Democratic Debate November Edition

[Rhea]

Rhea, my brother used Hughesnet satellite for several years. It was always crappy service. I was at his place with my AT&T cell phone and got good signal, which is unusual for him and the service he uses. He got an AT&T wifi hotspot and it works great for him and a good bit cheaper than Hughesnet.

We have a 35-foot mast with a cell antenna on top that is hard-wired to a repeater in the house (not a wife-fi booster, since internet is bad, but an actual cell signal repeater). That gives us about one-bar, which is enough to get texts in one room in the house, but not enough for an actual phone call or any web use.

To get more than that we need to run a cable up the hill about 1/4 mile to a purpose-built tower, the cost of which is more than we want. We’ve thought about putting a repeater on one of the utility poles 3 or 4 from the house, and running coax to the house, but have not gone that route yet.

Ah, so you're even deeper than my brother, and he's pretty deep.

We are in a 600-foot deep bowl that is less than a mile across. So the high frequency stuff, she just don’t bend like that.

 

[Derec]

We are in a 600-foot deep bowl that is less than a mile across. So the high frequency stuff, she just don’t bend like that.

No, it does not. But you may be in luck soon.
SpaceX's Starlink Broadband Service Will Begin in 2020: Report

No idea of what the fun will cost, of course.

 

[Derec]

I know a lot of folks don't get what rural life is like, so it seems hard to imagine that internet is not treated like a utility.

The thing is, it costs a lot of money to run broadband long distances to remote communities. And with few potential subscribers, the costs per customer are prohibitive.
Now, you chose the rural life. The real estate costs are a fraction of that in cities, you get fresh air and all that, but there are also drawbacks. I do not see why city folk like me should subsidize your choice to live in the sticks.

The **ONLY** option for internet that is available to me AT ALL is satellite or dial-up. Period.

That sucks for sure.

Satellite is not "high speed," though it is better than dial-up.

SpaceX and some other companies are working to improve that.

Satellite provides 15GB per month, split between 4 people. That mean no video. At all.

You could do some occasional video at almost 4GB/person. That's 128 MB/person/day. Not great, not terrible.

After we use us our 15GB, we are throttled to dial up speed (100kbps) until the next billing cycle.
Unless I buy more at $10/GB. That means no video. At all.

Oh you sweet Summer child, I remember the days of old when dialup was 28.8 kpbs or even 14.4. 100kbps is a bit better than dialup, which I believe topped at 56k in its last years of dominance.

I can't make internet appear here. This is not a "choice" that I make.

You are making a choice to live in the sticks though. And you have to take the bad with the good.

The free market has determined that I do not need high speed internet.

No, the free market determined that it was not cost effective running expensive broadband infrastructure for the sake of a limited number of potential customers. At least at prices most of these potential customers would be willing to pay. That said, you save a lot more on living costs, so you have that going for you.

There is some a couple of miles away, the quote I was given to get it here was, "we can bring it to your house for $18,000 - our your can try to get your neighbors to sell land and find buyers to build 20 more houses on your street, then it would be worth it to us."

Yupp. TANSTAAFL.

So no. The only way to do this is to drive to the public library 6 miles away and park outside the building at night and use their wifi.

Or Starbucks. :ducks:
Or even better, wait until tomorrow and watch a summary/best of instead of whole two hours which is probably not even worth it.

Which I've done. And which my kids do all the time (except for that time the rabid conservatives managed to get the public library shut down for a couple of years before we flaming liberals grabbed money from their wallets to get it open again).

Well I support public libraries.

But which I was not feeling like doing right now as I recover from surgery.

Sorry to hear about your surgery. Hopefully nothing too serious.

Anyway - that was just to try to explain what seems like a mysterious lack of internet.
19,000,000 Americans are in the same boat with me.

And that's the problem. You are ~1/16 of the population but spread out over a very large area.

 

[Derec]

This is a weird sort of whiney diatribe.

No, it's not. I think it's a legitimate criticism of focusing on the monochromatic hood when Atlanta has so much more to offer. And to have the gall to say you did it for "diversity" when it's one of the least diverse areas in the city of the metro area.

I mean, this is debate #5, so if you think about who they have "pandered to" over the course of the season, it is hardly "fuck everyone who is not black," not by a parsec, not by a millimeter.

I specifically meant for today's debate, by Atlanta officials and local Democratic Party bigwigs.
But if we look at all the debates to date, we are only on debate #5, and we've already had one debate at a black college and one in Detroit. Although the Michiganders had the good sense of choosing a more broadly appealing venue than Ma Dukes studios.

So at ONE EVENT the party pays tribute to it's strongest and most reliable voting block, that gets your panties all in a twist?

Again, the debate in Houston was at a black college so they already did this. This venue choice is an fu by Keisha Bottoms to non-black residents of Atlanta, both city and metro. And what really galled me is that they claim that the venue choice was for "diversity". They probably think Morehouse (99% black) is a really "diverse" campus too because there are few white people there.

That's some olympic caliber fragility right there.

Pointing out racial exclusivity of the venue pick is not "fragility". It would be the equivalent of debate being held at Atlanta Motor Speedway.
It's going out of your way to find the least diverse venue possible that's grinding my gears here.

I agree. I don't see Booker doing anything really zany to make a splash, though he might. The other three, I anticipate they will practically show up in drag to be noticed.

That at least should be entertaining.

Yes, I see them as needing to maintain here, though not as frantically as those above, because once those above drop out, there are 4-5% to split that might come this group's way. Or at least they undoubtedly hope that.

But there are also two more candidates who entered the race. The thing is, if you finish outside of top three or four in Iowa you definitely need to pack it in. So, the field will thin at least then. But I expect a lot of jockeying for position until then in the middle tier.

Yes, all true. This will be interesting to see what he does. He's smart and savvy enough to be very aware of all this - so how will he handle it? With humble sensitivity that builds a bridge, or through entitled talk that blows them up?

Too humble, and he'd seem weak. He needs to find the middle ground of being firm and not apologizing for what he did in the past, but also seeking to build bridges with a population that is skeptical of him.
Contrary to what you might think about me from my "location" rant (and I still think focusing this much on only one race is a mistake), I do think black voters are an important demographic in the Democratic Party. But at the same time, they are not THE Democratic Party. Not even in Georgia or South Carolina.

But Biden doesn't really have any other personas. So how he's feeling and looking (health) at the time will show up big, and how the others handle him will make a difference.

I do not expect a great performance from him, and most of the artillery will be trained on Buttigieg (to his relief I am sure). As long as he doesn't give us more record player moments he will be fine. For now.

Yeah, I always hope for good questions. Until we have fewer people on stage, we might not get them, though.

Unfortunately. But I am hoping for some fireworks tonight nevertheless.

 

[Derec]

So, I assume you have already been subjected to my opinions ad nauseum as to nationalization and creation of municipal broadband: that you have a right to high speed communications infrastructure in a society so heavily reliant upon high speed communications.

It's a right, no matter how far in the sticks you live and how few people live around you?
I think the only practical possibility for remote areas is satellite internet. Facebook tried it with solar planes, but they folded the project. Running cable all that distance for the sake of a few people is just not practical.

That said, let's be honest here, the vast majority of that 19m people who are too "rural" to stream Dem debates are too busy watching Faux Noise and otherwise sticking their fingers in their ears while screaming "IM NOT LISTENING!"

 

[Rhea]

Note: The whole broadband access question is only relevant because the DNC decided to air the debates on a pay-only venue. You have to buy cable TV or you have to buy internet in order to see it. That is a bad choice by them, IMHO.

The thing is, it costs a lot of money to run broadband long distances to remote communities. And with few potential subscribers, the costs per customer are prohibitive.

Same as electricity and phones, yes. Until recently, Internet was not a thing that was “needed” in regular USA life. But now it is, so now they will need to bring it out if they want to create a world where my public school kids are assigned internet homework, my taxes are filed by internet, the Motor Vehicle dept expects me to renew by internet, my insurance expects internet, etc.

I was fine without internet for as long as I could live a regular life without it. But public systems have made it so that they expect me to have internet.

Now, you chose the rural life.

Let the record show that when we moved here in 1989 there was no internet. We didn’t move away from civilization. Civilization changed.

The real estate costs are a fraction of that in cities, you get fresh air and all that,

Quiet true. And no traffic.

but there are also drawbacks. I do not see why city folk like me should subsidize your choice to live in the sticks.

So we’ll grow cows for you?

After we use us our 15GB, we are throttled to dial up speed (100kbps) until the next billing cycle.
Unless I buy more at $10/GB. That means no video. At all.

Oh you sweet Summer child, I remember the days of old when dialup was 28.8 kpbs or even 14.4. 100kbps is a bit better than dialup, which I believe topped at 56k in its last years of dominance.

Oh, you sweet spring child. Our dial up was 8kbps because we had a frayed copper line that damaged the signal.
The 100 or so that we get on throttle is indeed far better than before. But not enough for video.

You are making a choice to live in the sticks though. And you have to take the bad with the good.

You mean making a choice to not sell our house and move? Sure, okay, that’s true.
Don’t think we don’t give in to the state and federal coffers, tho. I’m thinking I live in a giver state and you live in a taker state.

The free market has determined that I do not need high speed internet.

No, the free market determined that it was not cost effective running expensive broadband infrastructure for the sake of a limited number of potential customers.

Yes, that’s exactly what I said.

At least at prices most of these potential customers would be willing to pay. That said, you save a lot more on living costs, so you have that going for you.

I do indeed.

So no. The only way to do this is to drive to the public library 6 miles away and park outside the building at night and use their wifi.

Or Starbucks. :ducks:

Starbucks is 10 miles away.

But which I was not feeling like doing right now as I recover from surgery.

Sorry to hear about your surgery. Hopefully nothing too serious.

Just a new hip. But thanks.

 

[Derec]

So Kamala Harris repeated the falsehood that women make 80 cents on the dollar for equal work. That figure just compares earnings, and does not adjust for job worked, hours worked or any other variable.

Lying is NOT a way to fight your way back to the top tier, Kamala!

------

Why single out "white supremacist violence"? Why not condemn all supremacism including Nation of Islam and the like?

----

Kamala Harris is repeating her lies about cents on dollar. Twice in same debate - she is running out of material. Also, black men are victims of gun violence is because so many of them are banging, not because police shoot them for no reason. When is she going to apologize to Darren Wilson for libeling him?

-----

Good point Bernie! If only you could extend it to getting the government out of the bedroom re consensual sex work.

-----

Corey Booker == sore loser re Stacey Abrams. No, that election wasn't stolen. Please!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I listened to the debate in the background while I got some housework done. It was a total nothingburger. They just all basically gave their stump speeches. *shrug* Seems pointless.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I listened to the debate in the background while I got some housework done. It was a total nothingburger. They just all basically gave their stump speeches. *shrug* Seems pointless.

Is it just me or is Tulsi by far the least likable person running?

 

[PyramidHead]

Nobody asked Pete why he fabricated black support for his Douglass plan. It looked like Kamala was going to take him to task for it, but all she mentioned was the stock photo of a Kenyan he used for the graphic.

I'm gonna sound like a broken record, but again... what would the debate have looked like if the candidate who manipulatively and falsely represented prominent black leaders as supporters of his plan and promoted it with a Google image result of "black mom with child" was Bernie Sanders? Can you fucking imagine?

 

[Elixir]

Nobody asked Pete why he fabricated black support for his Douglass plan. It looked like Kamala was going to take him to task for it, but all she mentioned was the stock photo of a Kenyan he used for the graphic.

I'm gonna sound like a broken record, but again... what would the debate have looked like if the candidate who manipulatively and falsely represented prominent black leaders as supporters of his plan and promoted it with a Google image result of "black mom with child" was Bernie Sanders? Can you fucking imagine?

Maybe the message is "If nominated, I will get elected because I can out-cheat Cheato!"

 

[PyramidHead]

Also found it strange that the only question Elizabeth Warren got about foreign policy was "should more people join the military" and she gave the very progressive answer of "yes, that's part of what it means to be American".

 

[southernhybrid]

As usual, I could only watch about 45 minutes or so before I found myself fighting sleep. It was the same ole same old nonsense. According to the NYTimes analysts, Booker won the debate with a score of 6.6 out of 10. It was interesting to look at the scores each person gave the debaters. They were all over the place, but I did get a chuckle out of Gail Collins rating on Bernie. It was 5 out of 10 with a note "nobody this cranky can be president". I think Sanders was in the top 3 or 4 over all according to his total scores. I wish they'd just end these stupid debates.

As I've said before, none of these candidates are very inspiring to me. I'm not the only Democrat who feels this way.

 

[PyramidHead]

As usual, I could only watch about 45 minutes or so before I found myself fighting sleep. It was the same ole same old nonsense. According to the NYTimes analysts, Booker won the debate with a score of 6.6 out of 10. It was interesting to look at the scores each person gave the debaters. They were all over the place, but I did get a chuckle out of Gail Collins rating on Bernie. It was 5 out of 10 with a note "nobody this cranky can be president". I think Sanders was in the top 3 or 4 over all according to his total scores. I wish they'd just end these stupid debates.

As I've said before, none of these candidates are very inspiring to me. I'm not the only Democrat who feels this way.

Thanks NYT, very evenhanded and neutral take from the paper of record

 

[ZiprHead]

There is just plain too many people on that stage. Drop the bottom half of the candidates and ask the same question to each of the remaining.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Nobody asked Pete why he fabricated black support for his Douglass plan. It looked like Kamala was going to take him to task for it, but all she mentioned was the stock photo of a Kenyan he used for the graphic.

I'm gonna sound like a broken record, but again... what would the debate have looked like if the candidate who manipulatively and falsely represented prominent black leaders as supporters of his plan and promoted it with a Google image result of "black mom with child" was Bernie Sanders? Can you fucking imagine?

Because it's likely contractor poor judgement/campaign staff lack of oversight. Each one of them up on the stage knows a similar embarrassment could happen to their campaign the very next day.

Further, it's not a very flattering look for the individuals who were given multiple opportunities to opt-out and then complained when they found themselves in. So they let that dog lie.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Even though my top 3 (Yang, Bernie, Warren, in that order) are all in the top half, I'd actually rather they keep a few not near the top around, just because they add something to the conversation. I'd like to see Williamson back on the stage for example. I'd like to see a few of the others who just seem redundant, like Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Pete so long as Biden is still there, etc. If they bring nothing unique to the conversation, I see little reason in having them there, unless they are in the top 2 or 3.

 

[Derec]

Also found it strange that the only question Elizabeth Warren got about foreign policy was "should more people join the military" and she gave the very progressive answer of "yes, that's part of what it means to be American".

What does that mean? Conscription or recruiting more people by maybe relaxing physical standards?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yang got almost zero time, and was completely ignored for over a half hour of the debate. When he's outpolling Klobuchar by so much, why is she being given so much time and he so little? Bernie also got little time as compared to his ranking in the polls. But the time Yang did have he used very well. His compliment to Steyer was an unexpected and surprisingly friendly moment amongst the barbs being thrown around. Its a moment that may be remembered and help him like Bernie's "I'm sick of your damn emails" line to Hillary. Bernie did ok too.

Biden's gaffe was so out there that I laughed, and its veyr meme worthy. Violence against women needs to be beaten down does it Biden? We need to keep punching at it! LOL Whaaat? He also forgot Harris exists and was on the stage with him. That moment was funny, with Booker's look of shock and Harris' "Um... I'm right here" lol

Biden's gaffes really are great and I almost want him to become President just so we get more of them.

 

[thebeave]

Yang got almost zero time, and was completely ignored for over a half hour of the debate. When he's outpolling Klobuchar by so much, why is she being given so much time and he so little? Bernie also got little time as compared to his ranking in the polls. But the time Yang did have he used very well. His compliment to Steyer was an unexpected and surprisingly friendly moment amongst the barbs being thrown around. Its a moment that may be remembered and help him like Bernie's "I'm sick of your damn emails" line to Hillary. Bernie did ok too.

Biden's gaffe was so out there that I laughed, and its veyr meme worthy. Violence against women needs to be beaten down does it Biden? We need to keep punching at it! LOL Whaaat? He also forgot Harris exists and was on the stage with him. That moment was funny, with Booker's look of shock and Harris' "Um... I'm right here" lol

Biden's gaffes really are great and I almost want him to become President just so we get more of them.

Well, technically, Biden wasn't wrong about Kamala, was he? He used the word "African-American", but Kamala's technically "Jamaican-American". Or is it the case in Identity Politics that we don't make a distinction between the two and just say "Eh...its all good..the important thing is the skin color looks the same to me".