UN Fourth Democratic Debate: A New Dope

Starts at 5pm-8pm PST / 7pm CST-10pm CST / 8pm-11pm EST

If you want to watch the debate go here or here

Welcome to fourth Democratic primary debates, tonight will feature:

Joe Biden former Vice President


Kamala Harris senator from California


Bernie "Heart Breaker" Sanders senator from Vermont


Andrew Yang businessman


Cory Booker senator from New Jersey and mutated Obama clone


Beto O'Rourke representative from Texas


Amy Klobuchar senator from Minnesota


Julian Castro former housing and urban development secretary


Pete Buttigieg mayor of South Bend


NEW CHALLENGER APPROACHES: Tom Steyer billionaire and businessman


Elizabeth Warren Massachusetts senator


RETURNING: Tulsi Gabbard Hawaii representative


The poll will be posted after the debates. I'm happy to see Tulsi return, but I hate Tom Steyer, mixed bag. I predict tonight is going to be a total mess, this is make or break time.

 

[heathercho]

Chris Cillizza's winners and losers from the fourth Democratic debate
https://www.cnn.com/profiles/chris-cillizza
Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

Updated 2:35 AM ET, Wed October 16, 2019

(CNN) A dozen (!) Democratic presidential candidates took the stage in Ohio for the fourth debate of the 2020 election, the largest field ever to participate in a single debate.


I watched, took notes, tweeted and picked some of the best -- and the worst -- of the night. My winners and losers are below.

WINNERS
* Pete Buttigieg: The South Bend mayor had one clear goal in the debate: Hit Elizabeth Warren on her support for "Medicare for All," and make sure Democratic voters knew he had an alternate plan that would not eliminate the private health insurance market. Mission accomplished. And remember: The polling I've seen makes clear that voters prefer a plan that preserves the right to choose a private insurance plan than one that gets rid of the private market in favor of a government-run plan. Buttigieg didn't stop there. His response to Rep. Tulsi Gabbard's call to end "endless wars" was powerful, leaning heavily on his own military service. He slammed former Rep. Beto O'Rourke on gun control, with one of the lines of the night: "I don't need lessons from you in courage, political or personal." From beginning to end, Buttigieg was a dominant and commanding force. Yes, some will say he was "mean." But debates -- and primaries! -- are about drawing contrasts, and that is what Buttigieg did. And did very well.
* Andrew Yang: If I told you even three months ago that there would be a time in mid-October in which there was an extended conversation in a Democratic debate about the dangers of automation, you would have laughed at me. And yet, there we were on Tuesday night -- a full debate within the debate, about Yang's pet issue. It's a testament to Yang's remarkable rise in this race -- second only to Buttigieg's -- and to the fact that he is already having a significant impact on the conversation within the Democratic Party. Plus, that "MATH" pin was straight fire.

* Amy Klobuchar: At the moment, the Minnesota senator hasn't qualified for the next debate in November. Knowing that, Tuesday night was her last best chance to make a real move. And to her immense credit, she went for it. Knowing that Warren is now the front-runner (more on that below), Klobuchar went right after her. "Your idea is not the only idea," Klobuchar told Warren at one point. At another, she tried to make clear that Warren had no monopoly on "bold" ideas. At yet another, she accused Warren of "making Republican talking points right now." I'm not sure it changes anything in her polling. But she deserves credit for taking her best shot(s).
* Bernie Sanders: If you were watching the debate to see how Sanders fared in the wake of his recent heart attack, well, he was the same old Bernie: Irascible, impatient, sneaky funny and entirely unapologetic about his liberal solutions to the problems facing the country. In a moment indicative of Sanders' night, he was asked a question about his health, muttered something like "I'm fine" and then pivoted to talk policy. Also, it doesn't hurt that the news that New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would be endorsing him broke during the debate.

LOSERS
* Elizabeth Warren: Welcome to being the front-runner! Although polling suggests that Warren and Joe Biden are co-front-runners, it was crystal clear Tuesday night that the other 11 candidates on stage viewed the Massachusetts senator as the top dog. Which, in theory, is a good thing for her! But in practice, it didn't work out well. Buttigieg started things off by attacking her on Medicare for All -- and Warren was unable to provide a clear answer on a) whether she would raise taxes on middle-class Americans and b) if not, how would she find the money to pay for the plan. The hits kept coming. By my count, at least seven candidates attacked Warren at some point in the night -- and while she remains a very able debater, she was unable to parry all of those attacks effectively. Also, Warren saying that she'd like to see the US military presence gone entirely from the Middle East is going to come back to haunt her.
* Joe Biden: I wrote today that Biden needed a performance that wasn't just "good for Biden" but good by any measure. He came close-ish but, to my mind, didn't do enough. (Worth noting: I thought this was Biden's best debate performance; his answer on his age and health was probably his best answer of the debate season.) His answer on his son, Hunter, and Ukraine was meh: "My son's statement speaks for itself" was the best he could do, knowing that question had to be coming? And maybe it will play differently on replay, but Biden's shout-y "I got you votes" move on Warren felt not so good in the moment. I get the argument that Biden didn't take any big punches in this debate and stayed off the canvas. But ask yourself: is that the right bar for a former vice president and front-runner in this race from the jump?
* Kamala Harris: Nothing Harris did on Tuesday night will change her trajectory -- downward in this race. Her "Dude gotta go" line about Trump fell flat, as if the audience had sort of been there and done that. Harris' attempt to force Warren to agree with her that Donald Trump's Twitter account should be suspended felt small and not terribly effective. Harris has simply not been able to recapture the magic she had in that first debate of this election; Tuesday night was another swing and miss.
* Tom Steyer: When the most interesting thing about you in the debate is that you wore a plaid Christmas tie, you didn't have a good debate.
* Bing: Man, it's been a rough decade for Microsoft's search engine. And Yang reminded us all of that failure on Tuesday night. Well, we'll always have these original Bing ads!

Democratic debate winners and losers, according to Chris Cillizza - C…

archived 16 Oct 2019 06:50:15 UTC

archive.li

-------- end of article -----

Where's Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship again? I mean, there's two possibilities to explain his failure to deliver on campaign promises- either he was a tool of the bosses all along, or he actually is a pussy.

I think you misunderstand my stance on Tulsi. I like her. I just don't think she wants to spend her life fighting this party. Always having to capitulate to them.
If you think Trump hasn't taken a lot of flack from the establishment for his approach, I don't know what to tell you.
He's been stymied at every turn. As for birthright citizenship - he doesn't have to issue an executive order.
This sums up the pushback and murkiness of going through with it ;

There are a few (dozen?) glitches in that Donald Trump plan to end birthright citizenship

From the Constitution and the Supreme Court to diplomatic immunity and Italian ancestry, it's complicated. And it's another way to torment Obama.

www.usatoday.com

And another, from CNN -

Trump again says he's looking 'seriously' at birthright citizenship despite 14th Amendment

President Donald Trump on Wednesday said he is "seriously" considering ending US birthright citizenship despite the fact that such a move would face immediate legal challenge and is at odds with Supreme Court precedent.

www.cnn.com

When you have a million bullets coming your way, what is the most strategic way to entertain them?
I know you dislike Trump, but come on. Let's be realistic and logical here. Even if this were a democrat, it'd be a fools errand right now to approach that.

 

[BoingBoingBoi]

He's a dick, but makes a good point, though. If the Left and CNN/NYT think that Climate Scary is such an enormous deal that's going to actually fucking murder us in about 10 years why the Hell are they asking about a photograph of some talk show host? I also noticed that there wasn't a single question in the debates concerning China or Hong Kong, even though China's been making headlines all over the place for the last few days and Xi Jinping just came out the other day and said that "Any attempt to divide China will result in "bodies [being] smashed and ground into powder."

You'd think that sort of overt attack against democracy would be worth talking about, but you know, Ellen.

It's appalling. I suspect it's because their hands are tied. It's got such widespread support and the way to deal with it is so clear that they'd have to approve of what Trump and republicans are doing, which is verboten. Trump's economic approach to pressuring China, however ham-fisted, is a good idea, and it has succeeded at putting China on everyone's mind during a time where it absolutely needs to be. Republicans Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley recently visited Hong Kong, and the HK Human Rights and Democracy Act, a bill introduced by NJ republican Chris Smith, just passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support in the House, and which receive a strongly-worded endorsement from Pelosi.

This is just to say that there's also probably not much the candidates would disagree over Trump and republicans over, so it wouldn't score anybody any debate points. The only way they could oppose Trump and republicans is if they claim to be pro-China, but that's not a good look, and it's probably false.

The only other option is for Democrats to claim that they would be tougher on China than Trump is, but I don't think any of them actually could do so, at least not yet. I don't think it's something they'll be able to ignore during the general election, nor when the candidate herd thins out, nor when the next China censorship scandal happens, the HK situation deteriorates, and Tsai wins and Taiwan declares independence, likely prompting military action, or all of the above---it won't be able to be ignored. For now though, they can enjoy their fun.

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

I'm chalking up continued support (after it's embarrassing vote in the Senate) to candidates banking on voters interested enough to pay attention to the primary also being low-information enough to not actually read what was in the bill.

I like how, in so many cases, "low-information" is just a euphemism for "low-IQ".

 

[Azovka]

How the fuck do you not know your pregnant after 6 weeks of not having your period?

Pretty easily if you take 28-day cycle birth control pills, or if you have health issues like diabetes or PCOS (kysts on your ovaries due to too many male hormones - affects 1/5 women roughly).

It can also happen from stress, lack of sleep or irregular sleep cycles, bad diet (not necessarily fat, just lack of nutrients), etc.
Fucking up one’s period cycle is easier than you think.

I would just like to add that this isn’t a pro-abortion stance. If anything, I’m against them, especially when there’s a heartbeat.

Just saying it’s pretty easy to miss a 6 week term. What is equally easy though is to buy a pregnancy test at your local pharmacy or supermarket, especially if you know you’ve had unprotected sex recently.

Edit: Add to that the “nervous pregnancy” phenomenon. Dunno how to translate it, but in French it’s called “grossesse nerveuse” - happened to a classmate of mine from a conservative Jewish family. Your body’s basically exhibiting signs of pregnancy (no period etc.) except you’re not pregnant; it’s all in your head. Supposedly it happens from stress or when you’re terrified of having children, idek.
Just thought I’d mention it alongside other reasons why you would miss your period.

 

[AGreatDipAtAFairPrice]

This shit is for babies. They didn't discuss immigration or China at all but they had time for the Ellen Degeneres/Tell Me About Your Friends question? Why not just go full airhead and ask them their favorite animals and colors and if they were trees, what kind of trees would they be? Its embarrassing.

 

[Pixy]

Sad that the politics which attracted so many immigrants must die because it isn’t enough like the socialist ratdens they fled

Either that, or the increasingly socialist-leaning left-wing parties are the ones that are actually pledging to do something about local issues that successive right-dominated governments have failed to take action on. That usually manifests itself in state elections, however.

In NSW, the dominant Berejiklian government, run by a former transport minister no less, has suspiciously avoided modernising railway infrastructure in Labor and Green-dominated electorates for years now. Obviously, this (amongst other grievances) has eventually manifested in the Liberals repeatedly being btfo by the working-class electorates of Western Sydney. All they had to do was just build lifts.

 

[The King's Demon]

Will Mayor Pete’s Breakout Performance Actually Move His Poll Numbers?
Damn I din't even know Pete was breaking out!

Will Mayor Pete’s Breakout Performance Actually Move His Poll Numbers…

archived 16 Oct 2019 07:29:06 UTC

archive.today

Spoiler: Article Text

Will Mayor Pete’s Breakout Performance Actually Move His Poll Numbers?

If previous debate fireworks are any guide, probably not.

By JEFF GREENFIELD

| October 16, 2019

It’s not hard to know what the fallout from this debate will be: Pete Buttigieg offered his strongest performance of his campaign, with a series of forceful, coherent arguments, and at least one contender for quote of the night. He drew the sharpest distinctions yet between him and the rest of the still crowded field, and gave voters a preview of the fight he might bring to a one-on-one debate with Donald Trump.

His pushback at Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s attack on what she labeled a bipartisan “regime change” foreign policy was the first sustained case any of the Democrats have offered in defense of an activist foreign policy—a case buttressed by Buttigieg’s military service.

“The slaughter going on in Syria is not a consequence of American presence,” he said, turning to Gabbard, who herself served in the Army. “It’s a consequence of a withdrawal and a betrayal by this president of American allies and American values….A small number of specialized, special operations forces and intelligence capabilities were the only thing that stood between that part of Syria and what we're seeing now, which is the beginning of a genocide and the resurgence of ISIS. Meanwhile soldiers in the field are reporting that for the first time they feel ashamed—ashamed of what their country has done. …When I was deployed, I knew one of the things keeping me safe was the flag on my shoulder represented a country that kept its word. You take that away, it takes away what makes America America.”


In that single answer, Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, folded in a defense of America’s international role with a concise assault on Trump’s invitation for Turkey to invade Syria. It was one of several instances where Buttigieg, lurking in the polls just below former Vice President Joe Biden and senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, made his strongest argument as a moderate alternative to front-running Biden, who, while avoiding rhetorical stumbles of past debates, seemed to fade into the scenery as the night went on.

Buttigieg, displaying a passion that many said was conspicuously lacking in his earlier appearances, punched up on the subject of the candidates’ competing heath care plans. When Elizabeth Warren once again promised that “costs will go down” for most Americans under her “no private insurance” idea, Buttigieg staked out an alternative that went to the heart of the political danger of a single-payer plan. He noted that Warren, like Bernie Sanders, repeatedly refused to acknowledge the fact that taxes will go up for the middle class, which they argued would be more than eased by an overall lowering of costs.

“A yes or no question that didn't get a yes or no answer,” Buttigieg chided. “This is why people are so frustrated. Your signature is to have a plan for everything, except this. No plan has been laid out to explain how a multi-trillion-dollar hole in this plan that Senator Warren is putting forward is supposed to get filled in. We can move forward with the biggest transformation since Medicare. The way to do it without a giant multi-trillion-dollar hole and avoiding a yes or no question is Medicare for all who want it.”

And in what is sure to be among the most featured moments of the night, Buttigieg displayed a bit of temper in an exchange with former Congressman Beto O’Rourke’s proposal for a mandatory buyback of assault weapons.

“The problem isn’t the polls, the problem is the policy,” Buttigieg said. “I don't need lessons from you on courage—personal or political. The problem is not other Democrats who don't agree with your particular idea of how to handle this. The problem is the National Rifle Association and their enablers in Congress and we should be united in taking the fight to them…

“What we owe to those survivors is a solution. We are at the cusp of building a new American majority to actually do things that congressmen and senators have been talking about with almost no impact for my entire adult life. This is really important, okay? On guns we are this close to an assault weapons ban. And we're going to get wrapped around the axle whether it's ‘Hell, yes, we’re going to take your guns?’”

If I’m right, Buttigieg will get the lion’s share of the “Who won?” judgments, with Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar earning high marks as the moderate voice of reason, and Sanders demonstrating no ill effects from his recent heart attack.

But this raises a more fundamental question: Will Buttigieg’s performance matter in the only way that really matters—a bump in the polls?

We have had one example of a much-heralded debate performance whose half-life proved non-existent. Kamala Harris’ critique of Joe Biden’s record on busing was the featured moment of the first debate. Her rise in the polls was followed by a steady return to single digits. Why? Perhaps it was her failure to explain exactly what her health care plan was; or that the distance between her and Biden on busing was shorter than first appeared; or that, in general the rationale for her campaign was less clear than her rivals. Whatever the cause, her one debate moment proved far too fragile to sustain a rise in support.

Less obvious, but equally significant, was Joe Biden’s continued presence at or near the top of the pack, despite three debates where he was heard wandering through a confusing rhetorical landscape of incomplete sentences, odd allusions and garbled statistics. His decades of experience, his ties to the still-wildly popular Obama, his strength among African-American politicians and voters, has thus far mattered more than his unsteady debate performances. And if you’re looking for a debate “moment” to account for Warren’s steady rise in the polls, you won’t find one. Instead, her overall debate presence has been characterized by a “no drama” offering of policies wrapped neatly around her striver’s biography and stories she has gathered from people she’s met on the trail.

For those of us whose professional lives revolve around politics—who only checked on the Washington-St. Louis game during commercial breaks—debates are often seen as high political drama, with enormous stakes. Every debate is viewed through the prism of the clashes leading up to a general election, even though we are three and a half months away from the first primary vote. And voters know this, which is why every survey shows a thumping majority of them say they either have no favorite or could change their minds.

If these debates matter as much as the coverage suggests they do, we should see some measurable movement in the polls. But even if we do, the more significant question is: Will that movement be sustained? Or are there other factors that will make the sound and fury of these debates underwhelming in the end?

It seemed like he displayed his lack of awareness of situations, and was trying to be catty and animated for the cameras without saying anything.
A few examples from article.
“The slaughter going on in Syria is a consequence of a withdrawal and a betrayal by this president of American allies and American values..."

This is so stupid and simplistic that if he really has this world view I have no words. More likely though he is just saying something he thinks will attack his peers and sound good as a clip to some.

“A yes or no question that didn't get a yes or no answer,” Buttigieg chided. >About Warren
“I don't need lessons from you on courage—personal or political." >To Beto
Watch out, this is the Sassy Mayor Pete.

But my favorite thing is the last two paragraphs. It's almost like a moment of realization for the author, that none of this really matters. He seems to realize this is all a waste of time. A shit tier soap opera with a cast of dislikeable fucks. With Celebrity Contests Polls being pointless as to who will actually get the Dem Nomination.
Imagine some weirdo like Ross Perot on the stage with all these crazy people, trying to explain basic economics. "We have got to stop sending jobs overseas" >Unrelated Ross Perot in 92

Spoiler: Mayor Pete preparing for his breakout

Oh wait this other Politico article says the debate was plain and unpretentious and serious. Guess I'm wrong, sorry guys.

Democrats stop faking it — and have a serious debate - POLITICO

archived 16 Oct 2019 08:34:23 UTC

archive.today

 

[Tootsie Bear]

Either that, or the increasingly socialist-leaning left-wing parties are the ones that are actually pledging to do something about local issues that successive right-dominated governments have failed to take action on. That usually manifests itself in state elections, however.

In NSW, the dominant Berejiklian government, run by a former transport minister no less, has suspiciously avoided modernising railway infrastructure in Labor and Green-dominated electorates for years now. Obviously, this (amongst other grievances) has eventually manifested in the Liberals repeatedly being btfo by the working-class electorates of Western Sydney. All they had to do was just build lifts.

The working class is no doubt overlooked by mainstream politicians and the political parties. Which is why it's so easy for leftist movements to absorb them into their party because they're talking about issues they face; not insulting them or making them feel inhuman for demanding higher wages and what not. Yes, their ideas do not translate into reality but don't expect them to do anything when voted into office and you're wonder who stabbed you in the back!

 

[Pixy]

The working class is no doubt overlooked by mainstream politicians and the political parties. Which is why it's so easy for leftist movements to absorb them into their party because they're talking about issues they face; not insulting them or making them feel inhuman for demanding higher wages and what not. Yes, their ideas do not translate into reality but don't expect them to do anything when voted into office and you're wonder who stabbed you in the back!

On a local-government level, the mainstream left-wing parties are fairly reasonable, though that's largely due to most local and state politicians being Gen-X, and being more in-touch with their local communities than their national counterparts.

 

[heathercho]

On a local-government level, the mainstream left-wing parties are fairly reasonable, though that's largely due to most local and state politicians being Gen-X, and being more in-touch with their local communities than their national counterparts.

Except the Greens. I don't know about your area, but in mine, they're fucking insane.

 

[Maxliam]

What a sanctimonious son of a bitch. How smug can you get?

Dealt with him and his brother when they were running Obama campaign in Texas in 08 on a constant basis. If you can believe it they are even worse than the San Fran people in south park.

 

[Pixy]

Except the Greens. I don't know about your area, but in mine, they're fucking insane.

No denying that. I live in a Labor stronghold, where the Greens have barely any presence at all.

Ironically enough, it's the LIBERALS who have gone full Socjus and want to change of the council area to something "more positive". Labor's against it, understandably.

 

[CheezzyMach]

The Democratic Party is turning more radical and insane. The Louisiana election the other night wiped out all but one of the state's blue dog moderate Democrats.

Moderate Democrats are finding themselves becoming Independents and Republicans. You can't be a Democratic nominee in 2019 without kowtowing to the insane SJW/Progressive/Media wing of the party.

Which Louisiana election?

 

[Slimy Time]

Deciding to catch up on this debate after missing a 3am showing where I am. I get the vibe i'm in for more autism than normal.

 

[Drive-by punster]

There was also some Obama guy a while back who was really corrupt, just nobody did shit about it.

Just yesterday, I was talking with my wife and mentioned that not only was Obama the only president to be at war during his entire tenure, but more bombs were dropped during his administration than any other.

She was entirely unaware.

Edit: my comment is in relation to the fact that no one did anything, probably because no one knew about it. What with the media constantly kissing his ass and covering up any unflattering info.

 

[Honka Honka Burning Love]

probably because no one knew about it.

That is Obama's presidency in a Nutshell, the Mainstream media ran cover for him the entire way.

 

[AirdropShitposts]

Kamala stepped in it with the most important voting bloc: https://twitter.com/theBGrass/status/1184293721086529536

 

[TowinKarz]

If they only knew what the candidates who attended that "Tranny is the New Hetero" Town Hall told their staffers when they got home that night.... hooooo boy, the suicide rate would easily pass 41%.

These people seem to think they're so super-important that politicians are sincere to them, but pander to everyone else.....

 

[BingBong]

#yanggang
get the bag niggas

 

[Isaac Cox]

I don't have much to say about the Democratic debates, I'm not even American, but Tulsi Gabbard has some nice feet that i'd like to clean the toe jam off of. Can someone let me know if she was barefoot during this? I might look up some footage on youtube if this is the case. Thanks in advance.