• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Democratic debates

Elixir said:
PyramidHead said:
America has a long way to go before the foreign policy ideals of its leaders are anything close to credible.
Click to expand...

On the upside, you or I could do a better job of it than is being done now.
Click to expand...

There is nothing uniquely bad about Trump's foreign policy in comparison to prior administrations, and in many ways it's preferable to have someone with no coherent ideology as commander in chief. Trump's foreign policy has caused far less death and destruction than Obama's did, for example, and both caused far less than Bush before them.
 
PyramidHead said:
Incredibly disappointed that the only person onstage with a remotely reality-based take on President Xi is Michael Fucking Bloomberg. I get that Bernie needed to be in defensive mode this week, but it's a clear sign that he has many blind spots, and America has a long way to go before the foreign policy ideals of its leaders are anything close to credible.
Click to expand...

Bernie’s blind spots were obvious in the 2016 debates when half the questions asked of him, regardless of subject matter, were answered with comments about millionaires and billionaires.
He’s gotten better this go around. He’s more knowledgeable and answering more questions directly and he’s dropped millionaire’s off his list of bad people.
 
TV and credit cards said:
PyramidHead said:
Incredibly disappointed that the only person onstage with a remotely reality-based take on President Xi is Michael Fucking Bloomberg. I get that Bernie needed to be in defensive mode this week, but it's a clear sign that he has many blind spots, and America has a long way to go before the foreign policy ideals of its leaders are anything close to credible.
Click to expand...

Bernie’s blind spots were obvious in the 2016 debates when half the questions asked of him, regardless of subject matter, were answered with comments about millionaires and billionaires.
He’s gotten better this go around. He’s more knowledgeable and answering more questions directly and he’s dropped millionaire’s off his list of bad people.
Click to expand...

He has transformed into a typical American social chauvinist on foreign policy, but is still the least horrible of those on the stage. Except on China, sadly. I hope his more internationally informed supporters can sway him (and the less informed segment of his base, who read Noam Chomsky and then immediately stopped exploring the topic).
 
Xoxarle1 said:
...
I'm more fascinated by the prospect of Bloomberg honoring his commitment to support the eventual candidate, no matter whom. Would he pump hundreds of millions into boosting Sanders if he does win the primary? Would Sanders even take his money? During a town hall last week Sanders dodged that question, and was probably right to do so. I've no idea how that notion would sit with his base.
...
Click to expand...

Bloomberg had at least one very effective ad that focused entirely on Trump and his idiotic buffoonery. Not directly supporting Bernie, they seem to be aimed at shaming the Trump supporters who are trying to excuse it.
 
Treedbear said:
Xoxarle1 said:
...
I'm more fascinated by the prospect of Bloomberg honoring his commitment to support the eventual candidate, no matter whom. Would he pump hundreds of millions into boosting Sanders if he does win the primary? Would Sanders even take his money? During a town hall last week Sanders dodged that question, and was probably right to do so. I've no idea how that notion would sit with his base.
...
Click to expand...

Bloomberg had at least one very effective ad that focused entirely on Trump and his idiotic buffoonery. Not directly supporting Bernie, they seem to be aimed at shaming the Trump supporters who are trying to excuse it.
Click to expand...

Trump's approval rating went up during the impeachment hearing and trial, and he's now calling the people who exposed his abuse of power and attempted to hold him accountable "corrupt". Let's face it, up is down, left is right and night is day. Nothing really makes much sense anymore. I don't think you can peel off any of his supporters at this point. They are just tuning all of this out. Many of them are religious and are voting abortion, guns and immigration.

Pretty much every single thing is conspiring to relect him and innoculate Republicans against voter demographic shifts: Electoral College, State level partisan control of voting, conservative media narratives (both cable and local news under Sinclair control), gerrymandering (House), social media disinformation, outsized Red State influence in Senate, Citizens United and 16/1 advantage of corporate campaign funding vs union funding.

I can see Trump getting a 2nd term off of a truly massive raw vote deficit. It was 3 million in 2016, could be double or triple that in 2020.
 
Xoxarle1 said:
Treedbear said:
Xoxarle1 said:
...
I'm more fascinated by the prospect of Bloomberg honoring his commitment to support the eventual candidate, no matter whom. Would he pump hundreds of millions into boosting Sanders if he does win the primary? Would Sanders even take his money? During a town hall last week Sanders dodged that question, and was probably right to do so. I've no idea how that notion would sit with his base.
...
Click to expand...

Bloomberg had at least one very effective ad that focused entirely on Trump and his idiotic buffoonery. Not directly supporting Bernie, they seem to be aimed at shaming the Trump supporters who are trying to excuse it.
Click to expand...

Trump's approval rating went up during the impeachment hearing and trial, and he's now calling the people who exposed his abuse of power and attempted to hold him accountable "corrupt". Let's face it, up is down, left is right and night is day. Nothing really makes much sense anymore. I don't think you can peel off any of his supporters at this point. They are just tuning all of this out. Many of them are religious and are voting abortion, guns and immigration.
Click to expand...

Trump's approval rating underwent a modest spike that still leaves him with less than a 45% average approval rating. It is gradually going back to where it was before those who waver back and forth decided they didn't like the idea of impeachment, and it remains the case that those who disapprove of him are pretty much just as adamant in their opinions and those who approve of him. Excited reporting on a few outlier polls, as usual, turned out not to be as newsworthy as the media made them appear to be.

Pretty much every single thing is conspiring to relect him and innoculate Republicans against voter demographic shifts: Electoral College, State level partisan control of voting, conservative media narratives (both cable and local news under Sinclair control), gerrymandering (House), social media disinformation, outsized Red State influence in Senate, Citizens United and 16/1 advantage of corporate campaign funding vs union funding.
Click to expand...

I don't see it the same way. What you have are a lot of organizations and a lot of special interests promoting his reelection for the same reasons that they have in the past and with the same somewhat bottomless pit of resources. That especially includes the resources of Russian taxpayers. Russia may have a somewhat depressed economy, but it is richer than most billionaires and knows how to run a propaganda machine. At the same time, you have powerful interests still fighting to defeat Trump, and their ability to successfully challenge him was proven in the 2018 midterm elections. IOW, same old same old.

I can see Trump getting a 2nd term off of a truly massive raw vote deficit. It was 3 million in 2016, could be double or triple that in 2020.
Click to expand...

We are still in primary season, so Trump is not even facing a serious opponent, let alone one with a VP running mate. There is no one for Trump's opposition to rally behind. So it is really premature to start calling the election now. Most voters are paying more attention to the coronavirus panic than the 2020 presidential election. Nobody even listens to the Democratic debates anymore except news junkies, who decided on how they would vote in 2020 over three years ago.
 
What debates, debates you mean those schoolyard slap fights and name calling..
 
Copernicus said:
lpetrich said:
Democratic presidential primary debate (March 15, 2020) - Ballotpedia - Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are in it, Tulsi Gabbard won't be in it.
Click to expand...

I think that Tulsi Gabbard should go on Fox News and debate two empty chairs. She might actually lose the debate, but I'm sure she would still pick up a few votes from independent-minded Republicans.
Click to expand...

Her best bet is actually to stay quiet so everyone forgets about her. Then, when the four old geezers croak of coronavirus, whammo! She's President by default.
 
Copernicus said:
lpetrich said:
Democratic presidential primary debate (March 15, 2020) - Ballotpedia - Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden are in it, Tulsi Gabbard won't be in it.
Click to expand...

I think that Tulsi Gabbard should go on Fox News and debate two empty chairs. She might actually lose the debate, but I'm sure she would still pick up a few votes from independent-minded Republicans.
Click to expand...

The problem is that her platform is so deep and extensive that it takes too long for her to articulate it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom