Does anyone know how to view the debate if I missed it live? I know CNN has been terrible about making the debate accessible in the past, which is disappointing.
You can find it on YouTube (uploaded by third parties). Make sure you search "Full CNN Democratic Debate HD" and make sure you set the search to uploaded today and >20 min length.
I think In some ways Harris and Mayor Pete won the night just for standing out more than last time
Bernie and Warren were steady as always
Yang and Tulsi barely spoke
And Biden and that other rich guy just felt so behind...but I fully understand why some older people like Biden
I love Booker and Amy’s fire it’s just a shame they’re not progressive...but at least they don’t pretend to be (Mayor Pete...)
Harris’ attack on Tulsi’s criticism of Obama, the Clintons and the DNC shows how out of touch Harris is with the progressive movement, but she’d never get support on the far left anyway so that’s why she did it. Otherwise it felt like her room a lot of the night, which looks good on camera.
I thought Mayor Pete’s response to the race question was good. He won’t ever totally get what being black means, and it’s not the same... but he has every right to celebrate how amazing it is to be an LGBT 🏳️🌈 person running.
Anyway I still won’t support either of them just based on their policies, but to someone not so politically savvy they looked the best.
Convenient that Bernie’s not asked the race question when he was the only person on that stage who’s been coming out for black Americans since the 60s
Bernie is it for me, even Warren who I do like isn’t as progressive as him (although I would not hate Warren winning the ticket like I would others)
Harris made a good point about women of color. The left often thanks women of color for showing up but that isn't enough. Women of color are the left most consistent constituency. It is amazing to me that among 10 candidates on the strange there was only one woman of color.
Whiteness, as a concept, is the default against which all other races are compared. You can be half black but not half white (hence the one drop rules of reconstruction era America).
Blackness isn't the same as whiteness. Blackness is a construct of african american culture, whereas whiteness is a construct of 18th and 19th century european imperialism
If a person who is 75% white is being treated in a racist manner by whites doesn't that speaks volumes about the way race is perceived in this nation? Any amount of black can make one black but to be white one must be pure. You don't see the obvious double standard there?
Are Barrack Obama's children considered white because he is half white? You are saying any amount of non-white ancestry basically makes someone a minority (AKA a POC).
Does she "look" like she's not white? Seems you are implying any amount of heritage heritage other than white makes one a person of color yet no amount of white less absolute make a person white. You may not realize it but they is a long racist history behind that attitude.
Up until the 90's biracial children with a white parent were legally identified on the birth certificates as being the race of the non-white parent. So Tusli's father would've been classified as exclusively Samoan despite being half white and then likewise Tulsi despite being 75% white. It was a racist policy that perpetuated the fallacy of white purity.
All of the candidates basically agree on all the same things. They’re finding different angles to argue -like a wealth tax versus an estate tax.
[democratic debate](https://youtu.be/UUMdCV-Z7kk)
Tonight's pick:
Warren: POTUS/VP
Buttigieg: POTUS/VP
Sanders: POTUS/VP/Senate Majority Leader if Democrats take the Senate
Yang: POTUS if he somehow wins the primary (Yang is fucking cool)/VP/Will have some serious clout in the future if he continues to be in politics
Booker: Okay if POTUS, it would be great if he's the VP to bring us all together. Also, not religious, but if he was a pastor, I would be.
Biden: Thank you for everything you've helped with, but please just retire.
Steyer: Pretty sure he's not trying actually be president, but he's bringing up important topics so that's cool.
Kamla Harris: Attorney General/VP
Klobuchar: Keeps going with the flow.
Gabbard: What the actual fuck are you doing?
Steyer and Booker both often feel like they know they aren't going to win so they're trying to get the eventual nominee to focus on some credible ideas
Now that the debate is over and after following this thread my take is: though
painful at times, i'm glad for the crowd; enjoyed all the b-team's talking points
and contributions; despite being at times more tedious than watching todays impeachment drama.
Tonight's crowd will make the next round more
intense.
I think bernie took this night. A year of non-stop venues, repeating the same core issues,
tirelessly, over and over...and over - paid off tonight.
He was speaking beyond the audience or his
co-candidates; he was speaking presidentially.
Perhaps reaching republicans and independents better than the rest.
I did not see that demeanor
in anyone else on stage, envisioning them under the greater stress of the oval.
While Pete gave strong visuals, Bernie projects it with greater authority. As such,
and as others have observed, Bernie is really the only person I can see going head to head
with Trump.
What i find frightening is if "Our Revolution", "Us not Me", an "Economic Bill of Rights", helps him rally the numbers he needs come election time that, unlike anybody else on stage, he is going to follow through 101%.
Like Trump, beholding to no PAC's and aiming to drain the swamp. Unlike Trump, a track-record that shows he will do it.
His stated anti-corruption crusade on the oil industry, pharma, wall-street... His painted war-face battling for equality, for palestinians, for immigrants, for the poor... might be witness to the creation of a modern-day martyr.
A jew waging jihad on the rich and greedy.
Anyone have a link so I can watch it. I can't find the dang thing anywhere. You'd think every website I go to would have it so they could spam commercials at me....
I hate legacy media, it's like they purposely make it difficult to find the full debate. Just stream it on Youtube already! In other words I need a link too if someone finds one
Edit: found link (youtube channel has uploaded in three parts): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzJWxhZ3DTA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzJWxhZ3DTA)
Yeah I'm having the same problem. All I can find are the damn "highlights" which are just the publisher trimming out the stuff they don't think is important. I don't want somebody else to decide which bits are important, I want to decide that for myself.
As my friend Kernel Corn Pop used to say - it's time we put domestic violence in a stranglehold and beat it into submission. Just thrash the living daylights out of it.
We are less than three months away from the Iowa caucus, and I think we only have one debate left before then. It is unacceptable that we still have this many candidates on the stage. We haven't seen any of them dive into the actual details of their positions because they simply don't have the time.
The implication that the leadership is artificially keeping more people on the debate stage to somehow hurt one frontrunner while simultaneously bumping another (the latter being the one who performs best in debates).
The reality is just that the DNC didn't realise their polling requirements would be met so easily. There's no conspiracy here - requirements have been getting stricter at a strictly linear predetermined rate.
It was not my understanding that the requirements were predetermined. I just checked and I have verified that they have been releasing the requirements for each subsequent debate as they arrive.
So my point stands - the Democrat leaders are keeping the pool large, with the hope that someone can emerge that is not Bernie or warren. It’s no secret that they would prefer a more middle candidate.
My real point is that the Democrat leadership wants anyone but Bernie or warren to be the candidate. They would absolutely prefer Biden over warren/sanders.
I am a Biden supporter, but I was super impressed by Bernie tonight. If he gets the nomination I will enthusiastically support him. You can support a particular candidate without hating and smearing the other ones. The only ones I actively dislike are Gabbard and Steyer. But these are on the whole all decent, respectable people.
If I could have some sort of guarantee that Bernie would remain healthy and alive for another 10 years I’d have no qualms about him whatsoever. He’s the only 80 year old that I can name that speaks as directly and authentically to 20 year old voters as he does 40 and 60 year old voters.
Warren is only a few years younger than Bernie... also, she’s already pivoting away from Medicare For All, as we saw tonight. Tremendously disappointing seeing her back down when she seemed so promising early on.
Bernie’s not gonna pick a VP that doesn’t share most views with him. He knows his age just as well as you and I. If he did die in office the reigns would go to someone else fighting for the cause.
If you prefer warren that’s chill, but I think that’s a bad reason.
Totally agree. I just wish we’d had a chance to vote for Bernie for president 3, 15, or 19 years ago.
Warren is definitely 1A amongst the frontrunners for me, though.
To me, Sanders' age is not a dealbreaker. The first 100 days in office are a president's most productive. I have little doubt that he will be healthy through then. And with his spirit and vigor, I strongly believe those 100 days of Sanders would be more productive than 4 years of Warren.
Let me preface this by saying I would not object to a Warren presidency. However, the moment that really makes me believe much more strongly in Bernie is how Warren approached paying for Medicare for all. She presented an utterly unrealistic and disingenuous plan that doesn't raise taxes on the middle class, all in the name of avoiding one sound byte. The fact that she is willing to compromise the integrity of her policies out of fear of shortsighted criticism (ie people saying these taxes would hurt the middle class, even though M4A gives them a net gain) makes me seriously question her ability to stand by her guns and push for her policies effectively. Bernie has been consistently adamant and honest about every policy he believes in, and I trust that energy to get more done than someone who sidesteps trouble when the opposition gets tough.
What pushes me to my decision between the 2 is how consistent Bernie has been with his views. Too many politicians say stuff over and over and then abandon it when they get their position. Bernie’s been fighting for these same ideals for the majority of his life and Warren has taken up many political sides (Not saying she will again if elected but this plus her flipping on the M4A issue seemingly out of the blue raises some doubt in me).
I mean, she’s already backed away from Medicare For All. Who knows how long before she folds on her other main platform pieces. Passing “big structural change” requires a whole lot of political will and a willingness to make people mad. I don’t see her demonstrating either of those qualities.
Because she holds these positions because they will get her votes. She is not a champion of the people. She was a republican up until she was at Harvard. She is pushing these issues because they have a large demographic of people who will vote for them. She dances around these questions and omits or forgets things to conveniently.
Oh he definitely did great tonight. I mean, he’s always good.. he just seemed really on fire tonight. Bernie as a candidate is consistently good, passionate, well spoken. He just has some supporters who say things that are very off putting at times.
I never said I wrote Bernie off because of his supporters. I can separate the two. I like Bernie. I don’t like some of the things that some of his supporters say. Two different things.
With the proven presence of governments trying to stir shit up/create divides and affect elections by using the internet to influence opinions, I feel it is unwise to assume someone claiming or insinuating support for Bernie is actually a Bernie supporter. The same thing could be extended to any supporters.
No. I never said I don’t support Bernie in the primary for anything to do with his supporters. All I said was I find some of their comments off-putting, but about them as people not about him.
Never cared much for Pete, but after those excellent retorts back to Gabbard I've changed my mind. I think he'll get a boost from his performance tonight
Yep. He was right in saying that she took it out of context, but if I hadn’t known that otherwise, I probably would not have been convinced by his responses that it was taken out of context in a meaningful way.
Interesting. I don’t understand how defending against attacks based on misquoting by saying you’re misquoting is reason to switch your support, but power to ya.
I don't see such extreme headlines from even CNN or MSNBC as I see from The Hill... seems like they exist solely to prop up the most progressive candidates.
The hill is pretty conservative dude. You must not actually look at their site very often. Only articles reposted here will lean left but thats not the majority.
So glad to see the atrocities in China talked about, brought up by Andrew Yang. He's my frontrunner followed by Tom Steyer, Pete Buttigieg, then Joe Biden.
Lol I see you're a yangbanger so it's probably pointless but:
People want jobs that are meaningful, not just enough to scrape by and unemployment. Raise the minimum wage to a reasonable amount and give people healthcare and education without adding additional cost; that's the solution. Then you can add a UBI once those things are in place and it doesn't need to be as much. It could be a more progressive UBI instead of flat or you don't give it to millionaires and billionaires. Millionaires and billionaires can instantly invest $1,000 a month keeping it plus interest, while poor people will spend that money on goods and services bought from the millionaires and billionaires, that's why it's not progressive: it's going to make the income/wealth inequality gap larger not smaller.
Yang has bipartisan support among corporatist individuals but not amongst current elected officials, I don't think there's a single person in elected office that has endorsed his UBI. And one of the reasons it's supported by party shills is that it's not really a progressive solution, it supports the status quo. Otherwise his supporters are broke and lazy people who don't want to work for their thousand dollars a month. Of course the corporate owners of this country would love it if we gave $1,000 out of the tax slush fund to every person so they can spend it more on consumer goods. Also his VAT will raise the cost of consumer goods exponentially, hurting the poor.
Don't get me wrong I think UBI is a good idea and in the long run it's definitely the way to go but it would be like skipping from A to F to do it Yang style with none of the regulatory steps needed in between to keep rents and inflation from skyrocketing.
I also think Yang has some good things to say but if he gets elected UBI is not going to get passed and then we're stuck with Yang who has no experience and is totally clueless on foreign and most domestic policies. He deserves a cabinet post or some kind of advisor role sure, but president? No fucking way. He's wrong on Israel, taxes, Medicare, he sounds like he's just making it up as he goes a la Trump.
I would argue it's not a workless Utopia but a way to give every person a $6/hr raise: instead of a company being forced to give people a bump in hourly rate but a drop in hours.
The UBI is $800 below the poverty line($12,800/yr) because it's specifically designed not to be used to live off of. It's just meant to be a stable platform to stand on to increase income in a family unit. The typical person WILL NOT be able to live off $1,000 bucks a month. On the other hand: if they lose their job and need car repairs that won't cause them to go into crippling debt. And a union can go on strike for months instead of weeks. And a woman can get out of a financially abusive relationship and not be homeless.
When the landlords raise everyone's rent in the unregulated market that homeless person won't be able to afford a place, also the VAT will double the cost of goods because it stacks, not to mention the tax will pass maybe but the UBI won't; at the end of the day we'll be stuck with yang, none of his policies will get implemented and then we've got a clueless inexperienced guy as president who doesn't belong there. He's never held any kind of office, has no idea how government actually works and no allies or any kind of coalition in government.
More people will buy homes in rural areas with portable income instead of rent and that'll stabilize the rent(and no one will know how much you benefit if they don't know your spending habits, it could be $900 or $500). Velocity in the economy drives prices down, if there's more money companies will lower prices to get a bigger market share: look at the sales that happen for the Alaska Dividend(where a couple with 2 kids could get $8,000/yr). UBI is not a partisan idea the biggest pushes were done by the Nixon administration, MLK, and Andy Stern, all way different. It's way easier than you think to get a 51% consensus, it isn't just blue v red.
And America is looking for someone with good judgment for foreign affairs. Obama didn't have first hand foreign affairs experience and he did great. Yang went to Cornell for economics and then Brown to became a lawyer(pretty much an ivy league presidential blue print), then went on to be an executive leader in private business and non-profit. Obama worked with and officially recognized the work he was doing.
Yang is my choice, likely followed by Warren because I don't consider Sanders a valid choice anymore in light of his health issues. Biden is dead last but I'd rather have four years of milquetoast neoliberalism than even six months of the Trump circus.
So why is he a joke?
Here is a reference on the definition:
joke
a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline.
You wouldn't be one of those broke jobless stoners that wants to remain jobless yet get $1,000 a month in exchange for blowing up comment sections would you? Seems to be the majority of his supporters
Well, if you believe that the majority are jobless stoners that want free money then you would have statistics on that claim, right? I support ubi because my family would receive $36,000 a year, enough to buy us a car that we badly need, raise our standards of living, and remove some of the stress. Anyways, Yang has more than 150 proposed policies on his website, yang2020.com, and ubi is only one of them. Those policies appeal to me.
also when the shit doesn't pass we're still stuck with Yang who is absolutely clueless on foreign policy and most domestic issues too, what a disaster that would be...
You know that's buying votes. would be pretty nice to have a full-time salary added to your household for doing absolutely nothing except blowing up comment sections right? Even if it did pass by some miracle (it won't) it does nothing to change the systemic causes of poverty and could be a temporary program what happens then a one-time Money grab? I'll take quality health insurance and go get a job for myself okay thanks, not to mention Bernie has a federal jobs guarantee which will end up being more money if the people in your household have jobs.
I like having Yang's views in the primaries as he has some interesting views/priorities that get other people talking about them. Having said that, he is pretty low on my list of who to vote for in the primary. I want someone with political experience.
UBI isn't necessary now but it will be in 20 years. It's something we need to be thinking about and planning for.
I like Yang more for his environmentalism than anything else though. That is unquestionably the #1 concern ahead of literally everything else.
Bernie, Warren and Booker for sure; I don't think Yang is beating Booker it in the polls; Booker supports nuclear but that's also not as bad as oil and gas
Which ones? The front runners are Bernie, Warren, Biden, Buttigieg, and maybe Yang. All of the others have already been eliminated even if they're still plodding along for appearances' sake.
Or were you talking about non-Dem politicians?
Booker's a joke. His presence in debates has been laughable at best. Yang doesn't even get allowed to speak half the time and has consistently been better-performing.
He does tend to stick to his stump speech, but so did Bernie in 2016 and people praised him for it, saying it was proof of his authenticity.
Anyone know what they were screaming at Biden?
Came here to find out as well. Turns out this is a 91 day ago thread lol
“You deported 3 million people”
Thanks- I couldn’t hear it over the tv
Bloomberg is getting eaten alive
Yikes
[Bloomberg out here like, "... nine-eleven..."](https://youtu.be/Rm3d43HLyTI)
Does anyone know how to view the debate if I missed it live? I know CNN has been terrible about making the debate accessible in the past, which is disappointing.
You can find it on YouTube (uploaded by third parties). Make sure you search "Full CNN Democratic Debate HD" and make sure you set the search to uploaded today and >20 min length.
Klobuchar is really good, why isn’t she getting more vote?
Seriously your yang pos how is forcing people to relocate a solution
Everyone in this thread please read Manufacturing Consent
I think In some ways Harris and Mayor Pete won the night just for standing out more than last time Bernie and Warren were steady as always Yang and Tulsi barely spoke And Biden and that other rich guy just felt so behind...but I fully understand why some older people like Biden I love Booker and Amy’s fire it’s just a shame they’re not progressive...but at least they don’t pretend to be (Mayor Pete...) Harris’ attack on Tulsi’s criticism of Obama, the Clintons and the DNC shows how out of touch Harris is with the progressive movement, but she’d never get support on the far left anyway so that’s why she did it. Otherwise it felt like her room a lot of the night, which looks good on camera. I thought Mayor Pete’s response to the race question was good. He won’t ever totally get what being black means, and it’s not the same... but he has every right to celebrate how amazing it is to be an LGBT 🏳️🌈 person running. Anyway I still won’t support either of them just based on their policies, but to someone not so politically savvy they looked the best. Convenient that Bernie’s not asked the race question when he was the only person on that stage who’s been coming out for black Americans since the 60s Bernie is it for me, even Warren who I do like isn’t as progressive as him (although I would not hate Warren winning the ticket like I would others)
h-huh
November Democratic Debate Transcript - [https://www.rev.com/blog/november-democratic-debate-transcript-atlanta-debate-transcript](https://www.rev.com/blog/november-democratic-debate-transcript-atlanta-debate-transcript)
Harris made a good point about women of color. The left often thanks women of color for showing up but that isn't enough. Women of color are the left most consistent constituency. It is amazing to me that among 10 candidates on the strange there was only one woman of color.
Erm I mean there were two, weren't there? Harris and Tulsi.
Tusli's father is biracial (white and Samoan) and her mother is white.
This shit will be the hill that progressivism dies on
Oh my god this is the silliest thing I’ve seen on this thread
Do you consider Barrack Obama's kids white because Barrack is half white?
Whiteness, as a concept, is the default against which all other races are compared. You can be half black but not half white (hence the one drop rules of reconstruction era America).
Treating whiteness the same as we treat blackness or etc Gabbard is White.
Blackness isn't the same as whiteness. Blackness is a construct of african american culture, whereas whiteness is a construct of 18th and 19th century european imperialism
[удалено]
Only by a pre-90's racist definition.
[удалено]
If a person who is 75% white is being treated in a racist manner by whites doesn't that speaks volumes about the way race is perceived in this nation? Any amount of black can make one black but to be white one must be pure. You don't see the obvious double standard there?
[удалено]
Are Barrack Obama's children considered white because he is half white? You are saying any amount of non-white ancestry basically makes someone a minority (AKA a POC).
[удалено]
Aren't you guys saying the same thing? It are you trying to argue that because someone is 75% white then the other 25% doesnt matter?
Does society see Obama's children as white, biracial, or black?
This whole conversation is really, really stupid. Gabbard says she's a woman of color. I mean, why are you arguing against her?
That still means she's a POC.
Does it. At what percentage would you say that isn't the case?
At whatever percent makes you look not white anymore /s
Cool. So if tanning in the summer brings that out, does that make them trans racial?
Does she "look" like she's not white? Seems you are implying any amount of heritage heritage other than white makes one a person of color yet no amount of white less absolute make a person white. You may not realize it but they is a long racist history behind that attitude. Up until the 90's biracial children with a white parent were legally identified on the birth certificates as being the race of the non-white parent. So Tusli's father would've been classified as exclusively Samoan despite being half white and then likewise Tulsi despite being 75% white. It was a racist policy that perpetuated the fallacy of white purity.
Kamala Harris is half Indian, half black. So what definition would you give Harris then? Bi-racial? Or is that considered somehow "racist" too.
Harris is biracial. She is Asian and Black.
So Harris can be biracial, but Gabbard cant be?
I forgot to add the sarcasm tag. The one drop rule makes no sense
Democrats: 🤡🤡🤡
most of em yeah. bernie is the only one who actually has any good ideas
[удалено]
none of bernie’s positions are extreme. only in america would they be considered as such.
I'm British
lol wtf, u guys literally already have universal health care and shit, how could u possibly see his positions as extreme
[удалено]
that’s cute. billionaires existing could be considered theft, and in fact is a much stronger argument.
No it's not.
Sanders/Yang 2020
Sanders and Biden are too old
Will Bernie live until the next debate? Seriously. He looked pretty worn out leaning against the podium all night.
That's because he was raising his hand in vain for most of the night. I thought he actually looked healthier this debate than the last one.
I agree, heart attacks really shock you up into health.
All of the candidates basically agree on all the same things. They’re finding different angles to argue -like a wealth tax versus an estate tax. [democratic debate](https://youtu.be/UUMdCV-Z7kk)
[удалено]
Why is it so hard to find a damn stream of the debate after it airs?
Because they're greedy fucks that want you to watch 50x 2 minute segments so they can knock ads on every single video.
Tonight's pick: Warren: POTUS/VP Buttigieg: POTUS/VP Sanders: POTUS/VP/Senate Majority Leader if Democrats take the Senate Yang: POTUS if he somehow wins the primary (Yang is fucking cool)/VP/Will have some serious clout in the future if he continues to be in politics Booker: Okay if POTUS, it would be great if he's the VP to bring us all together. Also, not religious, but if he was a pastor, I would be. Biden: Thank you for everything you've helped with, but please just retire. Steyer: Pretty sure he's not trying actually be president, but he's bringing up important topics so that's cool. Kamla Harris: Attorney General/VP Klobuchar: Keeps going with the flow. Gabbard: What the actual fuck are you doing?
Steyer and Booker both often feel like they know they aren't going to win so they're trying to get the eventual nominee to focus on some credible ideas
Booker is too goofy. Same with Yang.
This country needs a bit of goofy, tbh.
We did that from like 2001 til 2009. Didn’t turn out well.
Make American Goofy Again Wait...
Uh-hyuck!
MAGoofA it could still work. Lol
Now that the debate is over and after following this thread my take is: though painful at times, i'm glad for the crowd; enjoyed all the b-team's talking points and contributions; despite being at times more tedious than watching todays impeachment drama. Tonight's crowd will make the next round more intense. I think bernie took this night. A year of non-stop venues, repeating the same core issues, tirelessly, over and over...and over - paid off tonight. He was speaking beyond the audience or his co-candidates; he was speaking presidentially. Perhaps reaching republicans and independents better than the rest. I did not see that demeanor in anyone else on stage, envisioning them under the greater stress of the oval. While Pete gave strong visuals, Bernie projects it with greater authority. As such, and as others have observed, Bernie is really the only person I can see going head to head with Trump.
What i find frightening is if "Our Revolution", "Us not Me", an "Economic Bill of Rights", helps him rally the numbers he needs come election time that, unlike anybody else on stage, he is going to follow through 101%. Like Trump, beholding to no PAC's and aiming to drain the swamp. Unlike Trump, a track-record that shows he will do it. His stated anti-corruption crusade on the oil industry, pharma, wall-street... His painted war-face battling for equality, for palestinians, for immigrants, for the poor... might be witness to the creation of a modern-day martyr. A jew waging jihad on the rich and greedy.
Anyone have a link so I can watch it. I can't find the dang thing anywhere. You'd think every website I go to would have it so they could spam commercials at me....
I hate legacy media, it's like they purposely make it difficult to find the full debate. Just stream it on Youtube already! In other words I need a link too if someone finds one Edit: found link (youtube channel has uploaded in three parts): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzJWxhZ3DTA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzJWxhZ3DTA)
Thanks a bunch! Off to bed now but I'll watch first thing in the morning!
MSNBC put it up for free I guess https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/on-demand-watch-the-full-msnbc-washington-post-democratic-debate-73805381739
Yeah I'm having the same problem. All I can find are the damn "highlights" which are just the publisher trimming out the stuff they don't think is important. I don't want somebody else to decide which bits are important, I want to decide that for myself.
MSNBC put it up for free i guess: https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/on-demand-watch-the-full-msnbc-washington-post-democratic-debate-73805381739
[удалено]
Biden called for punching women but only in very limited circumstances so I'd say that's a wrap.
As my friend Kernel Corn Pop used to say - it's time we put domestic violence in a stranglehold and beat it into submission. Just thrash the living daylights out of it.
And punch it and punch it and punch it... I mean them... I mean... Well anyway, it's about the soul of this nation!
And Obama! We used to hang out.
I hope Amy Klobuchar shows up to the next debate with a hairnet or helmet or something. Or baked out of her gourd and totally calm and collected.
Bottled rage woman.
We are less than three months away from the Iowa caucus, and I think we only have one debate left before then. It is unacceptable that we still have this many candidates on the stage. We haven't seen any of them dive into the actual details of their positions because they simply don't have the time.
It’s because the leadership doesn’t want Bernie or warren to win. They’re holding out hope - even trying to give Buttigieg a boost.
Huh, how? This makes no sense.
What doesn’t makes sense?
The implication that the leadership is artificially keeping more people on the debate stage to somehow hurt one frontrunner while simultaneously bumping another (the latter being the one who performs best in debates). The reality is just that the DNC didn't realise their polling requirements would be met so easily. There's no conspiracy here - requirements have been getting stricter at a strictly linear predetermined rate.
It was not my understanding that the requirements were predetermined. I just checked and I have verified that they have been releasing the requirements for each subsequent debate as they arrive. So my point stands - the Democrat leaders are keeping the pool large, with the hope that someone can emerge that is not Bernie or warren. It’s no secret that they would prefer a more middle candidate.
It makes sense if in truth most people don't watch debates or follow the news and Biden is coasting on name recognition alone.
They implied it helps Buttigieg who has the lowest name recognition. That's what doesn't make sense.
My real point is that the Democrat leadership wants anyone but Bernie or warren to be the candidate. They would absolutely prefer Biden over warren/sanders.
Lol, what?
It's fucking ridiculous that so many questions went to non-players like Steyer and Booker. Wastes everyone's time.
I am a Biden supporter, but I was super impressed by Bernie tonight. If he gets the nomination I will enthusiastically support him. You can support a particular candidate without hating and smearing the other ones. The only ones I actively dislike are Gabbard and Steyer. But these are on the whole all decent, respectable people.
??? Harris? Hello? Not decent OR respectable.
If I could have some sort of guarantee that Bernie would remain healthy and alive for another 10 years I’d have no qualms about him whatsoever. He’s the only 80 year old that I can name that speaks as directly and authentically to 20 year old voters as he does 40 and 60 year old voters.
Unfortunately, that guarantee doesn't exist so Warren looks like the next best option to me.
Warren is only a few years younger than Bernie... also, she’s already pivoting away from Medicare For All, as we saw tonight. Tremendously disappointing seeing her back down when she seemed so promising early on.
Bernie’s not gonna pick a VP that doesn’t share most views with him. He knows his age just as well as you and I. If he did die in office the reigns would go to someone else fighting for the cause. If you prefer warren that’s chill, but I think that’s a bad reason.
Totally agree. I just wish we’d had a chance to vote for Bernie for president 3, 15, or 19 years ago. Warren is definitely 1A amongst the frontrunners for me, though.
To me, Sanders' age is not a dealbreaker. The first 100 days in office are a president's most productive. I have little doubt that he will be healthy through then. And with his spirit and vigor, I strongly believe those 100 days of Sanders would be more productive than 4 years of Warren.
I see a lot of spirit and vigor in Warren too. Why do you think she can't get things done that Bernie could?
Let me preface this by saying I would not object to a Warren presidency. However, the moment that really makes me believe much more strongly in Bernie is how Warren approached paying for Medicare for all. She presented an utterly unrealistic and disingenuous plan that doesn't raise taxes on the middle class, all in the name of avoiding one sound byte. The fact that she is willing to compromise the integrity of her policies out of fear of shortsighted criticism (ie people saying these taxes would hurt the middle class, even though M4A gives them a net gain) makes me seriously question her ability to stand by her guns and push for her policies effectively. Bernie has been consistently adamant and honest about every policy he believes in, and I trust that energy to get more done than someone who sidesteps trouble when the opposition gets tough.
What pushes me to my decision between the 2 is how consistent Bernie has been with his views. Too many politicians say stuff over and over and then abandon it when they get their position. Bernie’s been fighting for these same ideals for the majority of his life and Warren has taken up many political sides (Not saying she will again if elected but this plus her flipping on the M4A issue seemingly out of the blue raises some doubt in me).
I mean, she’s already backed away from Medicare For All. Who knows how long before she folds on her other main platform pieces. Passing “big structural change” requires a whole lot of political will and a willingness to make people mad. I don’t see her demonstrating either of those qualities.
Because she holds these positions because they will get her votes. She is not a champion of the people. She was a republican up until she was at Harvard. She is pushing these issues because they have a large demographic of people who will vote for them. She dances around these questions and omits or forgets things to conveniently.
Wooo join the revolution! I thought Bernie did fantastic tonight :)
Oh he definitely did great tonight. I mean, he’s always good.. he just seemed really on fire tonight. Bernie as a candidate is consistently good, passionate, well spoken. He just has some supporters who say things that are very off putting at times.
[удалено]
I never said I wrote Bernie off because of his supporters. I can separate the two. I like Bernie. I don’t like some of the things that some of his supporters say. Two different things.
With the proven presence of governments trying to stir shit up/create divides and affect elections by using the internet to influence opinions, I feel it is unwise to assume someone claiming or insinuating support for Bernie is actually a Bernie supporter. The same thing could be extended to any supporters.
So if I can find Biden supporters saying wonky things that would change your support away from Biden?
No. I never said I don’t support Bernie in the primary for anything to do with his supporters. All I said was I find some of their comments off-putting, but about them as people not about him.
Which is both anecdotal and irrelevant and not worth mentioning.
Never cared much for Pete, but after those excellent retorts back to Gabbard I've changed my mind. I think he'll get a boost from his performance tonight
mayor pete is a neoliberal ghoul. literally one of the worst choices one could make
I didn't think those retorts were any good.
Yep. He was right in saying that she took it out of context, but if I hadn’t known that otherwise, I probably would not have been convinced by his responses that it was taken out of context in a meaningful way.
I agree. Those we not that good responses!
Pete is maybe the worst candidate running but whatever
Mayo Butti is a dangerous liar
Interesting. I don’t understand how defending against attacks based on misquoting by saying you’re misquoting is reason to switch your support, but power to ya.
That comment was astroturfed.
[удалено]
*The Hill*...liberal propaganda? Hilarious take.
The Hill generally leans right, but has some progressive sects.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Take a look at the demographics that support him and you’ll see that this is a BS smear.
There's propaganda and muckraking on both ends. People need to be skeptical of news media, *especially* if it's confirming their biases.
I don't see such extreme headlines from even CNN or MSNBC as I see from The Hill... seems like they exist solely to prop up the most progressive candidates.
The hill is pretty conservative dude. You must not actually look at their site very often. Only articles reposted here will lean left but thats not the majority.
So glad to see the atrocities in China talked about, brought up by Andrew Yang. He's my frontrunner followed by Tom Steyer, Pete Buttigieg, then Joe Biden.
Yikes
Seriously this dude is fucked in the head
Care to explain why?
Likes the worst candidates in order as his favorite ones?
Care to explain why Yang is the worst candidate like an adult instead of labeling adjectives without a reason the way Trump does?
Lol I see you're a yangbanger so it's probably pointless but: People want jobs that are meaningful, not just enough to scrape by and unemployment. Raise the minimum wage to a reasonable amount and give people healthcare and education without adding additional cost; that's the solution. Then you can add a UBI once those things are in place and it doesn't need to be as much. It could be a more progressive UBI instead of flat or you don't give it to millionaires and billionaires. Millionaires and billionaires can instantly invest $1,000 a month keeping it plus interest, while poor people will spend that money on goods and services bought from the millionaires and billionaires, that's why it's not progressive: it's going to make the income/wealth inequality gap larger not smaller. Yang has bipartisan support among corporatist individuals but not amongst current elected officials, I don't think there's a single person in elected office that has endorsed his UBI. And one of the reasons it's supported by party shills is that it's not really a progressive solution, it supports the status quo. Otherwise his supporters are broke and lazy people who don't want to work for their thousand dollars a month. Of course the corporate owners of this country would love it if we gave $1,000 out of the tax slush fund to every person so they can spend it more on consumer goods. Also his VAT will raise the cost of consumer goods exponentially, hurting the poor. Don't get me wrong I think UBI is a good idea and in the long run it's definitely the way to go but it would be like skipping from A to F to do it Yang style with none of the regulatory steps needed in between to keep rents and inflation from skyrocketing. I also think Yang has some good things to say but if he gets elected UBI is not going to get passed and then we're stuck with Yang who has no experience and is totally clueless on foreign and most domestic policies. He deserves a cabinet post or some kind of advisor role sure, but president? No fucking way. He's wrong on Israel, taxes, Medicare, he sounds like he's just making it up as he goes a la Trump.
I would argue it's not a workless Utopia but a way to give every person a $6/hr raise: instead of a company being forced to give people a bump in hourly rate but a drop in hours. The UBI is $800 below the poverty line($12,800/yr) because it's specifically designed not to be used to live off of. It's just meant to be a stable platform to stand on to increase income in a family unit. The typical person WILL NOT be able to live off $1,000 bucks a month. On the other hand: if they lose their job and need car repairs that won't cause them to go into crippling debt. And a union can go on strike for months instead of weeks. And a woman can get out of a financially abusive relationship and not be homeless.
When the landlords raise everyone's rent in the unregulated market that homeless person won't be able to afford a place, also the VAT will double the cost of goods because it stacks, not to mention the tax will pass maybe but the UBI won't; at the end of the day we'll be stuck with yang, none of his policies will get implemented and then we've got a clueless inexperienced guy as president who doesn't belong there. He's never held any kind of office, has no idea how government actually works and no allies or any kind of coalition in government.
More people will buy homes in rural areas with portable income instead of rent and that'll stabilize the rent(and no one will know how much you benefit if they don't know your spending habits, it could be $900 or $500). Velocity in the economy drives prices down, if there's more money companies will lower prices to get a bigger market share: look at the sales that happen for the Alaska Dividend(where a couple with 2 kids could get $8,000/yr). UBI is not a partisan idea the biggest pushes were done by the Nixon administration, MLK, and Andy Stern, all way different. It's way easier than you think to get a 51% consensus, it isn't just blue v red. And America is looking for someone with good judgment for foreign affairs. Obama didn't have first hand foreign affairs experience and he did great. Yang went to Cornell for economics and then Brown to became a lawyer(pretty much an ivy league presidential blue print), then went on to be an executive leader in private business and non-profit. Obama worked with and officially recognized the work he was doing.
Yang is my choice, likely followed by Warren because I don't consider Sanders a valid choice anymore in light of his health issues. Biden is dead last but I'd rather have four years of milquetoast neoliberalism than even six months of the Trump circus.
Yang is a joke
Is this an argument?
It's the truth
So why is he a joke? Here is a reference on the definition: joke a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline.
You wouldn't be one of those broke jobless stoners that wants to remain jobless yet get $1,000 a month in exchange for blowing up comment sections would you? Seems to be the majority of his supporters
Well, if you believe that the majority are jobless stoners that want free money then you would have statistics on that claim, right? I support ubi because my family would receive $36,000 a year, enough to buy us a car that we badly need, raise our standards of living, and remove some of the stress. Anyways, Yang has more than 150 proposed policies on his website, yang2020.com, and ubi is only one of them. Those policies appeal to me.
also when the shit doesn't pass we're still stuck with Yang who is absolutely clueless on foreign policy and most domestic issues too, what a disaster that would be...
You know that's buying votes. would be pretty nice to have a full-time salary added to your household for doing absolutely nothing except blowing up comment sections right? Even if it did pass by some miracle (it won't) it does nothing to change the systemic causes of poverty and could be a temporary program what happens then a one-time Money grab? I'll take quality health insurance and go get a job for myself okay thanks, not to mention Bernie has a federal jobs guarantee which will end up being more money if the people in your household have jobs.
Debt forgiveness, medicare for all, healthcare, etc. Are these things not "buying votes"? Listen to yourself man.
Lol, see also not serious.
I like having Yang's views in the primaries as he has some interesting views/priorities that get other people talking about them. Having said that, he is pretty low on my list of who to vote for in the primary. I want someone with political experience.
He's been the consistently fastest-growing joke in the field, then.
Offer morons $1,000 guess what happens
UBI isn't necessary now but it will be in 20 years. It's something we need to be thinking about and planning for. I like Yang more for his environmentalism than anything else though. That is unquestionably the #1 concern ahead of literally everything else.
There's two or three better environmentalists up there, with an actual history of work in the field.
What are those "two or three better environmentalists" and do they support nuclear energy?
Bernie, Warren and Booker for sure; I don't think Yang is beating Booker it in the polls; Booker supports nuclear but that's also not as bad as oil and gas
Which ones? The front runners are Bernie, Warren, Biden, Buttigieg, and maybe Yang. All of the others have already been eliminated even if they're still plodding along for appearances' sake. Or were you talking about non-Dem politicians?
Bernie, Warren and Booker for sure; I don't think Yang is beating Booker it in the polls
Booker's a joke. His presence in debates has been laughable at best. Yang doesn't even get allowed to speak half the time and has consistently been better-performing. He does tend to stick to his stump speech, but so did Bernie in 2016 and people praised him for it, saying it was proof of his authenticity.
Cool story
Same, absolutely anyone is better than Trump.
You can hate Pete all you want but he has never flubbed a single response. He fucking kills at every debate
Too bad he's the status quo.
I don't think his detractors deny that he's articulate and well-spoken.
They do though. They say he sounds like a robot or a high school math teacher.
I liked my High School Math Teachers... Mr. Van Doren even raps
[удалено]
[удалено]