home

Detroit Debates: Night One

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2020
Posted on Tue Jul 30, 2019 at 06:47:44 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are both debating tonight in Detroit. Will they take on each other or go after Biden/Harris or tackle Donald Trump?

Also participating: former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O’Rourke, Marianne Williamson, Tim Ryan, John Delaney, and a new face, Montana Governor Steve Bullock. Here are their podium positions, which is determined by polling status.

The debate will start at 8 p.m. ET on CNN. Politico has this guide to tonight's debate.

If you want the Cliff Notes version, CNN has this guide of where each of them stand on the issues. [More...]

The first night of the Miami debates took in 15.3 million viewers. The second night did even better, reaching 18.1 million viewers, which made it the top ranked Democratic debate in Nielsen's history.

Tonight's ratings are expected to be lower. The debate will also face stiff competition from the second and final night of the season finale of the Bachelorette. I won't be surprised if the Bachelorette crushes the debate in ratings.

< Jared's Most Excellent Middle East Adventures Continue On Our Dime | Tuesday Night TV and Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Detroit Debates: Night One | 103 comments (103 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    The CNN debate was, (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 09:32:16 AM EST
    in my opinion, unsatisfying and unproductive. Fortunately, the candidates proceeded as best they could.

    The format seemed designed to elicit conflict among candidates, rather than discernment. The clocking of questions, answers and rebuttals took precedence over the actual questions, answers and rebuttals.

    It may have been fair, in the first (NBC) debate to include all contenders who met very minimal criteria.  However, inclusion of the one and two percenters in a second debate fostered "hail mary" challenges to the top tier.

    The moderators were rightly called out by Senator Sanders as offering up "Republican Talking Points" in their questioning.

    For example, right out of the gate, Jake Tapper drilled down on Medicare for All proposals increasing taxes on the middle class. Only in a second breath did he note that there would not be health care premiums, although no reference to a possible wash.  No reference to any of the plans to improve health care delivery and care for Americans. And, there was the clock. And, taxes.

    The primary result was Senators Warren and Sanders trying to explain their proposals against the unclear alternatives of the Tim Ryans andJohn Delaneys (who received a disproportionate amount of time due to the CNN welcomed conflict).  

    The fact that Marianne Williamson emerged as a relatively bright star  tells a lot about the debate.  Amy Klobuchar, Beto O'Rourke, John Hickenlooper, and Tim Ryan have now had their day. Have a nice one.

     John Delaney did serve a role as foil for Elizabeth Warren, and Steve Bullock can smirk his arrogant self on back to Montana and run for the senate, and really contribute to the Democratic party.  Pete Buttigieg was, as usual, calm and measured but likely did not lift himself out of the lower end of the top tier.  

    Elizabeth Warren was, as usual, whip smart and helped herself despite the debate's built-in handicaps.  However, the night was a "Red Bull" night for Bernie, instructing other candidates that policies need to track along with the candid and forceful calling out of the dangerous and racist present occupant of the White House.

    The Democratic presidential (none / 0) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Thu Aug 01, 2019 at 01:22:55 PM EST
    contenders fell in comfortably, in accord with CNN expectations, with the debate design to provide maximum heat and minimum light. Surprising, since they all had the advantage of a peep show the previous evening.  Never-the-less, the contenders persisted.

    According to CNN plan, the one percenters attacked Biden and Harris, offering an occasional, relatively sane, comment or question, thereby turning into media debate stars, if not crowned the next president on the spot.

    Tulsi Gabbard (the Marianne Williamson of the night), dumped a ton of opposition research on Senator Harris, who had a few seconds to respond.

    One good question appears to negate Gabbard's record of apologist for Bashar Assad, her Fox news appearances discussing the "", and virulent anti-gay positions.  

    Of course, Gabbard now claims to have new and improved positions and we should take that into account.  However, this forgiveness/evolution/context argument does not apply to Biden (with a s 50-year record that has its hits and misses), or to Kamala Harris,(who had a different set of responsibilities and decisions as a prosecutor.)

    Former vice president Biden did much better this time around, starting out strong, running out of steam a bit in the middle, but then regaining his command of the situation.  All sentient viewers knew what Biden meant by his "eight more years", and it is easy for anyone to mess up some numbers, but for Biden, it was, surely, a sign of age-related infirmity.

    Kamala Harris probably did not help herself a great deal, Corey Booker and Julian Castro did well, and Kristen Gillibrand hung in there.  Michael Bennet came across as a decent guy at the Miami debate, but, this time, started off seeming to be working off too much Xsnax and ended up seeming to need another dose.

    Jay Inslee will make a good Secretary of Interior or EPA Administrator in a Democratic Administration--and that is what he should shoot for.

    Yang, the math expert, should check the polling statistics and take a hint, and not just to get a neck tie; Bill deBlasio,it can be said without dispute, is the tallest candidate. And, Eric Swalwell did a good job...oh wait. never-mind. Hard to keep track.

    A CNN horse race complete with clocking. The moderators, however, appeared to get mixed up, thinking it was a FOX hunt.

    Well, there are just ten more Democratic debates in front of us.  And, the memories of this, the second in the series, will no doubt be as indelibly etched in our minds as the first. And, even more so, after the sixth debate.

    Parent

    I'm a huge sucker (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CST on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 12:01:05 PM EST
    For Warren at this point so I don't really think that I can evaluate electability anymore, I just know that when she talks about not being afraid to support who you want, she's talking directly to me and it's working.

    Whether it works for anyone else is up to them.

    I don't even agree with her on some issues but I know that she's a reasonable person and she's smart as a whip so I'm just not that worried about it.

    I regret that fear (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 12:21:45 PM EST
    of anti-intellectualism keeps Sen. Warren from finishing the story she likes to tell, about being able to move up from a working class family (father a janitor) by attending a local college as a commuter (for $50 a semester, did she say?). Well, that's part of the story, but ... She was so smart in high school that she graduated at 16 and began GWU on a scholarship (recruited for her talent in debate), but dropped out after a couple of years to marry and have kids. The part she also doesn't include in her spiel is, "After staying home with kids for several years, and getting divorced from my first husband, I remarried, attended law school (at a state university, Rutgers, not a prestigious institution), and by hard work and talent eventually become a professor at Harvard Law School and America's leading academic authority on consumer bankruptcy and consumer protection."

    Parent
    Yes, it would be (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 01:28:40 PM EST
    regrettable if anti-intellectualism would keep Senator Warren from detailing her life story.  Her distinguished and successful academic career should be among  qualifications proudly promoted.

    (e.g.,University of Houston, tenured professor and associate dean; law professorships at University of Texas Austin, University of Michigan, and brought in as an endowed chair, full professor, at the University of Pennsylvania, and then on professor at Harvard.)

    Her teaching and scholarship record is no small achievement, especially for a woman at that time. She was also, apparently, the only professor at Harvard who graduated from an American public law school.  

    Democrats need to free "elitism" (as well "socialism")from their commandeered Republican pejoratives such as anti-Americanism.

    Parent

    Biden is not as sharp or articulate (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 10:30:34 PM EST
    as the majority of his competitors. In his closing statement, he said we can't afford four more much less eight more years of Tr*mp (huh?) and he fumbled his "text me" message to the point of unintelligibility. When he is attacked, his responses are uniformly unconvincing. He would be such a weak candidate against Tr*mp.

    Eight total (none / 0) (#34)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 10:47:22 PM EST
    was the intention, I think.

    But you zeroed in on the only issue for Joe--is he too old, has he lost a step?

    Time will tell, but I think tonight, he passed. How will he be in one year?  One year older....

      Being a good debater is not as important as one might think.  Reagan was not great.   W was bested by Kerry. Bush, Sr. was not great.

    Bigger trends than snappy comebacks are in play.  

    Parent

    Harris (none / 0) (#35)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 10:49:17 PM EST
    took a major hit from Gabbard, who was auditioning as Biden's VP?

    Harris will most likely fade now, as she did okay but did not have the big night like last time.

    Parent

    Furthur (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 11:11:33 PM EST
    it may not be age with Biden.  I remember him being nervous during his 2008 VP Convention acceptance speech.

    And the others up there are very, very smart. Booker is a Rhodes Scholar.   Castro is really, really smart.  

    It is not about being the smartest kid in class, or the best debater.....

    Parent

    Harris asked for what (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 11:40:38 PM EST
    she got tonight. And not just in the last debate.

    Has she ever talked about level 4 prison conditions in Cali? It's a gd nightmare from everything I've ever heard. People come out of there with PTSD.

    Parent

    Julian Castro get points (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 01, 2019 at 12:19:58 PM EST
    for calling for the end of qualified immunity for police last night. That is something I am all in for. Have been for quite a long time. Police should be held accountable for their bad acts.
    I am actually impressed that Castro (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 01, 2019 at 09:01:10 PM EST
    has now brought up two rather technical points, in precise legal terms, that need reform (section 1325 of the Immigration Act, and "qualified immunity"), and has been able to explain what they are, how they are abused to deprive people of freedom, and how fixing them would be a concrete and beneficial reform.

    Parent
    Not the only one (none / 0) (#40)
    by ragebot on Thu Aug 01, 2019 at 01:18:43 PM EST
    there have been calls across the political spectrum to end qualified immunity.  Not to mention how many qualified immunity cases the SC accepts.

    Parent
    I don't know which debate you watched, (none / 0) (#46)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 01, 2019 at 04:43:41 PM EST
    but the one I watched on CNN, he was the only candidate to bring it up.

    Parent
    My take after the debate (1.00 / 2) (#38)
    by ragebot on Thu Aug 01, 2019 at 01:58:04 AM EST
    Biden was the big winner because he did not lose.  No question he was not perfect but he suffered no major hits

    Harris was the big loser; in big part because of hits she took from Gabbard.  Her previous life as a DA and AG prepared her more to attack than defend.  I expect she will suffer more hits as her record becomes better known.  Also not sure how well her affair with Brown will play down the road.  Moving up the CA primary will help her stay in the game but I only give her a puncher's chance.

    Gabbard raised her profile but maybe not enough to get to the next round of the playoffs.

    Booker gets a pass.

    Time to relegate the rest to the kiddie table and let the big boys play big boy games.

    Oh, for Heaven's sake! Just stop. (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 01, 2019 at 03:35:37 PM EST
    ragebot: "Also not sure how well her affair with Brown will play down the road."

    Kamala Harris and Willie Brown were an item 25 years ago in the mid-1990s and further, most people in San Francisco knew it at the time. They split up in 1995. Why should that long-ago relationship have any bearing whatsoever on Sen. Harris's present candidacy?

    Your insinuation is at once hypocritical, sexist and offensive, considering that you've supported the current White House occupant, a guy who literally bragged about grabbing women by their genitalia -- which is criminal sexual assault in many states, BTW -- and who was happily schtupping an adult film star while his third wife was pregnant with his fifth child, AND who then later attempted to buy that woman's silence before the 2016 election in a vain effort to cover up the affair.

    Why don't you work to clean up your own party's amoral households, before you start criticizing others?

    >:-(

    Parent

    Plenty of dems (2.25 / 4) (#48)
    by ragebot on Thu Aug 01, 2019 at 06:06:22 PM EST
    have no problem going back that far in Trump's affairs.  What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

    You need to realize Harris has been accused of sleeping her way to the top for quite some time.  Something Trump has never been accused of.

    You can stalk me as long as you want but ignoring the fact that Harris has a real problem with her history with Brown is just silly.

    Parent

    "Been accused of"???? (5.00 / 5) (#49)
    by Yman on Thu Aug 01, 2019 at 06:57:47 PM EST
    Seriously?!?  That's supposed to mean something???  The b@t$hit, tinfoil, wingers crowd accuses Democrats of all kinds of ridiculous garbage.  Your dimestore Barbie just had to apologize for that very same smear when even your own Faux News crowd called her for that misogynistic crap.

    The only "real problem" Harris has is with old, white, sexist men who think that garbage will fly - and Trump already has your vote.

    Parent

    Sell right-wing stupid someplace else, dude. (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 03:38:06 AM EST
    You're merely parroting the toxic musings of the most obnoxious inmate from Fox News' asylum of professional bubble-headed bleach blondes. And in this instance, her offensive claim that Kamala Harris slept her way to the top 25 years ago was so grotesque that several of her Ailes Academy classmates publicly called her out on social media over it. Shame on you for trafficking in such colonary swill.

    Parent
    Well, to be fair... (2.00 / 4) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 11:15:51 AM EST
    She was 29 when she was, as you like to say, "schtupping" Willie Brown, the then 60 year old Democratic Speaker of the California State Assembly. A position which was considered the most powerful state legislator in the country.

    And while he was the Speaker and they were "schtupping" each other she quit her comparatively lowly deputy prosecutor job and he appointed her to two quite well-paying CA government board/commission positions that required very little actual time and effort, something on the order of attending a couple half-day meetings per month.

    And, of course, though never indicted, Willie "Ayatollah of the Assembly" Brown was considered corrupt AF.

    Otoh, Harris has, wisely, consistently disowned Brown after they broke up. And, since that break up, except for some apparently unsolicited fund raising he did for her back in the day, it appears he has had no part in her life or her political career.

    You may wish that that politically awkward and embarrassing long-ago relationship should have no bearing whatsoever on Sen. Harris's present candidacy, but it does.

    Parent

    Ayotollah? (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 12:06:10 PM EST
    You compare Willie Brown to a terrorist?  

    Do you really think we are interested in this Fox News b.s.?

    Harris won elections to be DA in San Francisco and AG before being elected to the Senate.   Her AG election was a tough one, eked out with a few hundred votes.

    And are you so dense that you cannot tell the difference between consensual relationships and what your guy has been accused of?   Really?

      Misogyny underlies your comparison of Harris's consensual conduct and Trump's assaults of women.  This is old fashion sl*t shaming by men who fear women.

     

    Parent

    And I love Willie Brown (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 12:29:52 PM EST
    I have seen him in restaurants, etc.

    The real reason you Republicans hate him is that he owned you guys.  The Republicans at one time won a majority of seats in the California State Assembly (CA was once a Red State before Pete Wilson's Latino bashing Prop. 187), but Willie Brown picked off two GOP members to vote for him as Speaker.  So, the Republicans have a slim majority of seats in the CA Assembly, but Willie Brown is still elected Speaker. Ha! In your face!

    So, he really stuck it to the GOP.  This is why you hate him.

    And, as you point out, Willie was never indicted or convicted of corruption--unlike seemingly most of Trump's close associates.

    Parent

    "Owned" is right. (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 03:21:02 PM EST
    Willie Brown was the consummate wheeler-dealer who took care of his people, as have most successful politicians in American history. When he was first elected to the State Assembly from San Francisco, Brown endeared himself to that city's growing LGBTQ community and established his liberal bona fides by authoring the then-landmark Consenting Adult Sex Bill of 1975, which repealed the state's sodomy laws and thus effectively legalized homosexuality.

    That herculean political success garnered Brown both notice and friends and more importantly, made him a powerful political player in the San Francisco Bay area, which he then parlayed to his advantage in Sacramento. Most Republicans conveniently refuse to acknowledge that when Brown first gained the speakership in 1980, he did so with 23 Democratic and 28 GOP votes in the 80-member Assembly.

    But perhaps more ominously for white people, Willie Brown was a black man who had the temerity and cojones to challenge the privileged white political establishment at its own game, and then he proceeded to beat its members repeatedly like an old rug. In the 1980s and '90s, he was considered one of the most powerful and influential state legislators in the entire country.

    And THAT, I would offer, is what really stuck in the white establishment's craw and likely spurred all those countless FBI investigations which never, ever amounted to anything. It was the old story of the white man wanting to put the black man in his place, and Brown simply refused to comply with that shopworn narrative.

    While I certainly didn't agree with Willie Brown on many occasions, I can't help but admire him for his many genuine accomplishments. He was the quintessential self-made political animal and just like his contemporary Jerry Brown, he was a zen master of California and Bay Area politics.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    From wiki: (2.33 / 3) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 12:23:54 PM EST
    Brown's long service in the Assembly and political connections, his strong negotiation skills, and the Assembly's tenure system for leadership appointments, combined to give Brown nearly complete control over the California Legislature by the time he became Assembly Speaker. According to The New York Times, Brown became one of the country's most powerful state legislators.[2] He nicknamed himself the "Ayatollah of the Assembly".[17]
    My bolds.

    The rest of what you write is either completely made up in your wee little mind, or you are confusing me with some other poster. Either way, it's not even worth responding to.

    Parent

    I did not make up (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 12:35:21 PM EST
    your comparison of Harris's consensual relationship (when she was single) with  Trump's assault of women. Crude attempt at a GOP staple:  "bothsiderism."

    You did that....No one else did.  Don't know the difference?  Well, one can draw inferences about that regarding your view of women.

    Parent

    Please show us this comparison you claim (3.00 / 2) (#59)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 12:38:26 PM EST
    I made.

    Waiting.

    Parent

    "wee little mind" (none / 0) (#57)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 12:31:14 PM EST
    Heh, you know what you can do with that insult.

    Parent
    So what! (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 02:30:56 PM EST
    First of all, as CaptHowdy noted in another thread last week, relationships between older men and younger women are hardly uncommon in our society and therefore cannot necessarily be characterized as predatory and / or co-dependent in nature.

    Further, as I pointed out yesterday, the fact that Kamala Harris and Willie Brown were an item 25 years ago was hardly a secret to most San Franciscans at the time. Hell, the late Herb Caen regularly dished about both of them in his popular S.F. Chronicle column. Finally, since both Harris and Brown have long since moved on from one another, their past relationship has absolutely no relevance to her present presidential candidacy.

    But more to the point, that sort of sexist inference, by which you, ragebot and that toxic Foxbat Tomi Lahren are suggesting that the obviously talented Sen. Harris could somehow only get ahead in life by shagging rich and powerful men, is an anachronistic d!ck-swinging trope that properly belongs to a bygone era. As Ms. Lahren's own female colleagues at Fox News rightly said to her yesterday, it is grossly insulting to women in general and really has no place in 21st century America.

    Now, I very seriously doubt either ragebot or you would likely appreciate it if others who didn't know you personally similarly impugned your public reputations by accusing you of gold-digging and social-climbing, baldly suggesting that your prior girlfriends from decades past were little more than convenient doormats in the foyers of your respective destinations.

    So, unless you're perfectly willing to endure that sort of inappropriate (and humiliating) speculation yourself, by which persons heretofore unknown to you would nevertheless seek your personal embarrassment and / or professional ruin with baseless insinuations, then learn to mind your own business and don't do it to others.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    As I said (3.00 / 2) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 02:33:36 PM EST
    You may wish that that politically awkward and embarrassing long-ago relationship should have no bearing whatsoever on Sen. Harris's present candidacy, but it does.


    Parent
    If we could stop punishing women (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by CST on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 02:47:43 PM EST
    For the bad behavior of men that would be lovely.

    I fail to see how anything you wrote reflects poorly on anyone except maybe Willie Brown.

    Frankly, between Bill Clinton and Donald Trump I don't want to hear $hit from anybody about any of the consensual personal lives of any of the candidates.

    Parent

    Fox News (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 02:58:48 PM EST
    sometimes seems like it's stocked with a bunch of blonde cheerleaders who were knocked-up by Roger Ailes and then sent to talking points summer camp for a month.

    Emphasis on the word "seems", I guess.

    Parent

    The point is not whether or not the facts (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 03:07:49 PM EST
    of her past actions reflect poorly on her in your opinion, or MKS's, or DfH's, but whether they will in the minds of the voters.

    And I certainly agree with your last sentence.

    Parent

    I don't think voters are going to care much (none / 0) (#70)
    by McBain on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 05:03:08 PM EST
    about that. Just like they didn't care about Trump's alleged affairs.

    Parent
    Oy (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 06:34:25 PM EST
    It was not "alleged affairs," it was alleged assaults and rape.

    Parent
    Maybe so. (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 06:16:40 PM EST
    The question was asked: "Why should that long-ago relationship have any bearing whatsoever on Sen. Harris's present candidacy?"

    And my answer is: Because, you know, voters.

    Parent

    That is not an answer (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 06:32:43 PM EST
    "Because, you know, the voters" is just circular reasoning.  You can give that answer to anything.

    Translation:  Substitute  you for "voters."   You think "voters" will care because you care, for some reason or another.  But rather than explain why you care, you just project onto "voters" what you feel.....

    So, let's try this again, why do you care, or (indulging in your pretense), why do you think the "voters" will care?

    Parent

    You're trying way too hard. (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Aug 03, 2019 at 12:34:24 AM EST
    Why is that?

    Parent
    Because I have had (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 03, 2019 at 01:24:50 PM EST
    it with the racism, bigotry, misogyny of the current Cheeto who cages children.

     And more than had it with his enablers.  Veiled bigotry designed to support the current regime must be opposed.

    Parent

    Well, everyone considers themselves heros. (1.33 / 3) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Aug 03, 2019 at 02:16:47 PM EST
    And some apparently need their own imaginary fairy tales to do so.

    Good luck with those windmills.

    Parent

    "Imaginary" (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MKS on Sat Aug 03, 2019 at 06:08:51 PM EST
    God, you are a MAGA, aren't you?  

    Most everyone knows Trump is a racist.  Some enablers still dispute it.

    This is going to be a long election season, especially with MAGAs posting here.

    Will you admit you are a MAGA, or are you a cagey, covert MAGA?  

    Parent

    Such drama. (3.00 / 2) (#97)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 05, 2019 at 10:23:02 AM EST
    So that there is no confusion, here are some examples of your imaginary fairy tales.

    Ayotollah? You compare Willie Brown to a terrorist?  
    And are you so dense that you cannot tell the difference between consensual relationships and what your guy has been accused of?   Really?

    Misogyny underlies your comparison of Harris's consensual conduct and Trump's assaults of women.  This is old fashion sl*t shaming by men who fear women.

    I did not make up your comparison of Harris's consensual relationship (when she was single) with  Trump's assault of women. Crude attempt at a GOP staple:  "bothsiderism."

    You did that....No one else did.  Don't know the difference?  Well, one can draw inferences about that regarding your view of women.

    Translation:  Substitute  you for "voters."   You think "voters" will care because you care, for some reason or another.  But rather than explain why you care, you just project onto "voters" what you feel.....
    Veiled bigotry designed to support the current regime must be opposed.
    God, you are a MAGA, aren't you?  

    Most everyone knows Trump is a racist.  Some enablers still dispute it.

    This is going to be a long election season, especially with MAGAs posting here.

    Will you admit you are a MAGA, or are you a cagey, covert MAGA?  

    Do you see the commonality of your comments?

    They have nothing to do with Harris/Brown and are instead your personal comments, innuendos, accusations, insults, attacks, etc.

    And all of them you literally made up out of whole cloth.

    My suggestion to you is to try to focus on the subject of the discussion, and not what imaginary fairly tales you make up in your mind about the commenters involved in the discussion.

    Parent

    It (5.00 / 3) (#98)
    by FlJoe on Mon Aug 05, 2019 at 10:56:22 AM EST
    was YOU who launched a vicious smear based on nothing but 25 year old rumors and innuendo, YOU boxed yourself in trying to defend it, now YOU claim victim-hood, no surprise it's how YOU guys roll.

    Parent
    Launched? No. Someone else brought it up. (none / 0) (#100)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 05, 2019 at 11:33:44 AM EST
    But whatever.

    Vicious smear based on nothing but 25 year old rumors and innuendo? Uh, no again.

    It really did happen.

    You do know that, right?

    Parent

    Of (none / 0) (#102)
    by FlJoe on Mon Aug 05, 2019 at 03:57:52 PM EST
    course the affair happened, of course there was more than a hint of cronyism, which I will go out on a limb and assume Brown was master of (IMO most top State level pols are).

    If this story was about a poker or golf buddy it would be total dog bites man, you are just getting your newly found moral undergarments in a wad because she was a different kind of friend.

    Given the arc of her career I'm sure she was quite qualified for the jobs she was given, so Brown's patronage was not particularly egregious.

    Parent

    Pretty good comments (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Mon Aug 05, 2019 at 11:06:37 AM EST
    I would say.

    You are oblivious to the import of your comments, clearly.  

    Parent

    Clearly. (none / 0) (#101)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Aug 05, 2019 at 11:37:00 AM EST


    Parent
    I think the voters who say they care (2.00 / 1) (#74)
    by McBain on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 07:11:25 PM EST
    about that aren't going to vote for her pretty much not matter what. But it does seem like a double standard with Harris and Trump.

    Parent
    How is it a double standard? (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 07:30:39 PM EST
    Do you mean Trump is more harshly judged?  Come on.

    There is a difference between rape and assault and other s*xual conduct.  A really fundamental difference.  

    Harris has done nothing in the same universe as Trump.  No grabbing crotches, no rape, no s*exual harassment.  No ogling disrobed teenagers during a beauty pageant.  And on and on.

    Parent

    I'm not talking about Trump being judged (none / 0) (#76)
    by McBain on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 07:59:55 PM EST
    I'm talking about people who criticize/make accusations against him vs. people do that to Harris.  

    In here and elsewhere people get away with saying stupid things like Trump assaulted women.  But when some bring up alleged dirt on Harris they must be shouted down. That's the double standard.  

    I believe we shouldn't bring up silly unproven scandals in here but when someone does, they shouldn't be attacked. People should calm down, take a deep breath and understand not everyone is going to agree with the consensus in here or the mainstream media... and that's OK.

    Parent

    "Stupid things (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 08:09:43 PM EST
    like Trump assaulted women."

    Not stupid.  Many, many credible accusations.  Hell, Trump confessed.

    "Silly?"  You inhabit a different planet than I do.

    No, you still do not get it.  Bringing up allegations against Harris is not the same thing as the allegations against Trump.  You again equate the two.   Why is that?

    Parent

    Bothsiderism (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 08:15:56 PM EST
    at its best on display.

    When conservatives get in trouble defending a position, they often resort to the "both sides" do it argument.  Wash away the sins of our guys by pointing those of the other guy....Or, so the (flawed) reasoning goes.

    Here, you employ the same tactic:  Both sides raising "silly" arguments about past s*xual conduct....

    Much reliance on the logical fallacy of false equivalency.  Practiced mightily.....

    Parent

    It's weird (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by CST on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 09:10:01 PM EST
    How people apparently don't understand the difference between consensual and non-consensual.

    Parent
    It is (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 03, 2019 at 05:41:55 AM EST
    because conservatives don't believe there is such a thing as consent. Consent is not a right women have.

    Parent
    Let's also not forget the mythology of ... (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Aug 03, 2019 at 05:43:22 PM EST
    ... insatiable African sexuality, which is still somehow misperceived as a threat by all too many white people in our country. While Mel Brooks and Richard Pryor mined such nonsensical white hysteria for laughs in "Blazing Saddles," phobias don't have to make sense to us in order to still be very real for some people.

    Unfortunately, white fascination / obsession with black sexuality was actually the catalyst for both the 1921 Tulsa Race Riots and the 1955 lynching of 14-year-old Emmett Till in Money, MS. In both instances, black male interaction with white womanhood led to a willful misconstruing within the white community of the former's actual intentions, which then triggered an immediate and deadly overreaction to the encounters.

    No doubt, the menacing spectre of Willie Brown and Kamala Harris shacking up 25 years ago still conjures up feelings of inadequacy in some white people. I've learned to never underestimate the infinite capacity for stupidity and hypocrisy when it comes to matters of sexuality and race. Co-mingle the two, and the situation can quickly become toxic and volatile in such small minds.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I don't think that Richard Pryor.. (none / 0) (#94)
    by desertswine on Sat Aug 03, 2019 at 10:43:33 PM EST
    was in Blazing Saddles, not to be a stickler.

    Parent
    I almost said (none / 0) (#95)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 03, 2019 at 11:04:01 PM EST
    blow it out your as*, Donald.

    But I wouldn't have meant it.

    Parent

    Richard Pryor (none / 0) (#96)
    by BGinCA on Sun Aug 04, 2019 at 01:05:46 AM EST
    co-wrote Blazing Saddles

    Parent
    Dear God (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 03, 2019 at 06:58:42 AM EST
    How is it possible that people are so stupid that they can't tell the difference between consensual $ex between to adults and the sexual assault of @ 2 dozen women?

    Let me get my 12 year old - she can explain it quite easily.

    Parent

    Translation (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Yman on Sat Aug 03, 2019 at 02:41:09 PM EST
    I believe we shouldn't bring up silly unproven scandals in here but when someone does, they shouldn't be attacked. People should calm down, take a deep breath and understand not everyone is going to agree with the consensus in here or the mainstream media... and that's OK.

    Those of us willing to bury our heads in the sand and ignore the fact that Trump is on tape admitting to the very conduct of which he is credibly accused by 2 dozen women should not be criticized for burying our heads - or for our false equivalencies and false accusations of hypocrisy.

    Parent

    And, why (none / 0) (#79)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 08:20:51 PM EST
    is it "alleged dirt" on Harris as you state?

    There are a lot of unstated beliefs and assumptions underlying your position here.

    Parent

    And I was pissed (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 09:09:38 PM EST
    at Harris until I read this tripe......

    Parent
    No. It matters only to you and ... (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 03:42:11 PM EST
    ... your fellow moralizing GOP hypocrites and sex-obsessed whackjobs who apparently have trouble differentiating between fantasy and truth. For those of us who prefer to reside in the reality-based community of the 21st century, Sen. Harris's past personal life is completely irrelevant to many daunting challenges we presently face as a nation.

    As such, whether Harris either succeeds or fails in her current candidacy will rest upon our respective assessments of her professional accomplishments and / or political shortcomings, and not who she may have been bedding 25 years ago as a single woman.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    It could be relevant (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 04:23:14 PM EST
    if coercive, involving minors, illegal activities, and perhaps if adulterous (although I think that is dubious.)

    None of those apply to Kamala's relationship--she was single, did not violate the law, did not harass Willie, and Willie was not a minor.  

    So, you guys still fascinated with her s*x life when she was single from 25 years ago?  Voy*ur much?

    Parent

    Umm, okaay. (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 03:52:52 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by FlJoe on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 04:09:52 PM EST
    sure the "moral majority" will be outraged over a 25 year old consensual affair, while ignoring (or secretly condoning) tRumps lifetime of transgressions, it's just how you guys roll.

    Parent
    "stalk?" (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 02, 2019 at 11:58:38 AM EST
    You bring your right wing nonsense to "Talkleft."  Your trolling has been tolerated....

    Stalking?  You are the one who is barging in with highly offensive and unwanted cant.

    Parent

    Did the goose get consent? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Jack E Lope on Mon Aug 05, 2019 at 05:55:56 PM EST
    You need to realize Harris has been accused of sleeping her way to the top for quite some time.  Something Trump has never been accused of.

    Is "sleeping his way to the swamp" a thing?

    Parent
    Good substantive debate (none / 0) (#1)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 30, 2019 at 08:23:26 PM EST
    I am learning things about health care and climate change plans.

    How different than GOP racist b
    s.

    Even Marianne (none / 0) (#2)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 30, 2019 at 08:24:52 PM EST
    Williamson making much more sense than Trump enablers.

    I am sold (none / 0) (#3)
    by MKS on Tue Jul 30, 2019 at 08:28:25 PM EST
    They are all good. Take any of them...

    Well, almost any (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 09:08:59 AM EST
    Not Delaney or Ryan.

    Parent
    Or Bullock (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 12:23:06 PM EST
    who appears to be an apologist for the fossil fuel industry. No doubt essential for his position as governor of Montana, but not good for America or the world.

    Parent
    I agree, Peter (none / 0) (#8)
    by Zorba on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    I consider it hugely unlikely that either Delaney or Ryan will win the Democratic nomination, but if one of them by some miracle did, I would hold my nose and vote for him.
    I would not give him money or work for him; he would have to be satisfied with my vote and that's it.

    Parent
    I don't believe Delaney has a snowball's (none / 0) (#13)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 12:44:00 PM EST
    chance in Hades. I live 25 miles north of the MD line and my wife moved up here from MD 7 years ago and neither of us had ever heard of Delaney. One can only assume he was pretty quiet in Congress.

    I mean we both know who Elijah Cummings is, knew Barbara Mikulski. I'm familiar with Steny Hoyer, Ben Cardin and Van Hollen. But Delaney??? A ghost. If folks in Maryland or nearby aren't even familiar with him, pretty sure not many other American know who he is either.


    Parent

    The weird thing (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 01:26:47 PM EST
    Pete

    Seriously.  He is in there.  He will be in the next debates.  Yes?!!? I get it.  I do. But he is is opposite of Trumo.   Elections are about opposites.   He willl not win in my state.  But neither would *

    Parent

    Delaney (none / 0) (#20)
    by Zorba on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 03:25:35 PM EST
    Used to represent the district just west of mine.
    Let's just say I'm glad he never represented us.  
    (And I'm thrilled that Jamie Raskin is my Congressman.  He ran and got elected after Chris Van Hollen ran for and won as our second Senator.)

    Parent
    How could any of them (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 04:31:33 PM EST
    Be worse than what we have?

    You are allowed to be a little choosy though

    Parent

    Okay, not Williamson (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 04:47:42 PM EST
    or  Delaney.

    Parent
    If Marianne Williamson (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 05:05:10 PM EST
    is elected, she will take the oath of office on a stack of tarot cards.  

    Parent
    Of course the real occultists (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 06:27:25 PM EST
    and black magicians are the mainstream conservatives with their theology of the deregulation of everything, christian-zionist "fulfilment of prophecy" in the ME, and forty acres and an AR-15 2nd Amendment dogwhistling.

    Juxtaposed to those birds, Marianne seems positively Jeffersonian.

    Parent

    Works for me (none / 0) (#26)
    by MKS on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 06:33:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Mayor Pete scored a couple of points with me (none / 0) (#4)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Jul 30, 2019 at 08:53:08 PM EST
    He said if the Dems run on a far left agenda, the GOP will call them crazy socialists. If the Dems run a conservative agenda, the GOP will call them crazy socialists. So stop worrying about what Repubs are going to say and run on your own terms and agenda. He's spot on.

    C'mon Jeralyn, Bachelorette? Really? That's as mind numbing as anything Kardashian.

    Sorry, I watch on and off (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jul 30, 2019 at 11:52:36 PM EST
    I find the editing and choosing of story lines and villians quite interesting. And some seasons it's worth watching just for the scenes of the international cities and beaches they travel to. I also like Chris Harrison. Some seasons are better than others and judging from the ratings, I'm not the only one who is watching.

    I will say I have never seen the Kardashians nor do I intend to. But for the most part, I do like reality TV and I appreciate the work that the producers and crew do.

    Parent

    We all have our guilty pleasures. (none / 0) (#27)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 07:19:34 PM EST
    For Jeralyn, it's trashy reality shows like "The Bachelorette." For me, it's the trashy TNT crime drama "Animal Kingdom," where the sinners revel in their misdeeds and the saints can be bought off. It's never going to win any major awards, but the cast looks like they're having way too much fun playing bad guys to worry about it.

    Parent
    I watch Animal Kingdom. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 10:01:52 PM EST
    Have you ever seen the original Australian movie the show is derived from?

    Parent
    That film was awesome. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 01, 2019 at 01:25:26 PM EST
    Its premise is actually loosely based on the true story of Kath Pettingill and her family in Melbourne, Australia, who've allegedly long been engaged in drug-running, armed robbery and arms dealing. Two of Kath's sons were acquitted in 1988 of the murders of two Victoria state police officers.

    Jacki Weaver received a well-deserved Oscar nomination as best supporting actress for her role as family matriarch Janine "Smurf" Cody. Her portrayal of Smurf was much more well-rounded and subtle than Ellen Barkin's, probably because the TV version is much more over-the-top than the film.

    But it's a fun show to watch because everybody is so devoted to life in the sketchy lane that they're somehow endearing. Even the show's relatively decent characters have blurry ethical boundaries that they routinely cross whenever it suits their immediate purposes.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Watching the talking heads (none / 0) (#12)
    by ragebot on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 12:26:10 PM EST
    Biden is credited with 53% of the African American voters support with the rest split up by the other candidates.

    An interesting question for me would be the demographics of the debate watchers.  It is not just that not a lot of  folks have been watching the debates but I bet the eyeballs are not in black or brown heads.

    As long as Biden dominates support from minority voters I don't see anyone beating him for the nomination.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#16)
    by CST on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 02:21:18 PM EST
    But it's hard to win with less than 50% of the vote and shortly after the first few primaries the field could thin significantly.   I'm not sure that Biden has as much room to grow as the "not-Biden" alternatives.   Especially if there's only one alternative at some point.

    Parent
    My analysis (none / 0) (#17)
    by ragebot on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 02:47:31 PM EST
    based on current RCP polls is Warren and Sanders combined don't match Biden's current numbers.  I view Harris as more centrist than those two so her support would mostly go to Biden if she fades; same for Buttigieg.

    This is based on the current split between the progressive wing and the conventional wing of the dems.  Not to mention the problem with the Bernie Bros present if they don't get their way and take their ball and go home.

    I am also a little confused by Harris's positions.  AOC seems to be in her corner but Harris also seems to be more centrist than Warren and Sanders.  Seems I am not the only one who is confused by Harris and her seemingly shifting from progressive to centrist.  She also seems to need to get a lot more African American support than she currently has.

    Bottom line is the dems are currently very fragmented and it seems unlikely some of the segments will not buy into the final candidate.  As a result Biden will be in the best position to pick up the pieces.

    Parent

    My analysis (none / 0) (#18)
    by ragebot on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 02:49:03 PM EST
    based on current RCP polls is Warren and Sanders combined don't match Biden's current numbers.  I view Harris as more centrist than those two so her support would mostly go to Biden if she fades; same for Buttigieg.

    This is based on the current split between the progressive wing and the conventional wing of the dems.  Not to mention the problem with the Bernie Bros present if they don't get their way and take their ball and go home.

    I am also a little confused by Harris's positions.  AOC seems to be in her corner but Harris also seems to be more centrist than Warren and Sanders.  Seems I am not the only one who is confused by Harris and her seemingly shifting from progressive to centrist and back.  She also seems to need to get a lot more African American support than she currently has.

    Bottom line is the dems are currently very fragmented and it seems unlikely some of the segments will not buy into the final candidate.  As a result Biden will be in the best position to pick up the pieces.

    Parent

    Harris (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CST on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 03:26:50 PM EST
    Probably has the best shot for some of the reasons you mention.  But I don't think ideology matters as much as you're suggesting here.  Don't discount other, more personality based factors when considering who is in what "lane".

    I also wouldn't bet on Biden not doing anything that could make him lose support.

    Parent

    woops (none / 0) (#19)
    by ragebot on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 02:49:33 PM EST
    Double post, and I can't delete one

    Parent
    Does Tulsi Gabbard have an original thought (none / 0) (#28)
    by Chuck0 on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 08:42:42 PM EST
    in her head. Or does she always speak in platitudes?
    Frightening to think, but Gabbard (none / 0) (#29)
    by Peter G on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 09:42:43 PM EST
    is the peace candidate. Which someone needs to be talking about.

    Parent
    de Blasio sounded like one tonight too (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 10:00:30 PM EST
    he was only who raised hell about the moderators skimming all too quickly over the Iran situation.

    Parent
    the only one.. (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Wed Jul 31, 2019 at 10:04:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Tulsi Gabbard's my congresswoman, Peter. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Aug 01, 2019 at 03:16:59 PM EST
    But hopefully not for long, if I have anything to say about it. Many progressives on the mainland who never knew her before her 2016 foray into national politics as a Bernie champion think she's all that. But she's not. Far from it.

    Personally, I find her to be a disingenuous phony who'll say anything she thinks her audience wants to hear. Ten years ago, she was a marginal political player in Hawaii as an anti-Muslim and blatantly homophobic right-winger, just like her crackpot father. She's since reinvented herself with a new persona as Ms. Civil Libertarian. I don't think she means a single word she says in that regard.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Her opposition (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CST on Thu Aug 01, 2019 at 03:23:30 PM EST
    To Syrian refugees while covering for Assad on their "behalf" was all I needed to see to know exactly what kind of person she is - and it's not the kind I'd ever support.

    There's more than one way to be anti-war, and covering for dictatorships while rejecting those harmed by them is by far the worst kind.

    Parent

    She is just awful (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Aug 01, 2019 at 05:22:14 PM EST
    and she comes full prepared with the talking points from the Kremlin.

    Parent
    Yep Putin's tool (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by smott on Sat Aug 03, 2019 at 09:10:06 AM EST
    Taking orders to go after Harris.
    What's really disappointing is Biden's camp re-tweeting her BS.
    Do they really want to align w a Putin/Assad apologist?

    Parent
    I don't know (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 03, 2019 at 10:21:04 AM EST
    but Biden kept his mouth shut about the Russians during 2016.

    Parent
    Any serious (none / 0) (#83)
    by ragebot on Sat Aug 03, 2019 at 02:19:29 AM EST
    Opposition research on Harris would turn up that as a 29 year old low level pol she started dating a powerful 60 year old pol who then appointed her to a couple of jobs with a six figure increase in take home pay; not to mention a much higher profile in CA politics.

    Anyone laboring under the delusion that this will not be used against her needs a reality check.  Not saying it is right or fair; just that it is standard fair for pols Calling peeps names won't change this one bit.

    Yes, authoritarians (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Aug 03, 2019 at 05:47:46 AM EST
    think that way. The rest of the world doesn't believe Willie Brown can make voters in California vote for someone.

    But I understand your thinking. This is the conservative point of view. This is how authoritarian conservatives think and how they have trained their voters to think. I grew up in SC and when Strom Thurmond came out and said vote for X candidate the conservative sheep would come out and vote for X. So it is not unusual for me to see conservatives who think this way. Conservatives will likely be obsessed with Kamala and Willie dating a quarter of century ago. Everybody else who has a scintilla of common sense will understand that dating someone is just dating someone.

    Parent

    Detroit Debates: Night One | 103 comments (103 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment