ChrisWeigant.com

My Snap Reactions To The Fourth Debate

[ Posted Wednesday, October 16th, 2019 – 00:37 UTC ]

As usual, what follows are my snap reactions to the fourth Democratic presidential debate, held earlier on CNN. But this time I'm opting for a somewhat simpler format. I'm only giving personal reactions to five of the 12 candidates (which does include the three frontrunners). Then I'm going to give some reactions grouped loosely together, under categories such as "good argument / good delivery" or "amusing moments." We'll have to see whether this is a time-saver or not, in the end.

As always, the quotes below were hastily-jotted down and may not be word-for-word accurate, but I think I've accurately captured what was intended. And also as always, I'm writing this before I watch or read anyone else's reactions to tonight's debate. That's enough of a technical intro, so let's just get on with it, shall we?

 

General overall debate reactions

I thought CNN did a pretty good job tonight, and I enjoyed this debate much more than some of the others. They seem to have kept very tight control over the candidates' microphone volume, so that people who weren't called upon were merely faint voices in the background -- until the moderators gave them official sanction to speak. This was a wonderful development, tech-wise, and they used it to good effect. This avoided many of the shouting matches that have bogged down some of the other debates. They didn't totally cut off everyone's mic when they weren't speaking, but they sure did turn them way down. This allowed the moderators to be in full control of the debate, which was a welcome development.

The questions asked seemed to be of a bit better caliber, or at the very least a little more up-to-date to what's going on politically. Turkey, Syria, the betrayal of the Kurds, and President Donald Trump's impeachment were all discussed at length. Of course there were a few retreads, as with the inevitable Medicare For All rematch, but I thought the choice of issues tonight was far better than in the previous debates.

All around, I'd give CNN a solid "A" for their hosting performance. Which was a noticeable improvement over some of the earlier debates by different networks.

OK, I'm going to run down the five candidates I felt needed the spotlight next, and then we'll get to the broad categories at the end.

 

Elizabeth Warren

Sometimes the question "who won the debate?" doesn't have a clear answer, but I think tonight's was different. I think Elizabeth Warren walked into this debate as the obvious target for attack, which turned out to be precisely the case, and I think she rose to the challenge admirably the entire night. She gave as good as she got, she never for a moment appeared rattled at all, and she looked like someone who could actually take Trump on in a general election debate. In other words, she pretty much checked every box for me.

For some reason, Elizabeth Warren has always drawn more fire than Bernie Sanders on the Medicare For All issue, which is strange since, as Bernie says, he wrote the damn bill. Bernie cheerfully admits that he's going to raise taxes to pay for it, but Warren won't -- maybe that's why she seems so much more fascinating to the moderators and the other candidates than Bernie. During the healthcare reform segment, Warren got five responses to Bernie's two, for example (at least for the first hour, Warren got twice as much screen time as Bernie, who was in second place).

Warren's strategy is a simple one: never say the word "taxes," instead talk about "costs." This is a good way to frame the issue, because it avoids the trap the moderators and the other candidates are laying. "Taxes," thanks to Republican efforts since Ronald Reagan was a mere presidential hopeful, is an ugly word in American politics. But it isn't the full story on healthcare, which is why Warren refuses to separate it out from her bigger argument. She was adamant on this, and it played well. She made an explicit promise she hasn't made before: "If I am president, I will sign no bill that raises healthcare costs for middle-class families, period." Pete Buttigieg tried to hit her hard with his "Medicare For All Who Want It" plan, but Warren riposted by calling it "Medicare For All Who Can Afford It." All around, this round seemed to go to Warren.

Warren had a few other good framing moments, as when she introduced (at least, to me) the phrase "accountable capitalism" (for what she believes in). In the midst of a rather shouty match with Amy Klobuchar over Warren's wealth tax idea, Warren again framed the issue well: "Why are Bernie and I the only two up here who are for taking on the billionaires, while everyone else is fighting for them?" This got her some pushback, but it showed she can dish it out even while others are attacking her. She ended this segment with: "dream big and fight hard, not dream small and give up," which smacked her opponents around once again. Warren was also the only candidate on the stage who strongly supported getting rid of the Senate's filibuster, which (whether you agree with her stance or not) was well delivered each time she used it (she brought this point up on multiple issues, throughout the whole night).

All night long, it didn't seem like anyone really landed a punch on Warren at all -- at least not without her throwing back one of equal strength. Warren has shown the ability to do this in previous debates, but tonight it was front and center, since she was the big target everyone else was intent on attacking. She weathered the storm admirably, she never once got the slightest bit rattled, and she obviously emerged as the big winner of the night.

 

Bernie Sanders

Bernie had a pretty good night, too, but he wasn't given half the time that Warren was, so it wasn't as noticeable. He got the inevitable question about his health, after he himself kind of forced the issue. He jumped in (seemingly at random, but I might have missed some segue or another) to proclaim: "I'm healthy, I'm feeling great!" It got a laugh from the audience, and (while mostly lost to audience noise) the moderator responded with: "Bernie's in favor of medical marijuana," to which Bernie quickly responded: "But I'm not on it now!" Sanders went on to say that his big rallies, including an upcoming event in New York City, will show that he's feeling fine and just as feisty as ever. Bernie also took the time to thank all the well-wishers who had contacted him, "including some on this stage tonight," which was a nice moment.

His second response of the night was being asked about Hunter Biden, and he absolutely refused to get in the middle of it. He didn't use the word "Biden" once in his answer, and immediately pivoted to Donald Trump and how he needed to be defeated.

Bernie actually got in the first mention of reproductive rights very early on, stating baldly: "poor women will die" under Republican laws and policies. "Let's talk about that." As usual, Bernie had no problem showing his moral outrage at all sorts of things, including Trump's blundering on the world stage. While dodging a question about whether Turkey should remain in NATO (a question everyone else dodged, to be fair), Bernie denounced Trump for his phone call with the Turkish leader, for rolling out his new Syria policy via tweet, and warned: "Nobody in the world will believe this pathetic liar ever again," which was a pretty good wrapup of Trump's recent missteps.

Bernie, as always, gave a great defense of his own positions while ideologically (but never personally) attacking others' positions, on a number of issues. He seemed hale and hearty and rarin' to go, just has he always has. All in all, he had a good night, although there weren't all that many standout moments for him that differed in any way from his previous performances.

 

Joe Biden

For the first time, Joe Biden was not the center of attention tonight. He got the ceremonial center-stage position, but it was really Elizabeth Warren's night to shine, not his. It wouldn't surprise me if Warren's total on-screen time wound up at least half again as long as Biden's. Biden also didn't draw nearly as many attacks from the other candidates, which was also telling.

Biden didn't have a bad night or anything, mind you. His answers were perfectly adequate, and he showed his own brand of feistiness at times. He didn't stick his foot in his mouth or have any other bizarre moments that will be played for laughs later (at least, none that I noticed). He fought back against the attacks which did come his way, and he directly took on both Warren and Sanders at one point. But he just didn't seem like the frontrunner on the stage, no matter what the polls say.

Biden's big question, of course, was about the whole Hunter Biden situation. The interview with the younger Biden aired on ABC today, so of course he was going to get asked about it. The question was put rather brilliantly, as the moderator pointed out that Hunter had admitted he made "a mistake" by joining the Ukrainian gas company's board while his father was vice president, and then turned it back on Joe: "Do you think you made a mistake? If Hunter is now pledging to not take such positions when Joe is president because that wouldn't be right, then why was it right when Joe was vice president?"

Joe dodged this direct question, repeatedly stating: "My son's statement speaks for itself," but refusing to address his own position when it happened, or what he personally thought of it. Biden did say "I'm proud of my son," but it wasn't clear to me whether that was for making the pledge he just did, or proud of what he did back then. Biden did attempt to take a sort of moral high road by quoting George Washington's farewell address, but this didn't work as well as his advisors probably thought it was going to. After watching Hunter's interview, it seems he's got a lot better answer now for what happened than Joe currently does. Joe Biden knows this issue is going to come up again and again, and yet he still doesn't really have a great response. His son's statement may speak for his son, but Joe still hasn't yet spoken to his own responsibilities in the matter.

Biden did have one rather amusing moment, when he was attempting to make a point on income inequality and taxes. He stumbled a bit on what he'd do with the capital gains tax (get rid of it? double it?), but while answering with "secondly" and "thirdly" points he suddenly threw in a dig at other candidates "who try to stuff everything into one single answer." When he ran out of time, he had a moment of self-realization and declared: "See, I'm doing it, too!" This was a humanizing moment that came off pretty well, in the end.

Biden did trot out a few good talking points, most of them aimed directly at Trump. On Syria, Biden called Trump's blunder the "most shameful thing any president has done in American history, on foreign policy," which was pretty well-received.

Biden essentially made the same case he's been making all along, but a bit more forcefully: he's the guy with experience, he's taken on the N.R.A. and beaten them, he's gotten lots of stuff done, and he will work across the aisle and get even more stuff done as president because he "will need no on-the-job training on Day One." He even got a little bombastic at times, claiming: "I'm the only one on this stage who has gotten anything big done."

Biden made his case, strongly at times. But he didn't stand out much tonight, and for the first time he wasn't the main target of the other candidates' attacks, which ultimately gave him less screen time overall. It was a good performance, but not a great one.

 

Tom Steyer

OK, I have two other candidates who deserve individual mention here. The first is Tom Steyer, mostly because this was his first debate performance. He jumped in the race so late that he didn't qualify for the first three debates, so this was his introduction to the voters tonight.

For some reason, lots of pundits were fearing what he'd do, predicting all kinds of fireworks and craziness from Steyer, since they figured he won't make the next debate, so this could be his only shot.

This prediction was dead wrong. Steyer easily exceeded such low expectations, in fact. He sounded sober and thoughtful the whole evening, his ideas were well-thought-out and he had some good moments as the night went on. He modestly took credit for pushing impeachment (without even mentioning that he had spent millions of dollars of his own money to push the effort) over two years ago, and nobody challenged him on this credential. When confronted by the rhetoric of Bernie Sanders on the fact that he was "the only billionaire on the stage," Steyer cheerfully admitted: "Bernie's right." He called inequality in this country and the power of money in politics "absolutely wrong, undemocratic, and unfair." He followed this up with: "corporations have bought our government," which is not exactly the type of talk you hear from most billionaires. Later in the night, he was the one to explicitly state: "corporations are not people."

Steyer even relished a fight with Trump solely on economic grounds, promising that he'd love to "show Trump is a fraud as a businessman." That would indeed be an interesting debate to watch, wouldn't it?

 

Amy Klobuchar

Sorry to say, but Senator Amy Klobuchar was the loser of tonight's debate, in my view. She completely threw the concept of "Minnesota nice" out the window, but couldn't ever quite seem to get a handle on how to be scathingly mean. At least, not very effectively.

Klobuchar put in a performance not seen since Kamala Harris in the first debate, or possibly one of Kirsten Gillibrand's debate appearances (remember her?). She was more than just feisty, she went for the jugular. Elizabeth Warren's jugular, to be precise.

Now this may be my own personal preference talking, but Klobuchar has always come off to me as the most insincere candidate on the stage. Her rehearsed lines seem overly hokey, her delivery leaves much to be desired, and she looks like nothing more than (with apologies to Lorne Michael) a "not ready for prime-time player" on the debate stages. As I fully admit, maybe this is some sort of bias on my part, but I sincerely doubt it.

Klobuchar is, quite obviously, desperate at this point. In fact, tonight she oozed desperation all night long, except maybe when she trained her fire on Donald Trump, which she seemed much more comfortable doing.

Klobuchar launched broadside after broadside (and no, that's not some sort of pun) at Warren, who she insisted on calling "Elizabeth." She shouted her attacks out at full volume, but still didn't manage to sound authentic. She is fighting hard for the mushy ideological position of Hillary Clinton and the moderate wing of the Democratic Party, but if the polls are to be believed, the Democratic base has moved on from such incremental pablum. On the healthcare reform debate, she repeatedly used the line: "kicking 160 million people off their health insurance," without ever admitting that this is nothing more than a Republican talking point -- Medicare For All would leave nobody without health insurance, in fact. But that didn't stop Klobuchar from implying it, over and over again.

Klobuchar repeatedly tried to ridicule Warren by stating "your answer isn't the only answer," to little effect. Bizarrely, in the midst of one of these full-frontal attacks on Warren, she interjected: "We shouldn't be fighting each other."

She also tried to deploy those folksy lines that always seem to fall flat, such as her redefinition of "meddling in America's elections," as: "This isn't meddling, that's what I do with my daughter..." when she's out on a date. Or something. I stopped taking notes at that point, I have to admit, because it was all just so silly.

Klobuchar did have a few good moments, when she spoke of her personal experience with a father who was an alcoholic and defending Roe v. Wade, and her stellar answer to the final softball question ("Who have you formed an unlikely friendship with across the aisle?") came when she spoke movingly of her closeness to John McCain. Due to her low standing in the polls, she got the McCain moment in before anyone else, and she had the best memory to relate of all of them -- complete with bedside death quotes, even. But these humanizing moments were overshadowed by her relentless "attack 'Elizabeth' every chance you get" strategy. She came off as angry, shrill, and downright desperate -- more than any other candidate on the stage, in fact.

 

Good argument / good delivery

One editorial note to begin: these are good arguments and snappy lines that haven't previously been mentioned above.

Pete Buttigieg got in a good dig at Trump during the impeachment question, calling him "Commander Chaos." That's a pretty good thing to start calling him, on Twitter, when you think about it.

Elizabeth Warren did a good job introducing the phrase "accountable capitalism" for what she believes in.

Julián Castro made a good point about an Iowa town that used to have a Maytag factory but was now building wind turbines.

Andrew Yang followed this with a great point about automation of jobs, which he framed as "self-serve kiosks at McDonald's," which is something everyone can relate to. He followed this with dire warnings about what's going to happen when self-driving trucks take away millions of jobs.

Beto O'Rourke followed this with a good point about how any NAFTA trade deal needs to have a provision in it which allows Mexican workers to unionize, which is a pretty wonky subject but which is also an excellent point.

Cory Booker got in a good line on child poverty at the end of the dustup on income inequality, which was well received by the crowd.

Tulsi Gabbard smacked CNN directly for apparently calling her a "Russian asset" on the question of Syria. She did go to see Assad, but that doesn't exactly make her a Russian asset, which she indignantly pointed out.

Pete Buttigieg, after trying an ineffective attack on Warren ("she is dead wrong" even though he didn't really make clear why), had a great moment talking about Trump's Syrian blunder: "Our soldiers feel ashamed... ashamed!... of what Trump has just done." This is a great point for any Democrat to make, but since Mayor Pete served in uniform, it was even stronger from him.

On the question of gun control, several candidates got in some very good lines, including Kamala Harris ("people will die during this debate tonight" from gun violence), Joe Biden ("I'm the only one who took on the N.R.A. and won -- twice!"), and Julián Castro, who recounted growing up hearing gunfire and how poor people would see cops going door-to-door to confiscate weapons (or for any other reason, pivoting to cop violence). All of these landed pretty well, I have to say.

To finally give credit where credit is due, Amy Klobuchar had one great line she had obviously prepared in advance. She has struggled to make any of these memorized talking points sound authentic, but with this one she pulled it off admirably. She spoke of a memo from a drug company executive (on the opioid crisis issue) which said: "Keep pumping them out, they're eating them like Doritos." This was well-delivered, and she deserves credit for finally landing one of these, especially since she pivoted from there to the moving story about her own father.

It may be my own political biases talking, but I thought Beto O'Rourke gave a great answer to the opioid crisis problem, when he suggested that military veterans be given "prescriptions for medical marijuana rather than opioids."

Kamala Harris also got in a good line on sending opioid manufacturing company executives to jail: "they are nothing more than high-level dope dealers."

On the question of breaking up Big Tech, Elizabeth Warren deployed a good stat: "nine percent of bricks-and-sticks store sales come from Walmart, while 49 percent of online sales come from Amazon." This is an excellent way to portray the dangers involved, and it was well delivered.

Cory Booker got a few good lines in which referenced his own vegan eating habits. He zinged Trump by calling him "the most unhealthy person running," and later, in the softball final question about making friends across the aisle, talked of his project of having dinner with all the Republicans in the Senate and called finding a restaurant which could satisfy both him and Ted Cruz -- "a meat-eating Texan" -- tough to do. Both times seemed very authentic, and both lines seemed natural for Booker to make.

Beto O'Rourke made an excellent (and wonky) point during the Big Tech debate, that tech companies want to be treated "like a utility" but they should be seen more as "like a publisher." This is a great point, but like I said, it's pretty wonky, so it will likely be missed by everyone.

Elizabeth Warren got in a good line on the abortion question, when she pointed out that she was old enough to have lived when "rich women could still get an abortion -- they'd just travel internationally to get one," while poor women were just out of luck. This is a great point that rarely gets made any more, and she did so in a very personal way.

And to close on, from the final softball "Ellen and Dubya" question, here are a few standout moments:

Tulsi Gabbard is friends with Trey Gowdy? Wow. Just... wow. What did she mean by the "personally challenging times" that Gowdy helped her out with? The mind reels.

Amy Klobuchar had her best moment of her entire night with her early answer about John McCain, including citing quotes from him while he was dying -- as she was visiting him on his ranch. This was a powerful moment indeed, and the others who also referenced McCain (Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden) were nowhere near as effective as Klobuchar.

Tom Steyer has a relative who prosecuted Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg? OK, I fully admit that one took me by surprise, and I've got to do a little research on it. His delivery on the final question was excellent, too.

Beto O'Rourke had the best built-in answer to the question, about the 1,600-mile cross-country road trip he took with Republican House member (and fellow Texan) Will Hurd. He's used this story to great benefit, and this softball question seemed almost designed for him to tell the story once again.

Cory Booker amusingly first referenced Chris Christie -- without mentioning him by name, somehow -- before his even funnier line about finding a restaurant both he and Ted Cruz would enjoy.

Andrew Yang popped his "surprise" in the final answer, revealing a 10-hour question-answering marathon he's about to do, and inviting everyone to ask him questions. But it fell just as flat as his "$1,000 a month" gimmick in the last debate.

 

Notable altercations

The first real dustup came on healthcare reform, with Medicare For All being defended by Elizabeth Warren and to a lesser extent Bernie Sanders, against the rest of the field. Pete Buttigieg led the attack, and as he has done in previous debates, he made the most cogent case for "letting the people decide" on his own Medicare For All Who Want It plan. Amy Klobuchar then took up the fight against Warren, and it ended with Kamala Harris bringing up abortion rights, which kind of defused the main argument. This was also a point quickly picked up by others, including Cory Booker, until the moderators promised that they'd get to the abortion issue later.

The best line Amy Klobuchar had all night was during the debate on income inequality, when she had a "reality check" for Warren, after Warren launched her "everyone else is fighting for billionaires" attack: "Not even the billionaire currently on the stage is for protecting billionaires!" It was indignant, and it was a good counterargument. This was a freewheeling argument that drew in not only Tom Steyer and Klobuchar, but also Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, and Beto O'Rourke. O'Rourke tried pressuring Warren on the child tax care credit for some reason, but shouting over her didn't do him much good in the end.

One quick altercation that probably won't get much attention came between Andrew Young and Amy Klobuchar during the Syria debate. Young framed the Russian interference in our elections as: "We've tampered with other elections, the Russians tampered with ours -- we need to both stop." Klobuchar shot back: "I don't see the moral equivalency" between the two. Right afterward, she uttered her truly cringeworthy "meddling is what I do with my daughter" line, though.

There was a big fight over gun control measures, between those who wanted to pass universal background checks right away and those who demanded that any bill include other restrictions as well (such as either mandatory or voluntary buybacks of assault weapons). This fight started between Pete Buttigieg and Beto O'Rourke, who took exception to Mayor Pete calling his plan a "shiny object" (this preceded the debate, and I'll have to look this reference up, because I missed it at the time, I have to admit). Buttigieg shot back strongly: "I don't need lessons from you in courage." This debate drew in almost every other candidate on the stage before it was over.

Kamala Harris got a little pushy during the Big Tech debate, in order to draw attention to her stance that Donald Trump really needs to be kicked off of Twitter, because he has so obviously broken so many of Twitter's rules. Now, I fully agree with this stance, but at the same time, Harris got as annoying as Klobuchar by insisting that Elizabeth Warren explicitly "join her" in demanding Trump's removal from Twitter. Warren, obviously, didn't want to take this bait, and at one point stated: "I don't just want to push Trump off Twitter, I want to push him out of the White House," which was a pretty good comeback. Warren then pivoted to her new pledge to forswear corporate cash in the general election, making a much larger point -- but Harris refused to let go. In the end, Harris wound up looking petty and whiny while Warren rose above the fray. At least, that's how I saw it. At the end of this argument, Andrew Yang jumped in with a fantastic point, but I doubt many noticed it. Yang clearly took a major stand most Democrats shy away from: "Our [online] data is our property." This is a fundamental statement that will be remembered years later, but so far it hasn't gotten much attention in the arena of politics.

There was a rather polite debate towards the end on the question of either outright packing or otherwise reforming the makeup of the Supreme Court. This is an interesting issue for the future -- should we increase the number of justices on the highest court in the land, or perhaps just reform their terms. Term limits? Rotate the seats among appellate court judges? This is a fascinating debate, but likely one that is going to go on for years before anyone actually proposes any actual reforms.

At the very end (well, at the end of the real debate, before the last softball question was given to all the candidates...), there was a notable fracas between all the top three candidates. At the end of the court-packing debate, Joe Biden chose to respond to Elizabeth Warren's snarky comment earlier about "vague" plans not being enough to cut it, by stating that he was the "only one on this stage who has gotten anything big done," and then ripping once again on the cost of Medicare For All. He ended this with: "Who will be able to get it done?" Bernie Sanders directly shot back with what Biden had indeed "gotten done": "War in Iraq, done. Bankruptcy bill, done. NAFTA, done." This is just what I was able to jot down -- this list went on much further, in fact. Biden took another shot at Medicare For All, which led to a shouty back-and-forth between Bernie and Joe. Warren then jumped in, with her history of getting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau enacted, making the point that she dreamed big and pushed back, and eventually won her fight.

At this point, Biden jumped back in to put her down, by pointing out: "I agree with you! I got you votes!" By doing so, he took full credit for the effort, something he has been prone to do on the campaign trail, whether he mentions Barack Obama's name or not. Warren then unleashed an attack on Biden that hit him below the waterline, by stating she was "deeply grateful to Barack Obama" for getting her idea enacted, as well as "everyone else who supported the effort," pointedly cutting Biden out of the main equation.

Biden at this point conceded: "You did a hell of a job."

Warren paused, said a terse: "Thank you," and continued making the point she had been making when Biden interrupted.

This was defused at this point with Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar getting involved. But it was the most interesting fight of the whole night, because it was a three-way free-for-all between Biden and the two progressives who are challenging him.

 

Rough moments

Kamala Harris, in her first answer of the night (on impeachment) bizarrely slipped into a fakey Southern accent. Thankfully, this didn't last long and she never did so again for the rest of the night, but it sure did ring false.

Julián Castro coined the word "ongoingly" during his own answer to the impeachment question, although he quickly corrected himself.

Tulsi Gabbard tried to utter the line "regime-change wars" as many times as possible during the Syria/Kurd/Turkey debate, but it never really gained any traction.

Kamala Harris was doing OK with her answer on Syria, pointing out Trump had just given "10,000 ISIS fighters a get-out-of-jail-free card," but then she bizarrely stated to Trump: "Doo gotta go." Perhaps I heard this wrong? Maybe it was "you" gotta go? Or something? Did anyone else notice this, or was it just me?

It wasn't really cringeworthy, but it was a little odd to hear Tom Steyer on Syria say: "We have to work with our allies and our frenemies around the world." Is this the first time "frenemies" has ever been uttered in a presidential debate? Probably....

Beto O'Rourke had a hard time squaring the circle between his campaign pledge to have a mandatory buyback of assault weapons and how exactly he would go about that. He relied on his fellow Americans to "follow the law," but it just came off as hopelessly naive.

 

Amusing moments

One funny moment came -- and I apologize because I didn't see all of it, because I was busy taking notes -- during Joe Biden's answer on Syria. Apparently Biden was excoriating Trump and said something directly about "Vladimir Putin" while looking directly at Bernie Sanders. Sanders jumped in with: "I'm not Vladimir Putin," after which Biden laughed and did a bro-hug shoulder squeeze with Bernie to reassure him, and apologized. The whole thing was very quick, so I'll have to wait for the inevitable comedy clips to see it again, but it struck me as pretty funny.

As previously mentioned, the bit on Bernie's health had one funny moment when the moderator spoke of him being in favor of medical marijuana, to which Bernie claimed: "I'm not on it now!"

Elizabeth Warren had one funny moment, when she referenced her expected Republican opponent: "Donald Trump... or Mike Pence... or whoever the Republicans get stuck with." Snarky, but funny!

Tulsi Gabbard got in a good dig at the moderators, after they asked the three frontrunners about their advanced age, stating that they shouldn't ask medical/age questions just of the three frontrunners, but "of every candidate here tonight." She called out the ageism in a reverse-twist kind of way, which I certainly found amusing. She then did a segue into "who is fit to be president," meaning who is ideologically fit. The whole thing was rather well done, I have to admit.

Andrew Yang caused some gasps in the audience by making a metaphor on breaking up Big Tech: "There's a reason why no one is using Bing today... sorry, Microsoft...."

 

Conclusions

Well, it's approaching midnight here, so this is going to be short and sweet. Elizabeth Warren won tonight's debate, hands down. Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden held their own -- they both had pretty good nights, without overtly damaging their prospects, but they also failed to have any sort of breakout moment. Tom Steyer did better than everyone expected. Amy Klobuchar was clearly desperate and was tonight's loser. Everyone else had a so-so performance that's not going to change the polls much, if at all.

I'm going to go read some other reactions to tonight's debate, and then I'm going to sleep.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

88 Comments on “My Snap Reactions To The Fourth Debate”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, my apologies for both the length of this post and the delay in it appearing.

    Once I started typing, I just couldn't stop. As Kurt Vonnegut would say: "So it goes."

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    No worries, Chris. My internet is on the fritz and I don't have TV so I'm glad that you bapped out a novella for me.

    Elizabeth is looking pretty good at the moment.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pretty good synopsis of the debate, CW..

    It's clear that, overall, President Trump was the debate's winner.. :D

    It's funny how, when Democrats get together (whether it be for a debate or a faux impeachment) President Trump always wins.. :D

    But one prediction is pretty much confirmed.. Elizabeth Warren is going to be the nominee..

    Which means President Trump wins re-election by a landslide... :D

    The only person that President Trump could beat MORE than EW is Chairman Mao... :D

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    the impeachment inquiry happens prior to the drafting of articles of impeachment, much less representatives voting on them. but just like a criminal investigation is part of the process of prosecuting a crime, an impeachment inquiry is part of impeaching a president. technically donald isn't being impeached yet,

    OK, so when I say this is a "faux impeachment", I am being factually accurate..

    Kewl.. :D

    but the process has begun, and is constitutionally mandated.

    And at this point in the Clinton impeachment, the process by the GOP was open and transparent and the GOP afforded President Clinton every courtesy of having his representatives present each and every step of the way..

    Funny how Democrats are afraid to afford that same courtesy to President Trump..

    Why are Democrats so afraid??

    i agree with the article you cited that donald's removal by conviction in the senate is most definitely not nancy pelosi's endgame.

    Yep.. Pelosi is simply trying to stack the deck for the 2020 election. Dems have already conceded that they can't win in a straight campaign...

    So, Pelosi is trying to cheat...

    Typical Democrats....

  5. [5] 
    Michale wrote:

    White House, Pentagon, Giuliani reject House subpoenas

    The White House, the Pentagon and President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani on Tuesday all refused to comply with House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry subpoenas, escalating the fight between the administration and Democratic lawmakers.

    Democrats set a Tuesday deadline for Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Giuliani and the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to turn over documents related to Ukraine.

    Three House committees also requested Vice President Pence hand over documents by Tuesday, though no subpoena had been issued.

    The refusals from top administration officials were unsurprising after the White House counsel's office sent a letter to top Democrats last week making clear that the administration would refuse to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry.
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/465973-white-house-pentagon-giuliani-reject-impeachment-subpoenas

    So, let's take stock..

    The Pentagon, the White House, Giuliani and VP Pence have all told Democrats to go pound sand.. To go frak themselves.. :D

    Since this is a faux impeachment, executive privilege wins the day.. :D

    Hold the vote, Nancy... That is the ONLY way you are going to see ANY documents and interview ANY relevant witnesses... :D

    Democrats are seeing their Nov 2020 hopes being flushed down the toilet... :D

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    The general consensus around the news-waves is that Biden will NOT be the Democrat nominee... :D

    On the other hand, the general consensus around the 2016 election news-waves was that Donald Trump did not stand a hope in hell of being President.....

    So...... :D

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    False 'combat video' raises many questions, cautions for media

    The pictures show massive explosions lighting up the night sky. But it turns out ABC may have been hoodwinked, according to its own account.

    A tweet issued by ABC News on Monday morning reads: “CORRECTION: We’ve taken down video that aired on ‘World News Tonight’ Sunday and ‘Good Morning America’ this morning that appeared to be from the Syrian border immediately after questions were raised about its accuracy. ABC News regrets the error.”

    According to National Review, the alleged error was uncovered by social media users who compared the supposed combat footage to a YouTube video of a Kentucky military show — and it appears to be identical. (National Review credited Gizmodo with first reporting on the alleged error and publishing the videos side by side for comparison.)
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/465726-false-combat-video-raises-many-questions-cautions-for-media

    Funny how everyone here in Weigantia is afraid to address this Leftist MSM boo-boo.. :D

    I mean, com'on people.. This is a media outlet that YA'ALL want every American to take at face value when it comes to attacking and denigrating President Trump..

    Shirley, you see how completely un-trustworthy your propaganda media outlets are... :D

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Strategies of Targeting Trump

    We are headed for a train wreck. No one knows for certain which outcome is most likely.

    There is no logical Democratic explanation for impeaching Donald Trump. The various factions within the Democratic Party calling for impeachment are united only by their loathing of Donald Trump, the person, and his systematic repeal of the Obama progressive project.

    After failing with the voting machine gambit, the Logan Act, the 25th Amendment, the emoluments clause, the McCabe-Rosenstein faux-coup, the Comey memos farce, the “resistance” efforts outlined by the New York Times anonymous op-ed writer, the campaign finance violations accusations, Stormy, tax returns, whistleblowers, leakers, the Mueller 22 months charade, and now impeachment 2.0, what exactly is the point of impeaching Trump just 13 months before the election?
    https://amgreatness.com/2019/10/13/the-strategies-of-targeting-trump/

    WOW.. Look at ALL those failures..

    Voting machine gambit

    Logan Act

    25th Amendment

    Wmoluments clause

    McCabe-Rosenstein faux-coup

    Comey memos farce

    “Resistance” by New York Times anonymous op-ed writer

    Campaign finance violations accusations

    Stormy

    Tax returns

    Whistleblowers

    Leakers

    Mueller 22 months charade

    All those failures..

    No wonder Democrats are SOOOOO desperate to try a faux impeachment coup...

    I mean, Democrats are ON RECORD as explicitly STATING that they have to impeach President Trump or else he will win re-election..

    The funny thing is, the more Democrats hide behind closed doors, they more they try to prosecute this faux impeachment coup in secret, the stronger President Trump gets.. :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who says the Democrats ever have to vote on going ahead with impeachment or even hold very many hearings? The point is just to drag everything out under the vague premise that some sort of de facto “impeachment is impending” in sword of Damocles fashion.

    Threaten, cajole, wink, and nod—but do nothing of substance is the strategy. It may seem a silly trajectory, but what are the alternatives in a 3.5 percent unemployment economy—and possible “bombshells” coming from prosecutors William Barr, John Durham, or Michael Horowitz?

    That's the key.. The floodgates are going to open and all this negative press about Demcorats is going to come out of hiding and be exposed to the light of public disclosure..

    THAT is what is driving Pelosi and House Democrats..

    The thought that all the Democrat malfeasance, corruption and outright incompetence is going to come out...

    Would Democrats prefer to introduce in the House legislation to enact the Green New Deal? The wealth tax? Reparations? Health care for illegal aliens? Open borders? Abolish $1.6 trillion in student debt? Or sit back and see whether Andrew McCabe, James Comey, or James Clapper might get indicted in a month or so?

    Compared to those alternatives, daily venting and screaming without doing anything at all about the ogre Trump under the guise of exhaustively pondering impeachment inquiries, impeachment voting, impeachment hearings, and impeachment verdicts seem smart.

    The aim, again, is not to offer an alternative agenda to Trump’s issues that for the most part poll far higher than what we have seen on the Democratic candidate debate stage. Trump, the man, is the only issue and thus all that is needed after the Mueller implosion is the proper excuse to smear and slander him again. Impeachment is just a construct to amplify the daily invective.

    As I have said (and NO ONE has refuted) the Democrats have given up on ANY legislative agenda.. All their efforts are going to this faux impeachment coup..

    Climate change?? Put it on the back burner..

    Immigration reform?? Nope, no can do..

    Health Care?? Can it..

    Infrastructure?? Don't wanna hear it..

    Democrats have TOTALLY discarded their entire legislative agenda for the next 5 years in their single-minded hatred of President Trump..

    Democrats are destroying ANY possibility of gaining the Senate or holding onto the House..

    The fact that President Trump will win re-election in a landslide is a foregone conclusion...

    The total LOCK that Democrats had on all facets of government in 2009??

    That's what it's gonna be for the GOP in 2021.... :D

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    “Look, my son did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong. I carried out the policy of the United States government in rooting out corruption in Ukraine.”
    -Joe Biden

    Fine.. Then just get Barack Obama to come out and support your claim..

    Because, absent of that, the facts clearly indicate you went rogue and helped your son earn an undeserved $50K a month...

    Not so???

    Where's Obama to say it's not so??

  11. [11] 
    John M wrote:

    Chris Weigant wrote:

    "Harris was doing OK with her answer on Syria, pointing out Trump had just given "10,000 ISIS fighters a get-out-of-jail-free card," but then she bizarrely stated to Trump: "Doo gotta go." Perhaps I heard this wrong? Maybe it was "you" gotta go? Or something? Did anyone else notice this, or was it just me?"

    It sounded like: "Dude gotta go." to me.

  12. [12] 
    dsws wrote:

    For some reason, Elizabeth Warren has always drawn more fire than Bernie Sanders on the Medicare For All issue

    She's always been more likely to actually be nominated. He's been seen as being in the race to push his policies.

    On Syria, Biden called Trump's blunder ...

    Was it? Do we have any reason to think that Trump Towers Istanbul won't be laundering payola from Erdo?an? It's not as though Trump cares about US interests.

    Klobuchar launched broadside after broadside (and no, that's not some sort of pun) at Warren

    Yes it is. It presents an image conflating a broadside (definition 3a, "all the guns on one side of a ship" or their simultaneous discharge) with a broadside (definition 1, "a sizable sheet of paper printed on one side" or the material printed thereon). Nothing further need be said about any other interpretation.

    in the midst of one of these full-frontal attacks

    That hyphen seems unfortunate.

    Joe Biden ("I'm the only one who took on the N.R.A. and won

    To me, that seems to emphasize the fact that he's so old as to have been in office the last time it was politically possible to ban assault weapons, about thirty years ago.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like the Squad is going to endorse Bernie Sanders..

    As if he doesn't have enough problems already, what with his At Death's Door campaign..

    An endorsement from the Squad is the kiss of death..

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    Was it? Do we have any reason to think that Trump Towers Istanbul won't be laundering payola from Erdo?an? It's not as though Trump cares about US interests.

    I just think it's HILARIOUS that Weigantia has turned into the War Monger blog.. :D

    The fought tooth and nail against Bush and his Iraq war..

    Now the fight tooth and nail against President Trump FOR a Syria war..

    Notice the common denominator?? :D

    To me, that seems to emphasize the fact that he's so old as to have been in office the last time it was politically possible to ban assault weapons, about thirty years ago.

    Oh SNAP... :D

    Nice to see you acknowledge that, in the here and now, there can be no "assault" weapon ban.. :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hunter Biden, 49, acknowledged making a mistake in working for Burisma Holdings earlier Tuesday.

    Yep.. A BIG mistake..

    HUGE, in fact...

  16. [16] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "JM screams RACISM!!! when there is not a single shred of evidence that the cop knew the race of the person.."

    You would think you could tell that simply by looking at someone through their window, correct?

    "The video doesn't make it clear... So it's entirely likely that the cop didn't know the race.. All he saw was a threat...

    We DO know that there was a gun in the residence that ended up on the floor.. Was the subject holding it??"

    A threat? What happened to the 2nd amendment??? Your "right" to bear arms???

    According to reports, she drew her gun from her purse and aimed it at the perceived "threat" to her coming from her window. Since even according to the body cam, the police never identified themselves as police.

    Even the police chief of Ft. Worth said it was her "right" to draw her gun inside her own home and that she did nothing wrong by doing so.

    "But JM et al don't WANT the facts.. They just want to yell RACIST!!!! and lynch the cop..

    And that pisses me off to no end.."

    Michale is the one who doesn't seem to want to acknowledge anything, including facts.

    His obstinate stubbornness and self righteous arrogance when he has been proven to be patently wrong pisses me off to no end.

    By the way, the officer involved has not only now resigned but he has been charged with murder as well.

    Good shoot my eye! You don't charge someone with murder for a good shoot, no matter how much you want to make the specious argument of political correctness run amok.

  17. [17] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "Hay JM...

    Here's a question you can answer when you grow a pair and come back..

    Liz, in his absence, if you want to take a swing at it..

    Anyone else, feel free to chime in..

    OK??? Good?? Here goes..

    In YOUR world, can a white cop shoot a black person and it be justified??

    What would such an incident look like to you??"

    Yes of course, it happens all the time. Just like the opposite also happens all the time, when it is not justified.

    I'm perfectly willing to answer in more detail when you finally grow a pair Michale, and tell me what circumstances would look like where you can admit that a white police officer killed a black suspect because of racism. What, exactly in your world view would that look like?

  18. [18] 
    John M wrote:

    Michale wrote:

    "You don't even have any experience, training or expertise in the field..."

    How do you know what I have or don't have???

    Hay! Maybe you can get on a board and get $50K a month like Hunter Biden did..

    Oh wait.. Yer dad aint VP..

    Or maybe you can do the same Michale, like Ivanka, Eric, Donald Jr. and Jared.

    Oh wait, your dad or father in law ain't president.

    Guess you are even more screwed. :-D

    Poor Michale keeps getting his ass whipped!

  19. [19] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW- terrific summary!

    My own perceptions.....

    Bernie came ou of the gate strong....maybe we should all get stents?

    I thought Biden had a rather poor start, but he found his footing and had a good night overall.

    Warren received the most barbs and handled them well.

    The rest of the pack is stll the rest of the pack.

    Too long! Way too long!

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    You would think you could tell that simply by looking at someone through their window, correct?

    Not if the lighting was dim..

    A threat? What happened to the 2nd amendment??? Your "right" to bear arms???

    Do you think the 2nd Amendment protects you from brandishing charges???

    According to reports, she drew her gun from her purse and aimed it at the perceived "threat" to her coming from her window.

    If that's true, you just exonerated the officer..

    Since even according to the body cam, the police never identified themselves as police.

    Of course not.. They had an Open Dwelling call.. Which is much different than a Check The Welfare call..

    If you have ANY experience in LEO operations beyond TV you would know that..

    Futher discussion is pointless, as you just exonerated the officer.

    He rationally felt in fear of his life so the shoot was a good shoot..

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    How do you know what I have or don't have???

    Because you are so damned IGNORANT of LEO operations and procedures..

    THAT'S how I know that you don't have any LEO experience beyond what you see on TV..

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    To show yerself how utterly ignorant you are, read Russ's excellent comment.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/10/14/what-to-look-for-in-the-fourth-democratic-debate/#comment-147218

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Even the police chief of Ft. Worth said it was her "right" to draw her gun inside her own home and that she did nothing wrong by doing so.

    And the cop, facing a threat to his OWN life **ALSO** did nothing wrong by firing first..

    If what you claim is true, it was all a tragic mistake...

    But the officer acted completely properly and according to procedure...

    He is just unlucky that the subject happened to be black..

    If she were white, none of you Dumbocrats would have said BOO about it.

    So, whose the racist!??

    Obviously ya'all... :eyeroll:

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course not.. They had an Open Dwelling call.. Which is much different than a Check The Welfare call..

    For the record, an Open Dwelling call is treated as a home invasion.. Stealth approach to asses the situation. When the officer approached a window and saw a subject pointing a gun at him...

    What SHOULD he have done??

    Take a bullet because it MIGHT be a case of mistaken identity??

    Like I said.. Your ignorance of LEO operations is only matched by your stupidity in thinking you actually have a clue..

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Goodwin: Democratic rivals make it clear who the front-runner is at latest debate

    The pounding on her was especially acute over her repeated refusal to say whether her Medicare-for-all plan would result in middle-class tax hikes. Asked directly by a moderator, Warren said, “Let me be clear,” then proceeded to obfuscate, duck and dodge until her time was up.

    What IS it about Democrats that they can't give a straight answer to a straight question..???

    The exchange was one of several that revealed what the polls have been showing: Biden is slowly sagging and likely faces more trouble over his son’s profiteering from Joe’s days as vice president.
    https://nypost.com/2019/10/16/goodwin-democratic-rivals-make-it-clear-who-the-front-runner-is-at-latest-debate/

    Unless Obama steps up, Joe B is toast...

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    There was a big fight over gun control measures, between those who wanted to pass universal background checks right away and those who demanded that any bill include other restrictions as well (such as either mandatory or voluntary buybacks of assault weapons). This fight started between Pete Buttigieg and Beto O'Rourke, who took exception to Mayor Pete calling his plan a "shiny object" (this preceded the debate, and I'll have to look this reference up, because I missed it at the time, I have to admit). Buttigieg shot back strongly: "I don't need lessons from you in courage." This debate drew in almost every other candidate on the stage before it was over.

    Mandatory buy back

    Why don't you call it what it is??

    Gun confiscation...

    And, can you define what an "assault weapon" is??? Because when you look at the ACTUAL common sense definition it's any weapon you can use to assault someone..

    So, a broom stick handle is an "assault weapon"..

    NO ONE here can define the parameters of what weapons would be banned...

    And you know why??

    Because Democrats don't HAVE any parameters.. Democrats just want to pass WOULDN'T IT BE NICE laws that have NOTHING to do with stopping crowd based mass shootings..

  27. [27] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    There was a fun story on the radio yesterday in their strange news story.

    A man in Ireland who lived his life as a prankster wanted to put the fun back in funerals.

    He set it up with one or two family members to have a tape recorder in his coffin that as the coffin was lowered in the grave played a tape of him saying "What's going on? It's dark in here. Let me out. I'm not dead!" (not an exact quote).

    This provides a perfect analogy for the debate as well as our democracy.

    Just because you hear the illusion of life in the coffin doesn't mean that the person in the coffin is really alive.

    Reporting on what was on the tape recorder as if it were not an illusion is not accurate and misses the whole point of the illusion.

    And unlike the funeral, the point of the illusion in the debates and our political system is not a prank-it is deception.

    It's time to apply a de-FIB-ulator to see if our democracy can be resurrected.

    Get Real.

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    Democrats won't have to worry about governing for the next 5 years at least..

    After their faux impeachment coup debacle and them getting wiped off the map in 2020.. Democrats are going to have a LOT of time to get their act together.. :D

  29. [29] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    No michale, you are incorrect and it is a real impeachment proceeding. Claiming otherwise is like saying the undercard fights aren't real fights. The inquiry is every inch real and constitutional, it just isn't the main event.

  30. [30] 
    dsws wrote:

    Nice to see you acknowledge that, in the here and now, there can be no "assault" weapon ban.

    I didn't acknowledge any such thing. I don't know whether it's possible now or not. But "last time" is commonly contrasted with "this time", so if anything my statement is more optimistic than my actual opinion.

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    No michale, you are incorrect and it is a real impeachment proceeding. Claiming otherwise is like saying the undercard fights aren't real fights. The inquiry is every inch real and constitutional, it just isn't the main event.

    It's not in accordance with precedent or tradition..

    Much like ya'all claimed McConnell's actions wasn't legit during the Garland issue..

    :D

    And, since it's not the main event, Democrats don't get impeachment privileges in the courts that they normally would have in a "real" impeachment..

    Executive privilege trumps Democrat fishing expedition... :D

    I'll ask again.. Why don't Democrats afford President Trump the same courtesies the the GOP afforded to Clinton??

    Why are they hiding all the facts from the American people???

    What are they afraid of???

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    I didn't acknowledge any such thing. I don't know whether it's possible now or not. But "last time" is commonly contrasted with "this time",

    Fair enough.. My apologies for my error...

    so if anything my statement is more optimistic than my actual opinion.

    Which would be???....

    I guess it's a moot question so I'll withdraw it..

    It's clear that Democrats have forsaken all legislative efforts to concentrate solely and completely on their faux impeachment coup...

  33. [33] 
    dsws wrote:

    Now the fight tooth and nail against President Trump FOR a Syria war.

    The war has been going on for about eight years. The outrage at Trump's order -- bipartisan outrage, by the way -- is not a position for or against the war.

    Those troops represented a commitment, made it a real fact instead of empty words. As long as we had troops there, our sort-of-ally couldn't go in and massacre our other sort-of-ally. Pulling the troops out didn't stop a war. It started the Turkish invasion of Kurdish-held territory.

    There are many on the anti-war left who favor withdrawing troops in various situations even when it's problematic. There's presumably some hypocrisy in their case. For most people who have objected to Trump's de-facto authorization of the Turkish invasion, no.

  34. [34] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Why don't Democrats afford President Trump the same courtesies the the GOP afforded to Clinton??

    many reasons. firstly, and i agree with you on this point, this impeachment probably isn't intended to remove the president, just to damage his prospects of re-election. anyone who says they already know whether or not it will work to that end is selling something.

    second, there's a much greater danger of retaliation against witnesses. not that i think "slut-shaming" is something that ought to be supported, but it's a touch lower in terms of danger to the witness than accusations of treason and spying. there's just too great a chance that someone who wants to "help" the president and believes in his framing of the issue will leak information that results in physical harm to a witness.

    third, the president did what he did out in public, and even the white house is not denying the factual basis for the inquiry. to some extent it's a congress critter's responsibility to push back against an executive who blatantly ignores their rules and laws.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Those troops represented a commitment, made it a real fact instead of empty words. As long as we had troops there, our sort-of-ally couldn't go in and massacre our other sort-of-ally. Pulling the troops out didn't stop a war.

    It DID stop US forces from being involved in the war..

    Something the Left *claims* they support..

    At least they do when it's a Democrat who is pulling forces out of the relevant TOP..

    That's my point..

    The outrage at Trump's order -- bipartisan outrage, by the way -- is not a position for or against the war.

    It is a position FOR US troops being involved in the war...

    A position that the Left is all supportive of.. Except when it can be used as a new shiny to beat President Trump over the head with..

    That's all that this is..

    Democrats would be all supportive of pulling US troops out of a warzone..

    If it wasn't President Trump who is doing it..

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Michale-
    I don't give two shits whether the Democrats or Republicans are governing for the next five years.

    No matter who is in control both sides are working for the big money interests so the only rational choice is to work against both with the goal of getting something better than the illusion.

    The Democrats and Republicans already have their act together.

    And when you pick one "side" over the other to support that "tingle proves it is working".

    Gloating over picking the side that you believe is "winning" at the moment is as comical as complaining or being hopeful aboot being on the other side.

    As long as you buy into the show and pick a "side" you are guaranteeing that you and the rest of the country will lose.

    Aren't you tired of being a sucker?

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Aren't you tired of being a sucker?

    I am not tired of being a realist..

    We have the system we have, not the system we wish we had..

    Barring a cataclysmic event such as First Contact or a giant asteroid impact..

    It's not going to change...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    many reasons. firstly, and i agree with you on this point, this impeachment probably isn't intended to remove the president, just to damage his prospects of re-election. anyone who says they already know whether or not it will work to that end is selling something.

    So, Democrats have to do as much damage to President Trump as possible before public opinion FORCES them to concede that they don't have anything impeachable.

    Tactically sound... Ethically and morally repugnant, but tactically sound...

    third, the president did what he did out in public, and even the white house is not denying the factual basis for the inquiry. to some extent it's a congress critter's responsibility to push back against an executive who blatantly ignores their rules and laws.

    Of which THIS executive simply followed the rules and precedent that the previous executive established..

    What President Trump did is so mild to be milquetoast compared to the blatant extortion and quid pro quo that Joe Biden CONFESSED to doing..

    Now, I'll grant you that what Trump and Biden did is simply how diplomacy works.. How the sausage is made..

    But one can't hold onto one's integrity if one simultaneously condemns President Trump and gives Joe Biden a pass...

    If you want to condemn President Trump for his actions, fine.. Sausage making is ugly and you are on solid rational and logical ground..

    If you want to give Joe Biden a pass... again.. Fine... It's simply how the world of diplomacy works.. Ugly, but it is what it is...

    But to do both is the epitome, the textbook definition of hypocrisy...

  39. [39] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Klobuchar had a great debate; trouble is that, despite all of the good moments that she had (see above), she made the apparently serious mistake of taking on Warren, who you are apparently momentarily infatuated with.

    That's all right. The centrist-progressive wings will fight this out next march.

  40. [40] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale[6],

    So, there is hope, then?

    And, by hope, I mean for the world, America, and, most importantly, America's global leadership role.

  41. [41] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    If you want to condemn President Trump for his actions, fine.. Sausage making is ugly and you are on solid rational and logical ground..

    Good, because Trump's gotten Lindsay Graham's panties in a knot over this Syria thing.

    Turns out, betraying allies isn't the free and easy thing in the world that it is in Queens.

  42. [42] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I've noticed that president Trump is always complaining about how America's allies and the rest of the world don't do their fair share to be part of the solution and always expect that America should do it all and foot the bill for it, too!

    There is actually a point or two there in his constant whining.

    The problem is that he doesn't seem to know what to do, much less how to do it, beyond the whining
    and actually loosen the load that America carries. I know this because he is still whining.

    The Democratic candidates for president will have to demonstrate how they will restore American leadership and address the existential challenges facing America in a complex and ever-changing world.

    Getting all troops out of the Middle East is a non-serious proposition and evidence of a simplistic worldview that will not propel America to its rightful global leadership role.

    Real American leadership is about sharing the burden and promoting democracy and democratic ideals to get the job done with everyone taking on their responsibilities, to themselves and to partners throughout the free world.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    So, there is hope, then?

    And, by hope, I mean for the world, America, and, most importantly, America's global leadership role.

    Yes, there is hope.. I have been known to be wrong.. On occasion.. :D

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Blathy,

    Turns out, betraying allies isn't the free and easy thing in the world that it is in Queens.

    Apparently, it was when Obama did it..

    Why is that??

  45. [45] 
    Paula wrote:

    Great recap Chris!

    Not long after the debate was over a tweet starting circulating of 3rd quarter funding (cash on hand) for the candidates - Bernie lead with $33million+; Liz was second with $25million+; I think Buttigieg was third with $15million+ and I forget the next few but Joe Biden had only $9million+. That shocked me.

    Also post-debate was the announcement that AOC, Rashida Tlaib and Ihlan Omar were going to endorse Bernie. Reaction to that was mixed, ranging from the "that will kick his candidacy into the stratosphere!" to "best thing that could have happened to E. Warren - separating her from AOC who is a lightening rod..."
    We'll see what impact it has.

  46. [46] 
    Paula wrote:

    Re: Buttigieg; I thought he was at his best talking about how military people are reacting to Blotus' betrayal of the Kurds - with anger and disgust. He was also eloquent on the destruction of America's reputation for honor in dealing with other countries, etc.

    Far less effective, to me, were a couple of his responses which boiled down: "you all (especially EW) have a bunch of plans but I've been hearing plans my whole life and nothing get's fixed". Aspects of that are true, but the REASONS for that were left out, the implication being that HE, unlike all the others on the stage, would get stuff done. (He doesn't specify how.) He also said several times that plans candidates were presenting weren't good enough because stuff had to be done NOW!

    To the first point - nothing get's done - my response is to lay 75% of responsibility on the Abusive Republican Party which has been hugely effective at making everything worse for the 99%; with 25% aimed at Dems who spent way too many years enabling GOP abuse, which included treating nonsensical "conservative" notions about the economy as having merit when they've been proven over and over to be fantasy.

    Mayor Pete rightly points out how little positive progress has been made on many fronts, but not why/how. Liz Warren, meanwhile, identifies the mechanisms that have been used to create the conditions we're in and offers plans to tackle them. Mayor Pete, in response, falls back on classic centrist "let's not go too far".

    His second point seemed totally garbled to me. The candidates were there to present/defend their plans and approaches to being potus. He was saying all their plans are useless coz the problems need addressing NOW - but then he offered nothing himself. Just what does he think candidates who aren't yet potus can/should do to handle problems now? What is HE doing to handle problems now?

    IOW, he's big on blame but vague on solutions.

    Mayor Pete is very verbally adept when he knows what he's trying to say, but he's not particularly good at framing the benefits of "centrism" - which is the lane he's trying to knock JB out of. No candidate frames "centrism" well because centrism isn't a position, it's a reaction to other positions.

  47. [47] 
    Paula wrote:

    I liked the sustained attack on Blotus that occurred at the opening of the debate coz the candidates were all asked what they thought about impeachment. All of them supported it and gave a nice range of reasons for why Blotus needs to go.

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    I think it's insane to act like there's some equivalency between Donald trump and joe biden where Ukraine is concerned. joe did what Obama wanted him to, for the interests of the united states and its allies. horse-trading in diplomacy has been par for the course since well before Obama was even born. Donald did what he felt like, for the interest of himself. what's abhorrent about it is not the methods he used, it's the ends he pursued and the absence of any evidence-based rationale for doing so.

    JL

  49. [49] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    No candidate frames "centrism" well because centrism isn't a position, it's a reaction to other positions.

    Mayor Pete....falls back on classic centrist "let's not go too far".

    That's because Mayor Pete is listening. He knows that most folks favor an incremental approach. Particularly the 'never Trumpers' have a huge problem with huge program ideas. Incremental ideas take longer, but also last longer.

  50. [50] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    by the way, biden is back up by 6 in the latest poll of polls from RCP. that's a decent bounce after being about even with warren last week.

  51. [51] 
    Paula wrote:

    [49] Balthasar:

    Mayor Pete is simultaneously yelling that nothing has gotten done yet is supporting the "incremental approach"?

    Which is it?

    ALSO: the "incrementalists" have the exact same problem as the boldies - NOTHING get's done unless the GOP is defanged and disempowered.

    Finally: Liz Warren is absolutely right that the 1% (wealthiest ppl and corps) have, little by little, through a million modifications to laws, tax codes, departments, etc., gained "control" of government. What is the incrementalist response to that?

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    joe did what Obama wanted him to,

    Maybe.. Maybe not.. The fact that Obama won't step up calls that into question.

    But the point is irrelevant..

    The ACTIONS are the same... The reasons why are not relevant to that point..

    Now you can disapprove of WHY the actions were committed when Trump did it and not when Biden did it..

    Fine.. That's a judgement call and one's ideological position figures into that judgement.

    But you cannot deny that the actions themselves are identical..

    Donald did what he felt like, for the interest of himself. what's abhorrent about it is not the methods he used, it's the ends he pursued and the absence of any evidence-based rationale for doing so.

    That's spin but as I said.. It doesn't matter..

    The ACTS are the same, vis a vis quid pro quo..

    The reasons why may (or may not) be different but that's not relevant to the condemnation of the act..

    horse-trading in diplomacy has been par for the course since well before Obama was even born.

    Yes it has.. And that's all Biden and Trump each did... Horse trading..

    Now you claim Biden's motives were pure.. If so, then Obama would step up and make that case.. Obama won't... For some reason..

    Until Obama steps up and sets the record straight, Biden's motives appear to be as selfish as Trump's..

    Of course you will disagree.. But that is reality..

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    by the way, biden is back up by 6 in the latest poll of polls from RCP. that's a decent bounce after being about even with warren last week.

    I saw that... Won't help... It's either going to be Warren or Hillary as the Dem nominee.. :D

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Balthy,

    That's because Mayor Pete is listening. He knows that most folks favor an incremental approach. Particularly the 'never Trumpers' have a huge problem with huge program ideas. Incremental ideas take longer, but also last longer.

    You brought back some smarts and doses of reality from yer class reunion... :D

    Kewl...

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fine.. That's a judgement call and one's ideological position figures into that judgement.

    But, since we're wallowing in reality and facts here, it's a FACT that the "favor" that President Trump asked President Zelensky for was assistance on the 2016 Election investigation.. Something the Democrats care about at one time...

    The ask to check up on Biden came at the end of the conversation as an after thought..

    Now it's still a selfish "favor" as any info Zelensky would have would implicate Democrats, but it's undeniable that the 2016 investigation was the "favor" asked..

    Irregardless of all those facts, the fact remains...

    The ACT the both President Trump and VP Biden committed, the quid pro quo act was identical..

    And, without any info from Obama, Biden's act looks as selfish... MORE selfish than Trump's act..

  56. [56] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The reasons why may (or may not) be different but that's not relevant to the condemnation of the act..
    Incorrect. It's the ONLY thing relevant to the act. Hardball foreign diplomacy and hardball domestic politics are like bleach and ammonia - clean separately but deadly when mixed.
    JL

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Deadly to our constitution, that is.

  58. [58] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Is Obama your only source of information, Michale?

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    Incorrect. It's the ONLY thing relevant to the act. Hardball foreign diplomacy and hardball domestic politics are like bleach and ammonia - clean separately but deadly when mixed.

    But you just said above that "hardball" foreign diplomacy is how things work..

    "horse-trading in diplomacy has been par for the course since well before Obama was even born."

    Your problem is you approve of it when the guy with the -D after his name does it but you don't like when the guy with the -R after his name does it..

    So you assign nefarious motives to the guy with the -R and virtuous motives to the guy with the -D..

    But if you take away the motives, what's left???

    The ACT itself..

    And the ACT is the same...

    The ACT of quid pro quo is the same..

    And Biden's was WORSE, because he thru in a large helping of EXTORTION..

    I don't expect you to see it, let alone acknowledge it..

    But the facts are still the facts..

    And the fact is, both Biden & Trump engaged in "hard ball foreign" diplomacy...

    Trump was simply more polite about it and left Zelensky with a smile...

    Biden's was out and out extortion..

  60. [60] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So you assign nefarious motives to the guy with the -R and virtuous motives to the guy with the -D..

    Wrong again, with a generous helping of you should know better. Donald stated his motives explicitly, many times. Exerting pressure on a foreign nation is fine, but not for that purpose.

  61. [61] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Digging up political dirt is also fine, but not as foreign diplomacy. Whether it's a crime worthy of impeachment, who knows? But that combination is absolutely and unequivocally wrong, no matter which party does it.

  62. [62] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Bleach and ammonia. Did that fly over anyone else's head?

  63. [63] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    What IS it about Democrats that they can't give a straight answer to a straight question..???

    So I will ask you again....Didn’t you admit to me that you had never served as a LEO for any police department, but you claimed to have been a MP when you were in the service? Am I lying or am I stating the truth? Which is it!?!?

    Will he ignore this, deflect, or just toss insults to avoid answering?

    Or will he attempt to avoid this on a technicality? Since I am gay, my question is not technically “straight”, but that doesn’t prevent him from still replying with a “straight” answer.

  64. [64] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    The Mueller report ended up going nowhere because there was no proof of donald's motives in accepting russian help. In his call with the Ukraine, the text conversations leading to it, and the president's media strategy in the aftermath, those motives are clear.
    Are we clear?
    Crystal.

  65. [65] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    Klobuchar has always come off to me as the most insincere candidate on the stage.

    Could it be that you are not used to how certain midwesterners sound when they talk? The movie Fargo is a great reference, but it honestly just barely scratches the surface of how distinctive and pronounced their accents can be.

    As someone who has lived all over this country (except the SW), we may all claim to be speaking English, but we aren’t speaking it in the same dialects. I have a pretty strong Southern drawl, and the kids on the Crow Reservation were always asking me what country I was from.

    I find that most midwesterners sound insincere when they talk...and you wouldn’t believe how similar them speaking sincerely sounds to when they are openly mocking someone! More than once, the shocked look on my face made it clear that my friends had to assure me that they were not being serious with the outrageous things they had said. In time, the more you hear them speak, the easier it is to pick up the cues you need to decode their way of talking.

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    So I will ask you again....Didn’t you admit to me that you had never served as a LEO for any police department, but you claimed to have been a MP when you were in the service? Am I lying or am I stating the truth? Which is it!?!?

    I have already answered this 3 or more times..

    You have NO FACTS to back up anything you say...

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Digging up political dirt is also fine, but not as foreign diplomacy. Whether it's a crime worthy of impeachment, who knows? But that combination is absolutely and unequivocally wrong, no matter which party does it.

    OK.. So NOW the story is you can use foreign sources to dig up dirt on political opponents, as long as you are not part of the government when you do it.

    Is THAT the current claim??

  68. [68] 
    Michale wrote:

    Donald stated his motives explicitly, many times.

    Yea???

    Do tell.. Let's see the quotes.. :D

  69. [69] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    The ACT of quid pro quo is the same..

    And Biden's was WORSE, because he thru in a large helping of EXTORTION..

    How is Trump’s refusal to keep the government running unless the Democrats gave him the funding he demanded for his wall any different than what Biden did? Every contract negotiation that has ever taken place has used quid pro quo at some time. Let’s face it, “quid pro quo” is typically referred to as “negotiating” except when done for illegal reasons.

    What made Trump’s quid pro quo illegal is that he was using the power of his position to withhold government money until the Ukraine president agreed to do him a personal favor!

    You refuse to admit that Biden was authorized to demand Ukraine get rid of their prosecutor that refused to fight the corruption plaguing that country before the US would provide them with the aid we had promised. Biden did not benefit personally from this...and if Hunter Biden’s business was doing something illegal, demanding a prosecutor that was tough on corruption was not doing Hunter any favors!

    It is clear why you have to keep using this dishonest line of thinking...You know that Trump is a corrupt and compromised idiot who needs to be in jail.

  70. [70] 
    Michale wrote:

    “I was proud to work with Justin Trudeau as President. He's a hard-working, effective leader who takes on big issues like climate change. The world needs his progressive leadership now, and I hope our neighbors to the north support him for another term,”
    -Barack Hussein Obama

    Funny how Obama will back some foreign leader, but not back up his own VP...

    Joe Biden's actions are looking more and more selfish and self serving..

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden was authorized to demand Ukraine get rid of their prosecutor that refused to fight the corruption plaguing that country before the US would provide them with the aid we had promised.

    And yet, Obama refuses to step up and state this..

    Why is that??

    Because, obviously Joe Biden was serving himself and his son..

    Don't take MY word for it..

    The first is the absence of Barack Obama. He needs to get off the sidelines, plain and simple. Joe Biden didn't go rogue and pressure the Ukrainians on his own initiative, from all accounts, it was not only an official White House policy but it was in fact the same goal that most of Western Europe was had with the Ukrainian government. So Obama needs to state this now, in explicit terms. A simple tweet would be enough, at this point: "Vice President Biden did exactly what I told him to do in the Ukraine, and it had absolutely nothing to do with his son, period." This would be the strongest possible defense for Biden, which is why Obama really needs to jump into the fray, here. It is not showing favoritism in the primary race to defend what his own vice president did, after all.
    -CW
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2019/09/27/ftp544/

    Since Obama is NOT doing this, obviously Obama **CAN"T** say that Biden was serving policy..

    So, you are 1000% factually NOT accurate in your claim...

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    As long as Odumbo doesn't stand up and say that Joe Biden didn't go rogue, the ONLY rational conclusion is that Joe Biden DID, indeed, go rogue..

    Don't blame me for that.. It's CW's words, not mine..

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    We already know Obama's not shy about involving himself in elections..

    He jumped to the defense of Trudeau for Truedeau's election and he jumped in the Israeli elections to support Netanyahu's opponent..

    So, the **ONLY** logical reason NOT to jump in the US election and claim that Joe Biden did NOT go rogue is because that is EXACTLY what Biden did.. Go rogue..

    I am guessing that Obama warned Biden not to extort the Ukrainians at the time because it would look bad, seeing that Biden's son just got a lucrative "job" that Hunter Biden had absolutely NO experience in and was paid $50K a month for access to VP Biden..

    So, Obama is NOT going to help out Biden because Biden did EXACTLY what Obama told Biden **NOT** to do..

    That's the only logical explanation that fits the facts..

    Joe went rogue.. Obama is not going to bail Joe out..

    End of conversation..

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama endorses Trudeau for Canadian PM, as Biden waits for his support

    Obama endorses Justin Trudeau for reelection in Canada
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fmr-pres-obama-endorses-justin-trudeau-for-reelection

    Poor Joe.. Always the bridesmaid...

  75. [75] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    I have already answered this 3 or more times..

    Great! So you did admit to me that you have never actually served as a LEO for a police department, but claimed you were an MP in the service.

    Thanks for clarifying this for everyone! I am sure it feels good to get the truth out there, finally. Now when you post about recently fallen officers it will feel respectful, and not seem like a desperate attempt to make up for the stolen honor you were guilty of taking!

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Trevor Noah rips into Joe Biden on 'Daily Show' after candidate's fumbled debate response

    “The Daily Show” host Trevor Noah laid into former vice president and Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden Tuesday night after his strange response to a rather pressing question.

    When asked about son Hunter’s dealings with Ukraine, the presidential candidate fumbled over his words and meandered aimlessly before finally getting to his point.

    “My son’s statement speaks for itself. What I think is important is we focus on why it’s so important to remove this man from office,” said Biden. “On the 17 — look, the fact George Washington worried on the first time he spoke after being elected president, that what we had to worry about is foreign interference in our election,” Biden said as he oddly diverted from his initial thought.

    Upon playing this clip, Noah immediately mocked the former vice president.

    “Okay, one minute he’s talking about his son, then it’s George Washington then something about the 17?" Noah asked, wondering why Biden's response was so frenetic. "Joe Biden is the only candidate who remixes his speech while he’s giving it,” Noah said before imitating sounds of a record scratching.
    https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/daily-show-host-trevor-noah-tears-into-joe-biden

    These are DEMOCRATS who are saying Joe is going senile..

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement that she has no plans to hold a vote to formally approve an impeachment inquiry of President Trump has been met with an outcry from Republicans and the White House who argue the ongoing probe lacks legal authority.

    Still, Democrats are continuing to call witnesses with Michael McKinley, former senior adviser to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, appearing Wednesday for a closed-door interview, as the White House resists Democrats’ investigatory efforts based on the House’s refusal to hold a vote.

    Meanwhile, legal analysts say that should this clash end up before a judge, House Democrats could have a tricky time in court.

    “Pelosi seems to believe that she can hold a press conference and expect courts to accept that a formal impeachment process has begun,” George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley wrote in a Wednesday morning blog post. “Some judges are likely to be uncomfortable with such an immaculate impeachment.”

    Pelosi wants all the COURT benefits of an impeachment without all the heavy lifting and work that a REAL impeachment requires..

    The courts will stop that utter silliness when it starts ruling in Trump's favor on every question..

    If Democrats don't have a REAL impeachment, then Executive Privilege will rule the day...

    It's really that simple..

    If Democrats want to prevail in court..

    Hold an impeachment vote..

    What are Democrats afraid of???

    Losing???

    That IS a realistic fear...

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    Great! So you did admit to me that you have never actually served as a LEO for a police department, but claimed you were an MP in the service.

    You have absolutely NO FACTS to support that claim..

    As usual, you are lying..

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced at a news conference outside the White House on Wednesday that they had just walked out of a meeting with President Trump on Syria policy, after he apparently called Pelosi a "third-rate politician" and angrily suggested the Democrats probably appreciated communist Islamic State terrorists in the Middle East.

    Apparently, Democrats don't like hearing the facts...

    SHOCKING.... :eyeroll:

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    The $64,000 question..

    If Hunter Biden did nothing wrong and Joe Biden did nothing wrong, WHY did Joe Biden have to swear that, if Joe Biden is elected POTUS, Hunter Biden won't do it again??

    If nothing wrong was done, then why swear off of it??

    "WHY THE TWO ORDERS, COLONEL!!??? If you gave an order that Santiago wasn't to be touched and your orders are always followed, why would Santiago be in any danger?? Why would it be necessary to transfer him off the base??"
    -Daniel Caffey, A FEW GOOD MEN

    If Joe Biden and Hunter Biden did nothing wrong, why is it necessary to swear that they will never do it again??

    "LT Kendrick ordered the code red because THAT'S what you told LT Kendrick to do!!! And when it went bad, you cut these guys loose!! You had Markensen sign the phony transfer request!! You coerced the doctor!!! COLONEL JESSUP!!! DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED!!!!"
    -Daniel Caffey, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Whew!! I am pumped up!!! :D

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK and on THAT dramatic note.. I bid ya'all a fond g'nite mates.. :D

  82. [82] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If Joe Biden and Hunter Biden did nothing wrong, why is it necessary to swear that they will never do it again??

    because it created the APPEARANCE of conflict of interest. while technically not wrong, it damages public confidence.

  83. [83] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    nypoet22,

    If Joe Biden and Hunter Biden did nothing wrong, why is it necessary to swear that they will never do it again??

    because it created the APPEARANCE of conflict of interest. while technically not wrong, it damages public confidence.

    Exactly!

  84. [84] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Because you are so damned IGNORANT of LEO operations and procedures..

    THAT'S how I know that you don't have any LEO experience beyond what you see on TV..

    Funny, that was how I knew you had never been a LEO. You had NO idea how investigation’s into officer involved shootings worked and then claimed that the military did it differently when you shot that woman.

  85. [85] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Great! So you did admit to me that you have never actually served as a LEO for a police department, but claimed you were an MP in the service.

    You have absolutely NO FACTS to support that claim..

    As usual, you are lying..

    Nope, that’s what I remember your answer being! Feel free to repost your answer to my question to prove I am lying.

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nope, that’s what I remember your answer being! Feel free to repost your answer to my question to prove I am lying.

    As I said.. You have NO FACTS to support your claim.

    You are simply lying and everyone here knows it...

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    because it created the APPEARANCE of conflict of interest. while technically not wrong, it damages public confidence.

    So, because it created an appearance of being wrong, it was the wrong thing to do..

    OK.. Great.. We got that cleared up..

  88. [88] 
    Kick wrote:

    Mike
    70

    Funny how Obama will back some foreign leader, but not back up his own VP...

    It isn't funny how you seem utterly clueless that if Biden were running for reelection of Canada, that endorsement would have been for him. How fucking stupid does that make you?

    Joe Biden's actions are looking more and more selfish and self serving..

    Only to the triggered rubes and gullible morons like yourself.

Comments for this article are closed.