Brantt wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:There were some candidates last night — not many, but a few — who would betray their own mothers if they thought it would get them an inch closer to the nomination. Instead of helping them, though, criticizing Obama’s Presidency to try to hurt Biden did nothing to help their candidacies. Instead it looked contrived and petty, hurting both their own chances and the overall chances of defeating Trump in 2020.

See Booker, Cory.

Yes, Booker is an example. It's a shame, too, because overall he had a great night and arguably resurrected his candidacy when, as one commentator put it, before his performance last night his future seemed to be behind him. But it was Harris, DeBlasio and Gillebrand, too. In particular Harris, having landed a body blow to Biden in the previous debate, had no follow up and instead was staggered herself when Gabbard gave Harris a taste of her own medicine. She learned -- and Booker already knows -- that their records don't necessarily look so great in retrospect either.

Booker, Harris, DeBlasio and Gillibrand and their advisors seem not to have yet realized that, while it's all good fun for the Twitterverse to lambast Biden for his record, doing so does nothing to elevate any of their particular candidacies. All of us Dems want someone who can: (a) beat Trump; and (b) give us a positive vision of a post-Trump Presidency. Some think they've found it in Warren, others think Biden is the only one who can beat Trump. But, whoever it ends up being, criticizing other Dems does nothing to elevate another's candidacy. It may score some points and even win a battle, but it will help lose the war.

Counterpoint, nothing said in a July 2019 debate will matter come July or November 2020.

I'm a moderate conservative, former Republican, vehemently anti-Trump from the start. Here's my current take on the 20 candidates in the last 2 debates:

Russia loves Tulsi and is pushing her on social media. Witting or unwitting Soviet tool?

Harris had a terrible night.

Castro and Booker were very strong. Presidential and charismatic.

Based on what I've seen, the moderate white guys would govern best, but other than Biden none have a fighting chance.

I really like Yang but jeeberus giving ME $1000 a month is just insane, let alone giving that to actual rich folks. It's also a powerful disincentive to the (would-be) working poor. Asian guy good at math cannot grasp that many Americans don't share his work ethic.

I think at this point, the nomination is Warren's to lose. She's kicking butt on who can give away the most free stuff without being Bernie.


I'd gladly vote for, in roughly this order:
Buttgieg, Booker, Delaney, Bennett, Bollocks, Castro, Hickenlooper, Beto, Inslee, Ryan, Klobuchar

Also clearly better than Trump:
Harris, Biden, Warren

Turds, but better than Trump:
DiBlasio, Yang, Gillebrand

I'm voting third party:
Gabbard, Sanders, Williamson

TomatoPie wrote:I really like Yang but jeeberus giving ME $1000 a month is just insane, let alone giving that to actual rich folks. It's also a powerful disincentive to the (would-be) working poor. Asian guy good at math cannot grasp that many Americans don't share his work ethic.

$12,000/year isn’t that much of a disincentive to work. That’s way below the poverty line. If anything, it may keep one member of a married couple from having to work as they’d get $24k extra income (and Yang is also pushing Medicare for all pretty hard so neither would rely on work for insurance).

I’m mostly curious to know what an extra thousand dollars a month might do to prices of everyday goods.

Brief aside from this side of the water. Watching Trump talk up trade deals with the blonde gobshite whilst Congress threatens to block any deal if the Good Friday Agreement is breached as a result of a no-deal Brexit? This has the potential for all kinds of fun. It'll help take the edge off the inevitable violence.

Gimpy wrote:$12,000/year isn’t that much of a disincentive to work. That’s way below the poverty line. If anything, it may keep one member of a married couple from having to work as they’d get $24k extra income (and Yang is also pushing Medicare for all pretty hard so neither would rely on work for insurance).

Remember all that hand-wringing when gay marriage was not legal yet from people who were like "slippery slope floodgates what next bigamy!?!?!?!"

I keep thinking that the way things are going that states will have to legalize marriage among three or more people, because people will require that many incomes to keep one house with a few kids going. As it is right now it would be pretty fucking useful at my house, say, if while my wife and I went to work there were somebody home like making sure the house didn't fall apart and kept the laundry done and whatnot. It's either that or we all need three day weekends: one day for socializing, one day for errand running and chore-doing, and one day to, you know, rest.

Three spouse families and three day weekends: VOTE WOLFGANG 2032!!!!!

Wolfgang622 wrote:

Gimpy wrote:$12,000/year isn’t that much of a disincentive to work. That’s way below the poverty line. If anything, it may keep one member of a married couple from having to work as they’d get $24k extra income (and Yang is also pushing Medicare for all pretty hard so neither would rely on work for insurance).

Remember all that hand-wringing when gay marriage was not legal yet from people who were like "slippery slope floodgates what next bigamy!?!?!?!"

I keep thinking that the way things are going that states will have to legalize marriage among three or more people, because people will require that many incomes to keep one house with a few kids going. As it is right now it would be pretty fucking useful at my house, say, if while my wife and I went to work there were somebody home like making sure the house didn't fall apart and kept the laundry done and whatnot. It's either that or we all need three day weekends: one day for socializing, one day for errand running and chore-doing, and one day to, you know, rest.

Three spouse families and three day weekends: VOTE WOLFGANG 2032!!!!!

Actually, I think what you might start seeing are kind of dormitory arrangements for adults--fairly small single/double bedrooms (with maybe a private bathroom) utilizing a shared kitchen space and common living areas. Keggers will make the arrangement more appealing.

Wolfgang622 wrote:

Gimpy wrote:$12,000/year isn’t that much of a disincentive to work. That’s way below the poverty line. If anything, it may keep one member of a married couple from having to work as they’d get $24k extra income (and Yang is also pushing Medicare for all pretty hard so neither would rely on work for insurance).

Remember all that hand-wringing when gay marriage was not legal yet from people who were like "slippery slope floodgates what next bigamy!?!?!?!"

I keep thinking that the way things are going that states will have to legalize marriage among three or more people, because people will require that many incomes to keep one house with a few kids going. As it is right now it would be pretty fucking useful at my house, say, if while my wife and I went to work there were somebody home like making sure the house didn't fall apart and kept the laundry done and whatnot. It's either that or we all need three day weekends: one day for socializing, one day for errand running and chore-doing, and one day to, you know, rest.

Three spouse families and three day weekends: VOTE WOLFGANG 2032!!!!!

You've got phred's vote

JFLNYC wrote:Depends.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

and now trump orders the pentagon to re-think the army's $10B cloud computing contract with amazon because bezos.

thephan wrote:Trump is "reviewing" the DOD cloud competition called JEDI, he received a document called Amazon's conspiracy to gain a monopoly of the dod cloud environment for 10 years. by the way, a 10-year contract for infrastructure is simply standard practice. Of note however, is this tidbit:

Notably, the report also said the document was identical to one created by Ken Glueck, the executive vice president at Oracle and the database giant's chief Washington lobbyist. Glueck has a blown-up version of the chart hanging on his office window at Oracle's Washington, DC, office, according to CNN.

Apparently the diagram has dollar signs and arrows like you see in a cartoon conspiracy TV show with pictures of Amazon employees and even a heart for some reason.

https://amp.businessinsider.com/trump-j ... cle-2019-7

Yep, heard about that one.

Werthless wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:Depends.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

Best Simpsons joke ever - the motto, in their world, of “Reading” Digest:

Brevity is... wit.

The most well-constructed gag in TV history.

Glad to see TP still regurgitating tired "conservative" tropes after all these years.

It's almost impossible to learn so little, but here you are!

primaries (and campaigns) are about debating contrasts and differences and records. i see no issue with any supposed attack from last night. i also didn't think people were 'trashing' President Obama; one can dislike how he did something and not dislike the man or his overall presidency. he pretty obviously has some missteps and most of them stemmed from hiring Rahm Emmanuel

PhillieMooDo wrote:Glad to see TP still regurgitating tired "conservative" tropes after all these years.

It's almost impossible to learn so little, but here you are!

Even better, your scintillating counter points.

Hurd not seeking reelection.

TomatoPie wrote:

PhillieMooDo wrote:Glad to see TP still regurgitating tired "conservative" tropes after all these years.

It's almost impossible to learn so little, but here you are!

Even better, your scintillating counter points.

You believe nonsense, and have believed said nonsense for a very long time. Thoughtful counterpoints are useless.

Not to mention, the subtle (maybe) racism in your post. People better than me would have to make that determination, but it sure doesn't read well.

Btw, if you vote third party, don't call yourself anti-Trump. You'd be helping him win.

thephan wrote:Hurd not seeking reelection.

The entire border can be ours!

JFLNYC wrote:Actually, watching it was interesting and informative.

Indeed. The post debate stuff is also valuable. Especially when they spend time interviewing the individual candidates.

It would be amazing if they could just have a round table discussion of like four or five candidates with a moderator and no audience. No time limits, just a conversation about the issues and an actual discussion about differences in policy and why one person’s proposals are better than the others.