Last night’s Democratic debate
I didn’t watch it.
But I hear tell about it. See a whole bunch of links here, and also see this.
I think that much of the country isn’t watching, even Democrats. It’s early, it’s confusing, it’s boring, and there are too many candidates.
I was recently talking with two liberals and I asked them which one of the candidates each of them favored. They both looked at me blankly for a long time, sighed, and confessed that the answer for them was “no one.”
And yet their hatred of Trump is so intense that I have no doubt that anyone – and I mean that literally: anyone – the Democratic Party ends up nominating is the person for whom these two people will be voting, with vigor.
Been a long time since the last dance post. And feels even longer. Just saying.
In a strange synchronicity with US politics, the Israeli Left has decided to launch its version of groundless indictment against Netanyahu. And it will redound against them just like the impeachment circus in the States.
We have also had a clown caucus to parallel the US Dem debates – as Liberman, Ganz, and other politicos posture without being able to form a government. They seem incredibly unaware of what they are revealing to voters. This, too, will redound against them.
How about one of them dance posts? Just saying.
How about one of them dance posts? Just saying.
Dancing compares unfavorably to Miss Peggy Lee at Basin Street East.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW7zIsOD9Lg
Dedicated leftist Trump haters are going to vote for anyone but Trump, yes. The number of dedicated right-wing Trump haters is shrinking and they’re not likely to make much difference. These pointless hearings in the House were aimed at convincing independent voters that Trump is so awful they ought to vote for someone else. I don’t see anything to indicate that’s happening, and in fact it may be the reverse. The total lack of evidence and of any vestige of due process is working against the Democrats.
They may even have an enthusiasm problem with dedicated Democrats. Apparently people just aren’t watching these “debates.”
This is ONLY anecdotal …
One of my Democrat friends says he won’t be voting for President Trump. No surprise there.
But he says he will leave the Presidential ballot blank if it’s either Sanders or Warren. He’ll go with anyone else. Even – cringe – Marianne Williamson.
Take it with a grain of salt.
“…not watching…”
Of course, it’s always possible that they’re not watching because they already KNOW Trump’s guilty. (And face it, neither Schiff nor Nancy are the most photogenic of flagellants….)
IOW, “What is this silly notion that Schiff or Pelosi (or Mueller for that matter) has to prove anything? What a waste of valuable time. He’s GUILTY! Ijits!! (I’d much rather watch reruns of ‘Bay Watch’…)”
(This is where we’re at, “slouching towards” the third decade of the 21st century.)
What the Democrats are really lacking is energy, a heart beat, something to bring a smile and a reason to feel good about a chosen one for president. While I did not agree there was a good feeling from the true Blue Believers as Obama started gaining traction and they really built a good ground level momentum. Then Queen Hillary tried to mail it in and ignored the middle, plain old fly over people because hers was a no brainer, especially after Trump was the choice for the other side, home run that only had to wait until election day for her to take office. Then of course she lost and the hard core left has yet to stop choking and gagging while the deep state keeps trying to push a stick in Trump’s bicycle wheels.
The Democrats have no positive leadership, they need a “Professor” Harold Hill to get them stirred up with a sense of purpose and lead the parade and I don’t see it happening with any of the gloom and doom cast in the never ending kind of a debate thing that won’t get better and won’t die off. Meanwhile Trump is enjoying low employment and so far a strong economy and he knows how to preach to his choir with large turnouts and he keep on appointing conservative judges.
I think he has a decent chance to be re-elected, four years ago he had my vote because he was not Hillary and if he appointed one conservative to the Supreme Court he was worth my vote, so there’s that, I voted he has appointed a couple and at this time Trump and I are even.
“…dance post…”
Well, it’s a bit O/T, but did you know that under pressure from PETA, the Kirov has decided to accept canines to its prestigious ballet academy? Unbelievable that the Russians would actually buckle on this….
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-2031812/Video-Adorable-dog-contain-happiness-jumps-alongside-owner.html
For the hard core leftists politics is there religion so I’m sure they are into these debates but for most people (probably even quite a few democrats) the election is so far off it’s a lot to ask to care about this.
I’ve talked to quite a few people who are dreading the whole election ordeal coming next year. It is going to be unavoidable but right now it can be avoided so many are.
I will try to come up with a dance post in the next few days.
Neither did I watch the “debate”, but I’ve seen a short video mashup captioned as the questioners asking leading questions driving the candidates further to the left. I don’t believe the video included a single answer from the candidates. The questions however circled back to the impeachment spectacle again and again. I have not heard that a single candidate stood up for sanity in their party by calling for an end to the folly. Not one. This can’t be good. The imp spectacle itself is a disaster. A Senate trial? An apocalypse.
how dare Kamala “Heels Up” Harris pretend to be African American! she is no different from Pocahontas
The Democrats have no positive leadership,
They have no positive objects. All of their goals involve people like them stomping on the faces of people not like them. The latest (courtesy Wesley J Smith) is a statute adopted in New York which forbids employers from terminating an employee who procures an abortion. Freedom of contract anyone? Yes, it’s meant to apply to the Catholic archdiocese.
The people I know who always identify as democrats are bummed out. The candidates in their rush to be the hardest of the hard left scare them. They recognize that Biden is very corrupt even compared to Trump who they think is corrupt. Warren is a liar and a hypocrite. Harris is not on the radar and that goes for most of the rest. But they tend to see the boy from South Bend as fresh faced and not as radical as the rest.
I expect him to win the caucus because from what I can see his campaign has a very good ground game. I know what a good ground game looks like because I volunteered for the Cruz campaign in 2016. That is what wins in Iowa.
neo asks; “At what point does a group of people fighting against an opposition that plays dirty become the very thing they hate?”
I draw the line at the rape/torture/killing of unarmed civilians.
But above that line, matching an enemy that fights dirty does not necessarily make you no better than them because what you’re fighting for… i.e. individual liberty VS tyranny determines the moral rightness of an action.
Example: a robber kills the victim during a struggle VS a policeman killing to stop a mass murder. A soldier invading a country VS a soldier defending his country against invasion.
The REMF from South Bend is a dangerous man but I give none of them a chance of defeating Trump. Unless… the GOPe stabs Trump in the back and/or the dems engage in massive voter fraud.
Even Dem NeverTrumpers, who know they will vote for a Dem, are “feeling” that Trump is going to win.
So whoever they pick will be a loser.
It’s hard to get excited over somebody who you’re already feeling, tho hoping your feeling is wrong, still you’re feeling… loser.
Tho maybe I’m a bit infected with Trump believing he’s a WINNER.
The Guardian ran a fun article the other day by a sassy, young, lesbian Brit-Palestinian:
“Thanks Obama, but these patronising lectures are getting old”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/20/thanks-obama-but-these-patronising-lectures-are-getting-old
So Obama is now getting the “OK Boomer”!
More seriously, the author is saying that even Obama’s levels of compromise are now out of the question.
Good news! The Donkey Party is in dire straits for 2020.
(The original Apple Macintosh documentation provided a list of the really serious error codes which were all prefaced with DS. The documentation explained these were “Dire Straits” conditions, but everyone knew DS was an acronym for something more scatological.)
https://babylonbee.com/news/impeachment-inquiry-canceled-after-5-episodes-due-to-low-ratings
Democrat Debates, however, will run until the end of the season.
“…Obama’s levels of compromise…”
Um, come again?
He fundamentally transformed (aka destroyed) his party—with more than a little bit of help from his lackeys—but he set the pace. He was the inspiration.
And so American is reaping what he has so assiduously sown.
Barry Meislin: I’m speaking from this woman’s and the left’s POV.
In that universe Obama failed because he was a fuddy-duddy old centrist, who didn’t understand how dastardly evil Republicans are and also cozied up to Wall St.
Plus climate change.
He fundamentally transformed (aka destroyed) his party—with more than a little bit of help from his lackeys—but he set the pace. He was the inspiration.
He did nothing of the kind. The Obama Administration was the resultant of the vectors at work in the Democratic Party. Obama’s signatures were secretiveness and petty spite, as well as some shticks you might expect of a leftist who came of age ca. 1979 (the green energy boondoggles, kowtowing to Iran).
The Obama Administration was the resultant of the vectors at work in the Democratic Party.
Art Deco: I’m more inclined to the Great Man theory on this one. Not that I consider Obama a Great Man, but he was more than the vector resultant of historical forces.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_man_theory
I agree with Barry Meislin that Obama fundamentally transformed the Democratic Party. Had he not existed, the Democratic Party would no doubt have continued to veer left, but Obama really took the brakes off the process so now we have transgender bathrooms and are talking outright socialism.
That wouldn’t have happened under Hillary. I’d be surprised if gay marriage would have happened.
but Obama really took the brakes off the process so now we have transgender bathrooms and are talking outright socialism.
No, that’s the work of the usual lawfare artists on and off the bench. They were there before, during, and after Obama.
That’s just more gainsaying.
How about this. Would you say the US would be where it is, roughly, had Hillary been president instead of Obama?
Do flesh-and-blood people ever make a difference in your estimation? Or is it just vectors grinding away, all the way down?
I watched the whole thing, all of them. Where I am, one is considered alt-right if one disagrees with open borders, socialism, dismantling Israel, the economy is crashing, etc etc. I guess I keep hoping the candidates might be less crazy. Nope.
But, I haven’t met anyone who watched any of the debates. “Don’t you care what they’re saying?” I ask. Then they look at me like I might be a republican.. “It doesn’t matter, vote for the D.” It’s been this way for a while.
Do flesh-and-blood people ever make a difference in your estimation? Or is it just vectors grinding away, all the way down?
Not him. See Steve Sailer’s assessment of Obama. Sailer offers that the optimal career for him would have been in the Foreign Service, as you’re transmitting other people’s opinions, not offering much of your own. Obama earned a law degree, but actually worked in law offices for less than four years, never obtaining a partnership. He was hired (by some accounts, through irregular procedures) to teach law and drew a salary from the University of Chicago for 12 years. He never published one scholarly paper, undertook no university service, and was generally assigned boutique electives to teach. He sat in legislatures for 12 years, but there was no area of policy in which he was considered a maven. He never held an executive position prior to 2009. The guy’s an empty suit. Still.
Not
is the person these two people will be voting for
But rather
is the person for whom these two people will be voting
Somebody took their English lessons seriously 🙂
Somebody didn’t take his English lessons seriously. 🙂
(However, kudos on the catch.) And, “Hello, Edit!”
Esther on November 22, 2019 at 12:32 pm said:
…
But, I haven’t met anyone who watched any of the debates. “Don’t you care what they’re saying?” I ask. Then they look at me like I might be a republican.. “It doesn’t matter, vote for the D.” It’s been this way for a while.
* * *
One thing Republicans did do in 2016 was watch the debates aka train wreck in slow motion.
For some, the nomination of Trump really broke their “just vote for the R” lever *.
After the last couple of years of Democrat malfeasance, however, they may now be balanced by the new ranks of “never voting for the D ever again.”
We can hope.
*(Cruz might have done the same, given the level of vituperation directed toward him from the Rightish Establishment)
Art Deco: You didn’t answer my first question:
Would you say the US would be where it is, roughly, had Hillary been president instead of Obama?
I’m aware of Obama’s shortcomings. Nonetheless, he came practically from nowhere, galvanized Americans like no candidate since JFK, crushed McCain, defeated Romney handily, rammed through Obamacare, tilted the US hard left and it would all have stuck, pretty much, had Hillary been elected. Then Obama would have been the most consequential president since FDR. (He might still be.)
I don’t believe for a minute that Hillary could have or would have done all that had she been elected in 2008. Do you?
Is that an argument you’d care to make?
Julie,
Are you assuming that I’m male?
Good thing for you that this isn’t a college newspaper.
If that were true, you’d be apologizing forever or ignominiously fired.
You see Obama is just an empty suit and the myriad of unfortunate events that happened during his 8 years (IRS, Fast and Furious, Dear Colleague Letter to the universities unleashing the Kangaroo sex courts, EPA out of control, economic stagnation, Obamacare and all it took to pass it, and so forth) was no reflection on his policy preferences or goals. Some may not buy that no matter his prior lack of accomplishments in Illinois.
How about this. Would you say the US would be where it is, roughly, had Hillary been president instead of Obama?
It doesn’t matter who the DS chooses as President, as the US President is merely a front.
Do flesh-and-blood people ever make a difference in your estimation? Or is it just vectors grinding away, all the way down?
Most flesh and blood people are merely puppets under the control of the light and dark gods. As a representative of the Divine Counsel overseeing both or all factions of gods, we know where this has been going.
While individual power and manifestation is real as seen in your quantum mechanics and double slit experiments, the individual power is controlled, corralled, marshalled, and suppressed by the Deep State. And the DS have their gods. And even their pretend gods have gods.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mP38NGImsc&t=3s
First time I have seen C on Young Turk without wanting to punch his smug face in. Which is something, since I’ve seen this guy like 3 times since even before 2007 pre Surge.
Art Deco: You didn’t answer my first question:
I most certainly did. I can explain my viewpoint to you. I cannot comprehend it for you.
“…the most consequential president since FDR. (He might still be.)”
Yes—-except without the “might”.
Obama’s malignant influence has been and continues to be huuuuge. To be sure, he had extraordinary assistance from a loyal, protective, praetorian MSM along with partisan congressional protection for his first term; but Obama set the tone and the policies.
The only thing that might mitigate the “might”—the only question—is: Can Trump successfully neutralize—and reverse—the systemic damage?
IOW, will Trump succeed in providing the antidote—in being a savior, in fact a second Lincoln—or is he merely a pugnacious speed hump in the road towards “paradise on earth” (i.e., oblivion)?
It does not have to be said—on this blog, at least—that the forces arrayed against him are tremendous, resourceful, relentless, evil…and very much afraid:
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/11/article/not-a-bad-spy-novel-but-a-national-nightmare/
https://twitter.com/LeeSmithDC/status/1198290568704593922