Remember me
▼ Content

Democrat Debates - the 2nd Ten


Democrat Debates - the 2nd Ten28-06-2019 20:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3858)
Surprise, surprise! Bernie went first! It came as no surprise that Bernie and Biden were positioned directly in the center ... but I was certain Biden would have been given the "chosen one" coddling that Elizabeth Warren was given the previous night. Neither Biden nor Bernie got anywhere near the amount of time and opportunities and exposure as Elizabeth Warren the previous night. Biden did, however, get the last word of all of this round of candidates. Why not Bernie? That's how it worked with Warren the previous night.

Is Elizabeth Warren already "chosen" as the 2020 Democrat Presidential candidate? We all know that the DNC *CRAVES* a woman candidate, one that Hillary was supposed to be. I don't have a crystal ball but the DNC is sending a strong message "Elizabeth Warren is currently in our favor." Is that why she went on the first night, on a stage devoid of either Bernie or Biden ... or Kamala? Was there a concerted effort to make Warren "stand out" as much as possible? It sure looked that way to me.

This debate actually tried to form up as a debate; they attacked each other ... but mostly to say that opponents aren't socialist enough like they are.

<my opinion> I can't see how any Democrat voter could watch these "debates" and still have any hope that the Democrat party can somehow produce anyone with any sort of chance against Trump. In fact, the direct advocacy of socialism and increased taxation will drive away all but the lunatic fanatical fringe while the same old tired gratuitous Trump-bashing-instead-of-anything-of-substance and droning on-and-on about Climate Change will bore any others watching the events to sleep. </my opinion>


Only one candidate, Hickenlooper, spoke out against "socialism" because it will guarantee a Republican victory.

All these candidates agree that:
* taxes must go up, and all candidates will apparently work to kill "Trump's tax breaks "for the top 1%"
* The fact that corporations pay zero in taxes is how the candidates will pay for all the social programs they want. (I admit this was just the standard response to avoid the question of "How are you planning to pay for [insert socialist program X]")
* Education should be free, pre-K, college, etc...
* The economy apparently sucks and Trump is lying ... because he is a lair.
* They stressed "healthcare is very personal to me."
* Insurance is criminal, fueled by greed. Ungodly profits.
* They unanimously insist healthcare must be given to undocumented immigrants ... because the American people want it that way. Undocumented immigrants contribute far more to the country than any costs they would incur for their healthcare. There must be a pathway to citizenship upon arrival at the US border.
* There seemed to be a unanimous willingness to eliminate any distinctions between requesting asylum and just wanting to come to America, and apparently detention centers are now referred to as "cages."
* Donald Trump is guilty of many thousands of counts of kidnapping ... because he steals children from their parents.
* Suffice to say they all agree that the NAZIs were more benign than Trump. They all vow to rescind everything that Trump has ever done.
* Greatest geopolitical threats/challenges: Russia, China. No one said "Trump." Wait! Kamala Harris did so later during the Climate Change segment.
* Ditto the previous night's debate, police are mostly racist and we need a new conversation with our communities.
* Mitch McConnel is apparently singlehandedly responsible for gridlock in the US.
* Climate Change is a crisis and California's very existence is in peril. Carbon needs to be taxed.
* Assault weapons should be eliminated
* NRA and gun manufacturers are our enemies ... except Biden says only gun manufacturers and NOT the NRA are our enemies.
* Apparently Trump is pissing off all the world leaders, and Biden predicts NATO will completely collapse if Trump is reelected. All the candidates pledge to basically call all the world leaders and beg for forgiveness.

Divergence occurred in the following areas:

Only two candidates, Bernie and Kamala, intend to eliminate all private insurance, thus leaving all Americans dependent on the government for healthcare.

Biden clarified that deportations were fundamentally just under Obama and should never be compared these immoral actions of Trump (*lots of applause*)

Kamala Harris went after Biden saying that, although she's not calling him a racist, she was hurt when Biden praised two career-segregationist senators. Then Kamala dug into Biden for not supporting bussing.

Biden clarified that he was responsible for preventing our Great Depression when he was Vice President ... and it's a good thing he did.

Bernie wants to institute a "Judge Rotation" program by which Supreme Court justices are rotated to other courts and other judges are rotated onto the Supreme Court ... bringing new blood to the Supreme Court.

John Hickenlooper bills himself as a scientist, and he refers to CO2 as "pollution." He doesn't like "socialism" and reiterated how it spells defeat for Democrats. He nonetheless wants everything to be free like all the other candidates. Where he differs is that we can't begiving everyone a government job.

Andrew Yang wants the government to pay everyone a guaranteed income. Yikes!

They all had different "Single Top Issues."

Swallwell will outlaw only "assault" weapons, not rifles, handguns, or anything else. He did not define "assault" weapons.

Kamala Harris, as President, will give Congress 100 days to "get their act together" on "gun reform" and if they fail to do so she will go Draconian by Executive Order and use the ATF to outlaw everything until Congress acts.

Kirsten claims to have defeated Trump more than anyone else. I don't know what that means.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-06-2019 03:46
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(809)
Illegal immigrants broke our laws, criminals. Criminals are general separated, men are separated from women, children separated from adults. Unless there is a physical danger, those charged with a crime, are caged in group. The separation protects the women from rape, and the children from being molested. We don't know any of these people sneaking over the border, except for what they told us after their arrest. No way to know if it's true, or if they are flee their country, because they are running from the law. We don't even know if the children, are actually related to any of the adults. Still can't understand how they don't see a difference between legal, and illegal immigrants. We allow people to immigrate here from all over the world, the is a process and procedure. Those that cut in line, make all those attempting to become legal citizen, the correct way, wait longer. The illegal immigrants detained, aren't all originally from the latin american countries either. Past few months we've been getting a lot from northern Africa, fleeing another potential Ebola outbreak, which is a nasty, and very deadly disease, with few successful treatments, once infected. Hopefully, these illegal immigrants are kept isolated and tested.

If they want to tax, why do they never consider taxing the stock markets? People buy/sell/trade shares in most every company or business, mostly for profit, and could care less about the company they invested in. Those shares of stock are also powerful tools, they can control or kill businesses as well. No responsibility, little oversight, in how that power is used. Taxes on those sales should be higher, so people aren't as quick, or crafty, with their buying and selling. People should invest in companies, because they believe in them, not just to leverage a few bucks out of them. It's mostly gambling, and only the winners get taxed, the loser are forgiven a portion of those loses. They should get taxed every time the play the game, they lose, tough luck. Shouldn't play the game, if you can't afford to lose. You gamble at a casino, you get taxed on your winnings, but you don't get to claim your losses, why is the stock market different? The stock market provides a good operatunity to dodge taxes and hide wealth, legally.

Charitable foundations are another tax dodge, that seldom get looked at, unless it's to hurt the founder. Some shady dealings at the Clinton foundation came up, but never pursued, and went unanswered. Trump had similar questions pop up, he just shut his down, rather than deal with it further.
29-06-2019 09:22
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1230)
They obviously seem to think that the bigger the giveaway at the expense of the wealthy or big corporations, the better chance they have at getting elected. The price tag on all this "free" stuff would make Obama's spending look like a nickel in a a haystack.

So the question is this....

Any person of reasonably sound mind knows that this kind of spending would crush the economy and the federal gov would necessarily collapse. Is this what they actually want? Make damn sure it's good and broken so they can be the ones to "fix" it, and restructure the United States without that damn constitution. If they somehow got their liberal house and senate, would they actually pass such reckless spending?...or is it just a bunch of "please elect me" empty campaign promises?

I honestly don't know.
29-06-2019 16:39
HarveyH55
★★★☆☆
(809)
I don't think they are empty campaign promises, if the could get enough support to pass any of it, they would like to do all that stuff, and more. The seem to believe that most people aren't capable of taking care of themselves, know what they need or want. The democrats want make all of our choices for us, make sure we have every thing we want and need. They don't get that we all don't want the exact same things, nor will we need the same level of care. Most of us want to earn what we have, build our own lives. We like the challenge, and the satisfaction. I like owning a car, and driving myself to work. I don't want the government telling me I don't really need a car, I could be taking a bus or a train instead.

I never like ObamaCare, since the vast majority of people are actually in good health. Most everyone with a job, above entry-level, minimum wage (burger-flipper) type jobs, usually get an option to get insurance through their employer. Minimum wage jobs aren't normally considered careers, or what someone would expect to support a family on. Most of my life, I never really needed the insurance I had, it was cheap, and may need though. I'm fortunate that it's still cheap, the employer still picks up the majority of the cost. What ObamaCare did, was raise my deductible, co-pays, and reduced some of the coverage. I don't understand the appeal of paying higher taxes, higher premiums, for something that if I'm doing everything right, I shouldn't need.

I'm not sure why a college degree is critical for survival. Most jobs don't require even a high school diploma. There are a lot of people with college degrees, student debt, and working the same jobs the could have had, without the extra schooling.

Freedom is all about individuals having options and choices, and the opportunity to work to achieve their own goals. No free goods or services were ever offered in the Constitution, or guaranteed. You want something, you have to work to earn it. You either have to work to build it yourself, or work for others to earn the money to buy. Nothing is given to you, except the right to freely purse your dreams and ambitions. When bad things happen, your family, friends, neighbors, community should step in, and handle the charity work. If a community wants better schools, they are free to get together and build better schools. People are free to move into areas better suited to their needs and ambitions. Parents could send their kids to better schools or college, if that's what they want. The just have to be willing to work, to pay for those expenses. The government should step in temporarily to help out, but shouldn't be paying for free stuff forever.
29-06-2019 18:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3858)
GasGuzzler wrote:If they somehow got their liberal house and senate, would they actually pass such reckless spending?...or is it just a bunch of "please elect me" empty campaign promises?

It took the Federal government the entire duration of its existence, from 1776 to 2008, to reach Federal deficits of $500 Billion [during George W. Bush's second term].

Then Obama was elected to a Democrat controlled House and Senate. The deficit during Obama's first year exceeded $1 Trillion and never dipped back below.

Democrats prepare an "emergency" as the reason they "must" spend, spend, spend and spend. During Obama's first year Democrats seized on the housing bubble as the reason they HAD TO spend, spend, spend, spend, spend, spend and spend ... calling it a "stimulus" ... all the while telling us that most of the jobs lost were never going to return, that a crappy economy was the new "normal" and that we should credit the "stimulus" for the housing bubble eventually correcting itself.

Now the Democrats have the Global Warming emergency for which they absolutely must tax and tax and tax and tax and tax and tax and tax and tax ... and spend and spend and spend and spend and spend and spend and spend.

So the answer is "Yes, you do know" what will happen if there were a Democrat-controlled Federal government.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
29-06-2019 19:13
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1230)
Agree, there WILL be massive spending increases. The three that catch me are College for all, guaranteed wages, and of course the Green Raw Deal.

Any one of those would bring this country to it's knees. Initial spending would be crippling and the unintended consequences and fallout would be the knockout blow. It would be Greece on a massive scale.

They HAVE to know this, right? Do they really believe any of these things are sustainable in any way? I have a hard time believing ANYONE, even Bernie, is that stupid. Do I give'em too much credit?
29-06-2019 22:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8148)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Agree, there WILL be massive spending increases. The three that catch me are College for all, guaranteed wages, and of course the Green Raw Deal.

Any one of those would bring this country to it's knees. Initial spending would be crippling and the unintended consequences and fallout would be the knockout blow. It would be Greece on a massive scale.

They HAVE to know this, right? Do they really believe any of these things are sustainable in any way? I have a hard time believing ANYONE, even Bernie, is that stupid. Do I give'em too much credit?


There would also be a massive curtailing of liberty.

* Price controls on college and forced attendance of indoctrination, rendering college degrees completely worthless.
* Price controls on wages, causing shortages in available jobs.
* The destruction of the energy market, and massive new regulations on business and individuals.
* The destruction of the medical industry, forcing all to become wards of the State.

These are the planks the Democrats are running on.


The Parrot Killer
30-06-2019 21:00
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1230)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Agree, there WILL be massive spending increases. The three that catch me are College for all, guaranteed wages, and of course the Green Raw Deal.

Any one of those would bring this country to it's knees. Initial spending would be crippling and the unintended consequences and fallout would be the knockout blow. It would be Greece on a massive scale.

They HAVE to know this, right? Do they really believe any of these things are sustainable in any way? I have a hard time believing ANYONE, even Bernie, is that stupid. Do I give'em too much credit?


There would also be a massive curtailing of liberty.

* Price controls on college and forced attendance of indoctrination, rendering college degrees completely worthless.
* Price controls on wages, causing shortages in available jobs.
* The destruction of the energy market, and massive new regulations on business and individuals.
* The destruction of the medical industry, forcing all to become wards of the State.

These are the planks the Democrats are running on.


The destruction of the United States of America and subsequent rebuilding as they see fit.


This statement of yours helps you meet your obligation to bash Trump and stick your tongue up Obama's netherpipe in one efficient sentence. Well done.

~IBdaMann~
30-06-2019 21:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3858)
GasGuzzler wrote:The destruction of the United States of America and subsequent rebuilding as they see fit.

You are very close.

The objective is to destroy the capitalism. The destruction of the United States would be incidental.

I'm telling you, the goal has not changed. There is nothing new under the sun. You can read the exact roadmap in The Communist Manifesto available at Politiplex.

<my opinion>

Everyone should be required to read The Communist Manifesto in school (or better, at home, as children, by parents) and be taught to recognize the same recurring bogus arguments when they inevitably surface).

</my opinion>


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-07-2019 19:24
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3858)
IBdaMann wrote:
<my opinion>

Everyone should be required to read The Communist Manifesto in school (or better, at home, as children, by parents) and be taught to recognize the same recurring bogus arguments when they inevitably surface).

</my opinion>





Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate Democrat Debates - the 2nd Ten:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Democrat Debates - the 1st Ten301-07-2019 19:15
As a CO2 lover, I'd like to see Trump and Democrat congress win 2020 election1021-06-2019 22:08
2nd perpetual Motion Concept309-09-2018 19:16
Every thread turns into a discussion about the 2nd law of thermodynamics1727-04-2017 06:09
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact