims of Native American ancestry was complete and utter bullshit..

    Warren wasn’t forced to do anything. She chose to address his claims that she was lying about having some Native American ancestors in her bloodline, and proved Trump WRONG! Now if Trump tries to stick to his same old nickname for Warren, he’ll look like a fool! Not only that, but Warren can point out how Trump is too much of a coward to prove others wrong in what they say about him. Like when Bill Maher said Trump’s ancestors were orangutans, Trump could have taken a DNA test and proved Maher wrong, but instead sued Maher like a thin-skinned biatch. Or like when Warren says Trump is not nearly as wealthy as he claims and what money he now has comes from the Russians, Trump could hand over his tax returns if she is wrong....

    As far as Warren winning the election??

    Puuulleeeese...

    There is simply NO WAY that Independents and NPAs will vote for a socialist that has promised full and free healthcare to crimmigrants, open borders and eliminating fossil fuels... It simply WON'T happen..

    That’s great to hear, especially since Warren isn’t proposing those things! This is one of your Trumpkin tricks that is far more obvious to everyone than you realize....you flat out lie about what Democrats’ positions are when you cannot reasonably refute them.

    Bottom line: Warren would wipe the floor with him! Her facts that would leave Trump spitting childish insults and crying quietly to himself on stage, again. (Remember all of his sniffling during his debates with Hillary??? Of course, if it wasn’t crying, then I guess the late, great, Carrie Fisher nailed it when when she claimed that those were the sniffles of a long-time cocaine user!)

  57. [57] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    OK, I swear that I did not see you comment in [48] when I wrote about your “Trumpkin trick” for avoiding having to debate issues you cannot win by name calling or lying about what the Democrat’s position actually is.

    So I thank you for further proving my point for me!

  58. [58] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It was OBAMA who signed the agreement that made that happen..

    WOW.. Boy, you people must be SOOOOO embarrassed, eh?? :D

    Nope, not at all. It was Obama who signed the deal allowing planes to land there if they need be — as an airport to reroute to in case of equipment problems, etc.

    The Air Force has contracts with lots of foreign airports for the same purpose.

    Under Trump, there has been an unexplained mass increase of military planes landing and refueling at what used to be considered an out-of-the-way airport for flights heading to the Middle East. The Scottish people are not fans of Trump, and their local journalists have been reporting on this issue quite a bit in the last year. It should also be noted that this airport does not have nearly the security that our military bases offer for leaving a supply filled plane on the tarmac!

    Maybe you can explain why the Air Force is suddenly ordering cargo planes and fighters on route to and from the ME to avoid landing and refueling at military bases near their flight route and instead go out of their way to land at a small public airport where the fuel is much more expensive? There is no way that the Trump resort’s new contract partnering with the airport could have anything to do with this, right?

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Re #58

    "Amazing. Everything you just said there was wrong."
    -Luke Skywalker

  60. [60] 
    Kick wrote:

    C. R. Stucki
    26

    I eventually had 26 firearms, including 4 shotguns, 20 rifles, and two handguns. I had a specific hunting weapon for everything that walked, crawled or flew in my part of the world that could be hunted.

    Nice start on a gun collection, Stucki. ;)

    But I never owned a single weapon of the type that are considered "battlefield weapons" today (AR15 style). Those things are worthless for hunting.

    Unless you are hunting humans, and that's what people are doing now. More and more lately, people are being spoon-fed a plethora of statements wherein other people are demonized, dehumanized, and repeatedly referred to as an "infestation" and similar wording. Learned hatred and stoking of fear of "others" and supremacy of your own "tribe" are NOT mental illnesses.

    I hate to see any restrictions on 2nd Amend rights, but I think the current situation justifies banning AR15 style weapons.

    Yes, sir. Correct. There's no need for civilians to own weapons of war that are designed to kill humans in rapid succession. Full stop. Which is exactly what AR-15 style battlefield weapons and their variants M16 and M4 were designed to do, and AR-15s were still being used by the US military well into the 1990s, Air Force to be exact. As I am sure you're aware, anyone who claims that the AR-15 isn't a battlefield weapon needs a history lesson.

    Colt bought the ArmaLite rifle (AR) brand because of ArmaLite's inability to meet the production needs required by the US government, who then promptly contracted Colt to make the rifle for the US Army, and at the time, Colt made two versions: an automatic version for the Army and a version that was semi-automatic... both came off the exact same assembly lines and were branded "AR-15" on the lower receivers, with the Army version branded "Colt ArmaLite AR-15, Property of the U.S. Government caliber .223" to be exact, purchased for Special Forces, Airborne, Air Assault, and Ranger units during the Vietnam era. The main other difference between the two versions was the bolt and whether a 2-position or 3-position selector switch. After the AR-15 went into circulation, more was learned about how to improve the rifle, then branded the M16, various versions. I would wager you know this too, and that's why you referred to them as AR-15 style weapons.

    I would also wager you're well aware that the act of intentionally killing other people who don't share your political views, ethnicity, or skin color isn't a mental illness. In America, we collectively as taxpayers employ people to do that for a living and refer to them as the United States Armed Forces.

    Nice to see we can agree on something. Props to you, Stucki. :)

  61. [61] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    8

    OK... Beto wants to ban the AR-15 simply because of the name???

    Wrong. No matter how you try to spin it to suit your agenda, the gun issue isn't about semantics. It's about AR-15 style battle weapons and their many variants being in the hands of civilians. If you think it would be too hard to define and ban these type weapons, then you're obviously ignorant of history and have gotten yourself all wrapped up in semantics.

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    3

    This country will cease to be a country if Dem candidate wins the election and makes good on their promise to ban fossil fuels..

    This country will cease to be a country!? *laughs*

    Given this FACT, A> there is NO WAY Texas will EVER go Blue... and B> there is NO WAY that a Democrat will win the election in 2020...

    We're all still waiting on that "Red Tsunami" you promised when you insisted over and over that the "Black approval rating" of Donald Trump was so high and that "Blacks" were leaving the "Democrat Party" in droves.

    Also, Texas was "Blue" for well over a hundred years, and anybody who thinks it will never be Blue again has mental issues.

    And it should be noted that the Dem candidate to BAN fossil fuels is VIDEO TAPED and ON THE RECORD...

    Biden was asked if he would eliminate coal and fracking if elected president. He said: "We would make sure it's eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those." If Republicans want to lie and spin that to include banning of all fossil fuels, no one on Earth will be surprised that the Trumplicans and GOP and their useful idiots will lie and fabricate this at every chance they get. Cheating and lying is their modus operandi.

    So, there will be NO WIGGLE ROOM whatsoever to back pedal for the eventual nominee..

    Trump promised on various and assorted multiple occasions to release his tax returns "VIDEO TAPED and ON THE RECORD" so there is "NO WIGGLE ROOM" whatsoever to back pedal. :) Duh!

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    Anyone who tells you there is a constitutional right to carry whatever firearm they want is full up to their eyeballs in shit.

  64. [64] 
    Kick wrote:

    Russ
    53

    One thing I would love to see candidates asked at these debates would be to bring a list of their “dream team” cabinet picks and advisors. Unlike Trump, most presidents rely heavily on having the best people advising them in making policy decisions — so I think it would be interesting to know who the candidates believe would best serve the country under them.

    Me too!

    I could see Kamala Harris being multiple candidates first choice for running the DOJ.

    Me too!

Comments for this article are closed.