Telly Talk Star
- Reaction score
- Member Since
- June 2001
1st 2019 Dem Primary Debate Breakdown
It looks like it has. Fox News of all places had this headline: "Gabbard was most searched Democratic candidate after debate despite getting third-lowest speaking time."Hopefully this exposure helps her campaign.
Good video! Fox News does give her good coverage unlike most other networks as I saw she was interviewed by Tucker Carlson the other day.It looks like it has. Fox News of all places had this headline: "Gabbard was most searched Democratic candidate after debate despite getting third-lowest speaking time."
Of course, that hasn't stopped establishment shills and the corporate media from continuing to claim diplomacy and social democracy are scary and evil.
I think you'll like this video of Tulsi Gabbard going after war monger Tim Ryan.
I hope not. The fact that she has the approval and support of the corporate media and the Democratic establishment is enough of a reason for me not to support her. She's a faux progressive who changed her answer on abolishing private health insurance, stating she "misheard" the debate question. As a prosecutor, she came down hard on drug offenses and truancy, but let Trump's Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin off for foreclosure violations. She's a woman of color who does the bidding of the establishment, which is why they love her.
Sounds like Kamala Harris will be one of the names on the ticket.
Re: “She's a faux progressive who changed her answer on abolishing private health insurance, stating she ‘misheard’ the debate question.”hope not. The fact that she has the approval and support of the corporate media and the Democratic establishment is enough of a reason for me not to support her. She's a faux progressive who changed her answer on abolishing private health insurance, stating she "misheard" the debate question. As a prosecutor, she came down hard on drug offenses and truancy, but let Trump's Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin off for foreclosure violations. She's a woman of color who does the bidding of the establishment, which is why they love her.
If her critique of Biden at the debate helps end his campaign like many pundits are claiming, I'll give her kudos for that. But she still has a lot to answer for herself.
Re: “She's a faux progressive who changed her answer on abolishing private health insurance, stating she ‘misheard’ the debate question.”
Did you hear the debate question? If I’m not mistaken, it went: “Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favour of a government-run plan, just a show of hands.”
You don’t put “abolish” and “(your) private health insurance” in the same sentence unless you want to sow confusion – which is why some folk called it a trick question, and which may be why Mr Biden didn’t immediately raise his hand; and when he did, he raised it only a little ways, so the possibility exists that he was only trying to get the attention of the mods for clarification rather than half-heartedly responding to the debate question.
My understanding is that Ms Harris registered the question as asking if she would get rid of her own private health insurance in favour of a government run plan and she answered accordingly. I think anyone in the media or out of it not acknowledging the ambiguity in the debate question and not giving Kamala Harris the benefit of the doubt is pursuing their own smear campaign.
In an interview on Friday, the day after the 2nd night of the debate, Ms Harris said the question (she heard) was “Would you give up your private insurance for that option and I said ‘Yes’”. She was then asked in Friday’s interview if she believed that private insurance should be eliminated in the US, and she replied “No.”
She went on to say “I am a proponent of Medicare for All. Private insurance will exist for supplemental coverage, but under my vision of Medicare for All we will expand coverage so that it would include dental, it would include vision, it would include hearing aids, which is a big issue for our seniors and is an extremely expensive.
“Also this, the insurance companies for years have been putting millions of dollars into an advertising campaign and a lobbyist campaign that is trying to convince American families ‘You need your insurance company to have your doctor.’ Well that’s a myth and a fallacy. Ninety-one per cent of the doctors in America are in Medicare, so you will not lose your doctor.
“And, the other piece of it is this example I gave last night. Do you know how many people in America are afraid to walk into an emergency room or a hospital room or a doctor’s office because they are looking at a US$5,000 deductible? It’s because the insurance companies keep jacking up costs around premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
“And then, let’s talk about pharmaceutical companies I have taken on as attorney general (of California). I took on the pharmaceutical companies and I won. And I will tell you that part of what we need to do to reform the healthcare system is (to) bring down costs. When we have everybody who wants this Medicare for All, we can negotiate against the pharmaceutical companies as a group and we can also diminish the power that insurance companies have had to make decisions about what kind of health care you get instead of your doctor making those decisions.”
Zable said:Re: her coming down hard on drug offenses and truancy as a prosecutor but let Trump's Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin off for foreclosure violations.
In the old debate about being soft on crime or being hard on crime in criminal justice policy, Ms Harris came down on the side of being hard on crime during her career as a prosecutor. But she also come around to saying, and is still saying, “let’s be smart about crime and recognize that the goal should be about public safety, and one of the best ways to achieve it is to deal with prevention first instead of reaction by incarcerating people”.
As for the CEO of OneWest, I read that Ms Harris’s office did not have the evidence against Mr Mnuchin that was necessary for a criminal indictment.
And, in other related housing matters, I read that Ms Harris authored the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, which among other things outlawed the very practice that allowed OneWest to cheat homeowners; and that she and some aides helped secure a total of US$20 billion + in direct assistance to victims of foreclosure in California. (2013 Mortgage Relief in California: https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/mortgage_settlement/04-report-by-the-numbers.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2QyUtIxTUV542nrg2nDqDxbI7iG3gjfGBG9D9mjWHeua6BoL6rN9tJhj8 )
Specifically about Mr Mnuchin and the foreclosure violations, here’s an extract of an excerpt:
“On the OneWest issue, it’s a misnomer (ie, lie) that Harris “didn’t prosecute Mnuchin.” He was never under investigation, and Harris didn’t receive a referral to criminally prosecute anyone. What she got was a recommendation to file a civil enforcement action against OneWest. In such a filing, no one person is accused of anything. Instead, an entire company is looked at, and perhaps fined for wrongdoing.
So why didn’t she file the action? Well, Senator Harris isn’t exactly free to openly discuss that, because we don’t openly discuss investigations. It’s not appropriate to discuss partial evidence, suspicions, or rumors. This harms the party under investigation, who has a right to a presumption of innocence.
But the reasons this didn’t go anywhere are likely far simpler. The civil enforcement action requested by the consumer law division would have potentially fined OneWest in order to encourage them to fix their internal issues. Those fines would have been entirely passed on to shareholders. Sen. Harris likely saw no reason to invest time and energy in pursuing fines to be levied on people already losing their shirts, just so that OneWest would be encouraged to shape up, when the recession was ensuring banks were going to be forced to do that anyway.
Really? The Democratic establishment wants diversity of identity rather than diversity of ideas. The age of "old, straight white men" is dead. Harris gives them what they want. She waffles on Medicare for all, while her advisers offer assurances that she supports "a path" to Medicare for all, as well as moderate healthcare reforms. She's "tough on crime" when it comes to going after little fish, which also pleases the authoritarians. Harris is set to raise money with a former Wells Fargo executive, and has reached out to Wall Street executives.Zable said:Re: She's a woman of color who does the bidding of the establishment, which is why they love her.
Frankly, that’s a shit soundbite.
He seems healthy to me. He's spent the last four years campaigning across the country for democratic socialism, and now many of his rivals are simply riding his coattails.Zable said:Mr Sanders, I think, needs to take better care of his health. I wonder how many of his supporters will not vote in the 2020 US general election if he has a heart attack or stroke or whatever and has to drop out of the race.
"Ignore atrocities." Like posting a lengthy article disparaging Bernie Sanders rather than refuting valid points about Kamala Harris.Meanwhile, his supporters continue to refuse to acknowledge or admit to any of the downfalls of Sanders and those that do realize the ‘truth’, follow up by making excuses and even adopting the adoration of pure socialism and/or communism. They ignore the atrocities and choose to look at the ‘golden ring’ that is being offered in their concept of a Utopian world.
"Real Change." Sanders made a great point at the debate that politicians campaign on all of these wonderful ideas which never seem to materialize. There's no such thing as "real change" working within the Democratic Party as long as they're beholden to their donors and the military industrial complex. They told Sanders supporters that they weren't wanted in 2016 either, and look how that turned out. Chuck Schumer said they would pick up two moderate Republicans in the rust belt for every blue collar Democrat they lost. The reason the Democratic Party is such a dud is because they stopped courting the poor and the working class, and instead decided to become Republican lite. Bernie's helping pull them back to the left.Ultimately, Bernie Sanders has no business sticking his nose in the Democratic Party, and unless his supporters want to join and work with existing members to try to get real change accomplished, they are not wanted either.
Scarborough's a typical, out of touch, corporate media tool. All that matters is beating Trump? What kind of simpleton view is that? If you replace Trump with another authoritarian tool who capitulates to the wealthy and the military industrial complex, what exactly have you gained? That's why I'll never understand how Biden became the front runner. He is absolute trash whose policies align more with the Republican Party. And yeah, no shit Bernie is saying the same thing he did "four years ago." You see, there's this thing called consistency which most voters find appealing. I certainly am tired of candidates who flip flop on the issues based on shifting political winds, which includes most of the Democratic field.Joe Scarborough: 2nd night of Dem debates was a disaster:
You have written disparagingly of others, pinned labels on them and, I guess, have in your mind justified it as all for valid reasons, then you get upset at an article “disparaging” Mr Sanders? That takes the cake. I think the deeper truth is that you don’t like being placed in a position where you feel you need to defend Bernie Sanders; that you’d much rather be batting down candidates whom you feel threaten to pip him at the post for the presidential nomination. Well, I don’t feel like I have to defend Kamala Harris on her record at all, she’s a big girl."Ignore atrocities." Like posting a lengthy article disparaging Bernie Sanders rather than refuting valid points about Kamala Harris.
Campaign spokesman Michael Briggs called the essay a "dumb attempt at dark satire in an alternative publication" in an interview with CNN, adding that it "in no way reflects his views or record on women." He added, "It was intended to attack gender stereotypes of the '70s, but it looks as stupid today as it was then."
Speaking of stereotypes & Hillary....Even the account of the Bernie/Hillary feud sounds like revisionism.
I don't care that you have a negative opinion of Sanders, and I have no qualms about defending him. However, we were having a discussion about Kamala Harris, and you immediately switched gears and posted an article about Bernie Sanders. So perhaps the "deeper truth" is you don't like your candidate of choice being attacked, so you flipped the script on me.You have written disparagingly of others, pinned labels on them and, I guess, have in your mind justified it as all for valid reasons, then you get upset at an article “disparaging” Mr Sanders? That takes the cake. I think the deeper truth is that you don’t like being placed in a position where you feel you need to defend Bernie Sanders; that you’d much rather be batting down candidates whom you feel threaten to pip him at the post for the presidential nomination. Well, I don’t feel like I have to defend Kamala Harris on her record at all, she’s a big girl.
I'm not sure what that video has to do with Hillary (other than the joke at the end), but all I see is a socially awkward guy trying to inform children and dispel stereotypes.Speaking of stereotypes & Hillary....
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but I still find the lack of transition jarring. We were having a back and forth about Kamala Harris, and then you jumped to Bernie Sanders.I can assure you that that's far from the truth.