Tuesday, July 2, 2019

Fallout from the democratic debates

Image result for democratic debates funny

All right everyone now it's time for the ultimate fallout from the democratic debates, the first round. I think it's two weeks till they have their next round. Here'S my my summation! First, I should talk about the second debate in specific. I did end up watching most of it, but like at some point, it just became too much. It was too insane. It was more frenzied like the first debate. I guess looking back at it, it's more more genteel, more relaxed. This one Sanders was attacking people Harris, especially Gillibrand tried to get some jabs in. I would say the biggest loser of the night was Kirsten Gillibrand, because four people on the bottom tier on for people who are hovering on 1 or 2 percent in the polls. Their goal at these debates is to get noticed and get noticed in a positive way. For some people on that stage they fell flat. Yang fell flat, completely Gillibrand fell flat completely, they fell apart. Actually, it was terrible. The standout performance for me - and and with the first debate remember, I analyzed it from others reactions not from my own viewership. With this one I figured, I would do kind of both. My takeaway is that the two people that walk away from this with a significant benefit are Kamala Harris and Pete, but a geek whose last name I know I'm mispronouncing, but I'm gon na keep doing it. On purpose, they were the ones that I think benefit from this debate. Biden sort of breaks, even he the end and the other low tier candidates - is like whatever the big losers of the night Gillibrand and yang and Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders looked uncomfortable. He looked challenged. He got to that point where he got he antagonized, but the problem is Bernie Sanders four years ago was was simply more verbose. Bernie Sanders now up on stage, looks like a befuddled old man. The optics simply aren't there. I do not expect Bernie Sanders doomed to be nominated if this is the way he's going to perform. I have several more debates before a state. Even votes he's not gon na make it he's not gon na do well Warren and Harris and buddy, gig and so forth will start to supplant him he's not going to be able to contend with Biden. The problem for the dem field overall, is that Joe Biden has enough of a lead, and probably enough of a hardened fanbase, so that if the race remains crowded, it really doesn't matter, because I can't see any other individual being able to cobble together a coalition to Challenge him other than Pete, but again, though, all of the people that would have been like Gillibrand, I would have said early on, would be viable if she were given attention. If she were given support, she could have been a viable contender against Biden potentially win. She shot herself in the foot tonight, she's done if you're hovering at 0 % in the fucking polls, and you make a fool of yourself because every time you speak, you look combative and then like unhinged, not going to work. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris, here's, here's the difference between perception and reality, the perception of most people, I think, within the Democratic Party, if you're a liberal, if you're the kind of person who could consider voting for Kamala Harris, you probably think she did a good job. She was very verbally assaulting towards Trumbo he's he's a child abuser. I think she said because of the border situation is like one of them said what did they say that he was a racist? Like you know, that's that's Bernie Sanders new line is that Trump is racist, orange man, bad and it keeps getting elaborated on and more and more hyperbolic and then but a geek. He looked more measured a bit like he was like Kamala Harris become. I would say he comes away, I think, is the big winner, I'm sure some people probably think the same, but you've got to understand. I'M analyzing it from a non biased perspective. I know I wouldn't vote for any of these people, but stepping back and looking just at the verbal performance, the elocution sort, the gestural thing, which is better, was a big problem. The other night looking at stuff like that and looking at what would this platform? That'S being stated mean for the Democratic voters within their primaries, because it doesn't matter what you know. A bunch of Mogga fans are gon na think about the Democratic candidates. They'Re not voting for them. Looking at that, but a geek gets the number one power ranking just as the other night Warren and Cory Booker and Tulsi Gabbard really did well tonight. It would be, but a gig and Kamala Harris mainly yang. Meanwhile, he like he couldn't even answer the question. It was very funny when, when you challenged on China being a threat, you can see he looked verbally concern. I mean visibly concerned shaken and then he immediately started talking about Russia, yeah there's a reason for that. I mean, let's not bother going into that any mo conspiracy theories with the the yang BOTS as I get all goofy Gillibrand. The biggest loser, though, of the night honestly and then Sanders in third, is the third biggest loser, because he had the most to lose he's the number two candidate. Arguably in the race I can see Warren will notch up a few points. He'Ll probably go down a few points. He no longer looks as electable. That'S the other problem. It boils down to electability, so the biggest loser of the Democratic debates. The first round is the Democratic Party most of the candidates. Now don't really look electable. The other thing is this: looking at the debates looking at the way, they speak, what they're saying not a single person on either debate stage other than maybe Bennett, arguably, which is hilarious, sois well, arguably, which is like he broke, even I think, but he's riding on, Like two percent, so he's he's a no-show, basically in the race. None of these people looked the part of a president that matters. It matters whether the person acts the role. A lot of president of presidential politics is acting anyway. Diplomacy is half Shakespearean sort of symbolism and how you act and how you behave towards other people, knowing how to schmooze and talk to people and say the right thing. Trump looks believable because he's already in the White House, although in the last election. Admittedly, there are some people. Well he's, not presidential enough trust me. If you live, you looked a little bit beneath the very superficial level. He looked a lot more presidential. There were a few people that could pass the sniff test. Marco Rubio was capable of acting presidential. Hillary Clinton argued you know as a former first lady having been in the White House. Yes had that as well in her favor. Most of these people don't look, the role Biden does, but that's because he's been in the White House before it's it's the same thing as with Hillary Clinton. I don't know that that's a huge advantage, but a geek kind of, and then somebody like Gillibrand, but last night she didn't look the role, the biggest losers, the Democrats, because they haven't so far after the first debate. They'Ve exposed a glaring, schismatic problem within their own party. It'S gon na be very funny in the next debates. They'Re gon na mix it differently between the two they're trying to get us, so everyone is on stage with everyone else. At some point, I guess so. I think next time Kamala Harris is gon na have to deal with with you know, Beto O'Rourke, which is gon na, be funny, and illicit. Seeing Elizabeth Ward and Kamala Harris on the same stage will be the big fireworks of the event because they're both fighting for the same third wave voting bloc. The far left specifically will mine voting bloc, that's their their relative strength, and so it's gon na be interesting. Are they gon na go for the person who lies about their race or the person who prosecuted a bunch of black people him? Because really they really that's what it boils down to between the two? That'S the other problem. You have so much hypocrisy up on stage and there was one thing: this hurt Sanders more than anything else, and this was from Bennet from from one of the halfway. These, like a Hickenlooper halfway, sane Bennet, comes out and says well, Bernie Sanders is talking about abolishing private health care entirely. Basically, that's what his plan means and I opposed it completely and let us remember that in every state they've tried it they've rejected single-payer like Vermont, and he pointed out. Vermont Sanders didn't actually address this, because the claim was true. The claim is mostly true and I'll. Explain that for people who don't know the backstory about this, it is true and Sanders went around the question and started rambling about, like like human decency or at being a he it's a North here. Health care is a human right. It'S not something to be purchased. It'S like you know one of those socialistic bullshit lines that they try to pay its pig in a poke situation, they're trying to get you to allow more government power, more strangulation, more taxation, so that the government can give you a shitty product, because there's no competition In the system, that's what government-run health insurance really would mean in the United States, with the system that we currently employ. They would slowly absorb more and more of it and B did fall apart, I'd be shitty. No, I would who I would rather spend money to buy private health care. It means lower taxes. For me, good on me. I have that right. Yes, if it's a human, oh yeah, I have the right to purchase what I want. I also should have the right to not have health insurance. You know with the mandate. It'S like. A lot of people chose not to they're like wow, I'm gon na save money so fuck this. Now you get penalized for being too poor too Florida plan. That'S really really surreal. According to Obama, this was mercy and tenderness towards the poor, but the claim is true. What happened is that a democratic study it was commissioned in part by our liberal former Democratic governor Peter Shumlin, liberal governor super majority of Democrats in the house. In the Senate, every progressive bloc in favor of it, they got none other than Jonathan Gruber in to advise on the situation year-long million-dollar study, which, by the way Gruber got sued for cuz, he was submitting work slips. Apparently, when his staff were working, he was submitting it as though it was him and he of course, he's paid a lot more than his his random little staffers. So he defrauded the state he settled out of court for almost half a million dollars. Did you know that chief architect of Obamacare Gus successfully sued for our state for trying to defraud us? Because it was part of this program? It fell flat, it was rejected. Peter Shumlin said we can't do it. He that's why he began that's why he left politics, because all the progressives abandoned him. They wanted to hear that we could do single-payer. He pointed out correctly. The tax rate in the state of Vermont would be so high. If you were to pay for this, then the tax rate would have to be increased by double digits. Virtually across the board. It'S not doable. People would leave the state people what businesses would definitely leave. The state individuals would flee the state the state would collapse. There is no way to pay for it, but when he pointed this out, he got you know, jump down the throat of by all the progressives because they have pie-in-the-sky beliefs, they've been indoctrinated by Bernie Sanders into thinking that it's actually doable without massive tax rates. Well, yeah! No! No thanks! I don't want to pay a 45 50 percent tax rate, I'm not exactly rich, I'm not Bill Gates! It'S it's! No! No! It'S not ethical! To ask me to pay more in taxes. I already pay fucking too much as it is a lot of it goes to bombing. People now now would go towards shitty health care, so I can get shitty health care and I paid twice as much as I would pay for a private plan. That probably, is better anyway yeah. No thanks, it's crazy, so the first democratic debates were basically a disaster. A lot of these people looked unhinge. They said weird shit, sometimes breaking down into speaking Spanish, to try to impress the bilingual. I guess or something - and it just looks like pandering - that's the other part for the most part, all of their grandiose, sweeping statements, m'children ma he's my civil rights ma human rights, my think of the orphans at the border stuff it broke down and it looked inauthentic. It just looks politician like it just doesn't look right. It'S not like when Trump goes off kilter and delivers a red-faced rant without a teleprompter and sort of says what he really means: there's a stark difference between that and between the Democratic field and seeing them get all hyperbolic about how evil Trump is as funny they're. Trying to out orange man bad one another, and so he goes from a rapist, to which I mean a racist to a child abuser in the same paragraph with two different people on stage like you know, like give it a rest, dude give the virtue signaling a Little bit of a rest, why don't you discuss what you actually want to do and then, more importantly, tell us how you're gon na do it? Well, where you have universal health care? Are you open the border and decriminalize border crossings? Oh we're gon na do do this, then the other thing, how I'm not hearing singing plans for many of you Bernie Sanders has the closest thing to a true manifesto that you have, and his boils down to me, paying a 55 percent tax rate or some crazy Shit yeah again, no thank you. That'S about all peace out!


Post a Comment

Popular Posts

Definition List