6th Democratic Primary Debate Discussion

[KleinGa 18,177]

How did Stayer qualify? 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Anyway, as much as MSM likes to capitalize on the concept of aesthetic identity politics, there is a reason that a multiracial coalition of young people of all sexes support Bernie Sanders, they are intelligent enough to know that having a candidate of color does not directly translate into policies that materially support the members of that community. Black people weren't here for Kamala, and its not because black people are all sexists, they don't like people who they perceive as cops (e.g. policies and history that hurts the black community)

 

[KleinGa 18,177]

Just now, ItsTommyBitch said:

Anyway, as much as MSM likes to capitalize on the concept of aesthetic identity politics, there is a reason that a multiracial coalition of young people of all sexes support Bernie Sanders, they are intelligent enough to know that having a candidate of color does not directly translate into policies that materially support the members of that community. Black people weren't here for Kamala, and its not because black people are all sexists, they don't like people who they perceive as cops (e.g. policies and history that hurts the black community)

 

thank you! 

Candidates of color =/= good policies

[Lion Heart 15,041]

2 minutes ago, KleinGa said:

How did Stayer qualify? 

[KleinGa 18,177]

So please fell free to respectfully come at me for saying this:

I agree with Pete on the whole billionaire donation thing against Warren. Let's look at what he was really trying to say about Warren: she used to do exactly what he is doing: engaging rich donors. Her big argument against him was that in those meetings, the billionaires expect favors in return. What he was trying to say was that even though Warren, Obama, Biden etc all used to do those fundraisers, they never became corrupted, then how come they are claiming Pete will? They're holding purity tests that they themselves cannot pass. I see his point clearly. 

If you claim he will became corrupted and those meetings are bad news, then that means when you did them, you yourself were corrupted and thus that brings into question your whole record. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

1 minute ago, KleinGa said:

thank you! 

Candidates of color =/= good policies

My point is that questions about a lack of PoC on the stage is an attempt to capitalize on the aesthetics of race and not necessarily the politics of what would make lives better for POC.

That being said, Yang had an incredibly salient point, and I wasn't sure how he would answer that question.

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

23 minutes ago, KleinGa said:

So please fell free to respectfully come at me for saying this:

I agree with Pete on the whole billionaire donation thing against Warren. Let's look at what he was really trying to say about Warren: she used to do exactly what he is doing: engaging rich donors. Her big argument against him was that in those meetings, the billionaires expect favors in return. What he was trying to say was that even though Warren, Obama, Biden etc all used to do those fundraisers, they never became corrupted, then how come they are claiming Pete will? They're holding purity tests that they themselves cannot pass. I see his point clearly. 

If you claim he will became corrupted and those meetings are bad news, then that means when you did them, you yourself were corrupted and thus that brings into question your whole record. 

So here's my take.

Pete bringing up Biden, Obama, and Nancy Pelosi is a trap, because those are public figures that the public has generally high opinions of at the moment, especially Obama. These are people who we don't see as Corrupted, so Warren can't say "Obama is corrupt" - her campaign would be mostly over at that point.

But they are. All of them. Yes, Obama. Yes Biden, YES Pelosi, and to an extent, but much less, yes Warren.

I just read a scathing piece about Elizabeth Warren's potential 2016 race being subdued by the Clinton Administration and how she advocated like CRAZY behind the scenes to try to ensure that the Clinton Admin (if it had won) was not populated by wealthy donors and big corporates, because she saw how it tore apart the Obama era and how it helped lead to our current political climate. Elizabeth Warren rose to prominence in the late 00s by being critical of the Obama administration's terrible decision to include wall street and big corporations in his administration and his administration's ear, and it is certainly the reason why he chose not to prosecute the banks despite massive popular support for it. So Elizabeth's point (and Bernie's, but he is more generic in this) is salient. Taking money from wealthy people literally influences elections, that is honestly irrefutable, we have decades and decades of evidence that this happens. The reason Climate Change (in terms mostly of America's contribution, but globally to an extent) is such an issue in our country is corruption in government, and it comes down to finance.

This is a fallacious argument from Pete. It suggests that because she took money from rich people or because she is worth a million+  that it is okay to take money from rich people to fund and influence your elections and policy. But this isn't true. It rather means that the point stands - it clouds politics, but both Warren AND Pete are guilty of it. Thus, someone like Bernie would have been a better person to make this point, as he does not make money from millionaires and billionaires and has been a stalwart socialist leaning person for several decades who has always fundamentally seen the wealthy with a healthy amount of skepticism. Warren's progressive roots are younger than his, so to me its not surprising that she *used* to behave like this, but I care more that she cares about it now. 

Pete said he supported M4A at the beginning of this race. He had very little funding at the time. He started getting endorsements and money from the private insurance industry and pharmaceutical companies and now guess what? He literally repeats the talking points that we KNOW from investigative journalists and even former health care executives are sent out to him and other moderates in exchange for backing.

So yes, he is corrupt, and his progressive acumens in his proposals are all less likely to happen if he accepts money from people who are paying for him specifically so that he won't do those things.

It happened to Obama, it happens to 95% of members of Congress. It's already happened to him. Warren was right to call him out, even if it reflected bad on her as well  #WineCavePete 

[KleinGa 18,177]

20 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

So here's my take.

Pete bringing up Biden, Obama, and Nancy Pelosi is a trap, because those are public figures that the public has generally high opinions of at the moment, especially Obama. These are people who we don't see as Corrupted, so Warren can't say "Obama is corrupt" - her campaign would be mostly over at that point.

But they are. All of them. Yes, Obama. Yes Biden, YES Pelosi, and to an extent, but much less, yes Warren.

I just read a scathing piece about Elizabeth Warren's potential 2016 race being subdued by the Clinton Administration and how she advocated like CRAZY behind the scenes to try to ensure that the Clinton Admin (if it had won) was not populated by wealthy donors and big corporates, because she saw how it tore apart the Obama era and how it helped lead to our current political climate. Elizabeth Warren rose to prominence in the late 00s by being critical of the Obama administration's terrible decision to include wall street and big corporations in his administration and his administration's ear, and it is certainly the reason why he chose not to prosecute the banks despite massive popular support for it. So Elizabeth's point (and Bernie's, but he is more generic in this) is salient. Taking money from wealthy people literally influences elections, that is honestly irrefutable, we have decades and decades of evidence that this happens. The reason Climate Change (in terms mostly of America's contribution, but globally to an extent) is such an issue in our country is corruption in government, and it comes down to finance.

This is a fallacious argument from Pete. It suggests that because she took money from rich people or because she is worth a million+  that it is okay to take money from rich people to fund and influence your elections and policy. But this isn't true. It rather means that the point stands - it clouds politics, but both Warren AND Pete are guilty of it. Thus, someone like Bernie would have been a better person to make this point, as he does not make money from millionaires and billionaires and has been a stalwart socialist leaning person for several decades who has always fundamentally seen the wealthy with a healthy amount of skepticism. Warren's progressive roots are younger than his, so to me its not surprising that she *used* to behave like this, but I care more that she cares about it now. 

Pete said he supported M4A at the beginning of this race. He had very little funding at the time. He started getting endorsements and money from the private insurance industry and pharmaceutical companies and now guess what? He literally repeats the talking points that we KNOW from investigative journalists and even former health care executives are sent out to him and other moderates in exchange for backing.

So yes, he is corrupt, and his progressive acumens in his proposals are all less likely to happen if he accepts money from people who are paying for him specifically so that he won't do those things.

It happened to Obama, it happens to 95% of members of Congress. It's already happened to him. Warren was right to call him out, even if it reflected bad on her as well  #WineCavePete 

I think she had no right to call him out if she was guilty of it herself. Bernie has much better ground to call him out than her. It was poorly calculated on her part and was a desperate attempt for her to take him down. He’s clearly standing in her way and its transparent that the little show she put on there was nothing more than to harm him rather than make serious points about billionaire donations. The message needed to be delivered but Warren wasn’t the right one to deliver it. 

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

Got a CNN notification on my phone of an analysis by (of course) Chris Cilliza saying: 

Winners: Klobuchar, Biden, Yang, Buttigieg 

Losers: Sanders, Buttigieg (yes, he’s both) 

Do you think this is accurate? 

Bernie was basically the main loser?  

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

7 minutes ago, KleinGa said:

I think she had no right to call him out if she was guilty of it herself. Bernie has much better ground to call him out than her. It was poorly calculated on her part and was a desperate attempt for her to take him down. He’s clearly standing in her way and its transparent that the little show she put on there was nothing more than to harm him rather than make serious points about billionaire donations. The message needed to be delivered but Warren wasn’t the right one to deliver it. 

Well, Bernie sort of did by going after the fact that he has 39 billionaires donating to him and Biden has 44. Pete and Joe took the easy way out and tried to say "look, we gotta accept money from billionaires!" which is... basically admitting that he has no plans of creative real substantive large scale change in America since he wont be able to literally  

And yes I agree, I've been talking to leftists about this for a few weeks and I predicted it would backfire for her. I think she might drop or stay the same. She actually had IMO some great answers and great rhetoric, and unless you're a dude bro that doesnt like emotion, her "I ask forgiveness for caring too damn much about America" answer IMO was brilliant, so imo she made up for it but Idk if this will trend. Potential Warren voters aren't looking to go to Klobuchar or Biden really, and Pete definitely did worse than her imo, so many of his answers were platitudinous nonsense... so I don't see any potential gains from Pete coming from Warren. Could be wrong though.

 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

7 minutes ago, Morphine Prince said:

Got a CNN notification on my phone of an analysis by (of course) Chris Cilliza saying: 

Winners: Klobuchar, Biden, Yang, Buttigieg 

Losers: Sanders, Buttigieg (yes, he’s both) 

Do you think this is accurate? 

Bernie was basically the main loser?  

No. Chris Cilliza said Beto and Kamala were clearly going to win, so his political opinions are... garbage  
This is just some fun anecdotal evidence, but its the exact kind of thing CNN can't and won't ever cover about Bernie's support.

CNN is garbage and their coverage of Bernie is unsurprisingly shitty.  Their purported winners/losers almost are never accurate compared to the views of regular people, just washington punditry in other parts of Media. To me the only objective winner in terms of increased standout time and messaging was Klobuchar, even though I still think she's a deeply uninspiring candidate that is only funny like 30% of the time  Luckily, polls seem to suggest I am right. On the other hand, I think Buttigieg and Steyers are pretty much losers by any standard unless you want to argue that if you are attacked it means you are a winner   We should be wary of the impact of a media bubble. If they call Klobuchar the winner, the new it girl, the new moderate to beat Joe Biden, her support will rise artificially for a while, but it will ultimately dip, as it has done for Warren and Pete predictably. Warren attacked Pete on Wine Cave (which is trending  ) and he pointed out, rightfully, that she is worth more money than him and used some of her senate funds to finance her early stages of her campaign. BUT she made a very good point about corruption in donors. At the end of the day, it just made Bernie look better for having raised the most money, having the most donations, and not taking billionaire donations.

That being said, I believe you are a fellow progressive, so I would say that it went like this.

Winners: Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar,

Meh: Biden, Yang

Losers: Pete, Steyer

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

6 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

No. Chris Cilliza said Beto and Kamala were clearly going to win, so his political opinions are... garbage  
This is just some fun anecdotal evidence, but its the exact kind of thing CNN can't and won't ever cover about Bernie's support.

CNN is garbage and their coverage of Bernie is unsurprisingly shitty.  Their purported winners/losers almost are never accurate compared to the views of regular people, just washington punditry in other parts of Media. To me the only objective winner in terms of increased standout time and messaging was Klobuchar, even though I still think she's a deeply uninspiring candidate that is only funny like 30% of the time  Luckily, polls seem to suggest I am right. We should be wary of the impact of a media bubble. If they call Klobuchar the winner, the new it girl, the new moderate to beat Joe Biden, her support will rise artificially for a while, but it will ultimately dip, as it has done for Warren and Pete predictably. Warren attacked Pete on Wine Cave (which is trending  ) and he pointed out, rightfully, that she is worth more money than him and used some of her senate funds to finance her early stages of her campaign. BUT she made a very good point about corruption in donors. At the end of the day, it just made Bernie look better for having raised the most money, having the most donations, and not taking billionaire donations.

That being said, I believe you are a fellow progressive, so I would say that it went like this.

Winners: Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar,

Meh: Biden, Yang

Losers: Pete, Steyer

Yeah, this guy is a known Bernie Sanders hater but I just thought it was hilarious CNN decided to push HIS analysis onto everyone's phones via the Apple News app. 

[ItsTommyBitch 12,640]

Just now, Morphine Prince said:

Yeah, this guy is a known Bernie Sanders hater but I just thought it was hilarious CNN decided to push HIS analysis onto everyone's phones via the Apple News app. 

One of the moderators was a known Bernie Hater too  There was a moment she seemed to be passed a question meant for him and she gave an eye roll or a chuckle or something and I thought her attitude towards him was quite... demeaning compared to the others.

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/12/democratic-debate-bernie-sanders-yamiche-alcindor

Then I read this.

She thinks he has incited mass violence and division, accused him of being a sexist, too old to be in the race, promoted and retweeted anti-semitic things about him, misattributed several quotes of his, and more  

[Morphine Prince 109,683]

23 minutes ago, ItsTommyBitch said:

One of the moderators was a known Bernie Hater too  There was a moment she seemed to be passed a question meant for him and she gave an eye roll or a chuckle or something and I thought her attitude towards him was quite... demeaning compared to the others.

https://jacobinmag.com/2019/12/democratic-debate-bernie-sanders-yamiche-alcindor

Then I read this.

She thinks he has incited mass violence and division, accused him of being a sexist, too old to be in the race, promoted and retweeted anti-semitic things about him, misattributed several quotes of his, and more  

Of course  

 

[tomsches 17,550]

Wow that was an interesting debate. I actually liked Amy Klobuchar. I don't support her policies, but to me she won the debate.

Still don't like Pete Buttigieg. It's funny how he preached to be nice to each other in the first few debates, but now continues to attack the others.