• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Democratic Party primary election debate thread

Well, it all gets started tomorrow night. Let's get ready to rumble!!!!!!!!!!!!

2020 Democratic Debate Schedule (Primary Debates) - Election Central

When is the first 2020 Democratic Primary Debate?
The first 2020 Democratic Primary Debate, aired on NBC and MSNBC, will be held over two nights on June 26 and June 27, 2019. The debate will feature back-to-back primetime broadcasts on consecutive nights to ensure each candidate gets access to a primetime audience.

Which candidates will be in the first debate?
Night 1 – June 26
Booker, Castro, de Blasio, Delaney, Gabbard, Inslee, Klobuchar, O’Rourke, Ryan, Warren

Night 2 – June 27
Bennet, Biden, Buttigieg, Gillibrand, Harris, Hickenlooper, Sanders, Swalwell, Williamson, Yang

It will be interesting to see but the reality is that even a cockroach could beat Trump in 2020.

cockroach.webp
 
Here's a neato idea. Read the many posts that I and others made about Trump's flip flop on guns. Or better yet, do some research on the candidate that you support. You supported Trump. You still do. You wouldn't vote for Gillibrand, but you're in sync with her flip flop on guns, and not his. How interesting. Maybe you need to be better at research?

I'll help you out. Google Trump's support for the Clinton gun bans. Google Trump's public comments after Sandy Hook about President Obama speaking for him when he called for strict gun control. I did. It's one of many reasons I didn't support Trump. I don't support frauds who flip flop for political expediency. You did, and you sadly didn't even know it.

You can get back to focusing on the Democratic debates, for whatever reason you're pretending to care about them. You aren't going to be watching them to select your guy or lady for 2020.

Maybe you need to be better at reading minds or at least improve your accuracy when you make stuff up. I have never stated for whom I voted in 2016, yet you claim I supported Trump. What I do support is the Office of the Presidency. I've posted this so many times, Tres, this and how much I hate the endless two-minute hate threads.

Oh, please. Just about any time I come across you posting in a political thread, it's a criticism of someone to your left to some degree for having said something about Trump having done a bad thing. It's either defend Trump or attack the person criticizing him, mostly.

I don't remember seeing much defending Obama in light of "Office of the Presidency," but I do have to cede he was only president for about 3.5ish months after I joined DP.



Let's just say that full-on Trumpist or not, you're squarely on the right and as such defend policies generally falling on the right. That then leads you to generally defend Trump or attack criticisms of Trump, even though he's only pretending to be a conservative. (Or maybe he's born again. He's previously been Democrat and even straight-up totalitarian-communist. The latter means his 1999 proposal to have a one time wealth confiscation, not tax, on the 15% wealthiest Americans, to be used to pay off the debt in one fell blow).

The worst bit isn't even the defense of Trump. It's watching Trump's con in action. This is all self-puffery for him, money later. He wasn't a "conservative" until he started thinking about maybe running, aka, when he tried and largely succeeded in taking over the Birther idiocy.
 
Last edited:
Bernie in 2016 was an independent who decided to run as a Democrat. He changed his registration to Democrat and then shortly after the 2016 election changed it back to independent. For the life of me I don't know why he refuses to embrace the Democratic Party. He has been the 2nd ranked senator to vote the Democratic Party line. You can't get more loyal to the Democratic Party than that.

I think it's pretty simple:

It's an asset to be perceived as independent and someone outside of the press of the often anti-democratic party machinery in the general. This may hurt him in the primaries, but it'll be a strength in the general should he make it that far.

What you state makes sense. But I sure would prefer someone other than Biden, Sanders or Warren. But then I'm not a Democrat. So I'll wait and see who wins. I know I'll not be voting for Trump, but I don't know if I'll vote Democratic or not. I voted against both Trump and Clinton in 2016 by casting a ballot for a third party candidate. I could do the same in 2020.

I do think your scenario will probably play out. I hope not, but that's me.

As stated, I'll be happy if Warren gets the nomination, ecstatic if Bernie does.

IMO they're the best shot this country has of not continuing its current ongoing march towards plutocracy and rule of the rich which is already a serious problem given the ubiquity and impact of private money on public office, and the vastly disproportionate and growing power the donor class and their lobbyist minions have over policy ( https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf ). I do earnestly see the plutocratization of America as a serious, ongoing and contemporary existential threat to popular representation and democracy; one that far surpasses any shadow of or claim to fascism that Trump is labelled with in terms of both immediacy and credibility, because it's already here, and its getting worse.
 
So in other words, you only want to attack the Democrat candidates in a partisan manner - not caring about Trump doing the exact same thing. Got it.

Sadly, you don't get it. Stop trying to translate what I haven't said because once again, the other words are solely yours, not mine. I've never indicated whether I'm going to watch the debates, but you've decided that I am and even know why I am. That would be quite a gift to have...but you don't.
 
Oh, please. Just about any time I come across you posting in a political thread, it's a criticism of someone to your left to some degree for having said something about Trump having done a bad thing. It's either defend Trump or attack the person criticizing him, mostly.

I don't remember seeing much defending Obama in light of "Office of the Presidency," but I do have to cede he was only president for about 3.5ish months after I joined DP.

Let's just say that full-on Trumpist or not, you're squarely on the right and as such defend policies generally falling on the right. That then leads you to generally defend Trump or attack criticisms of Trump, even though he's only pretending to be a conservative. (Or maybe he's born again. He's previously been Democrat and even straight-up totalitarian-communist. The latter means his 1999 proposal to have a one time wealth confiscation, not tax, on the 15% wealthiest Americans, to be used to pay off the debt in one fell blow).

The worst bit isn't even the defense of Trump. It's watching Trump's con in action. This is all self-puffery for him, money later. He wasn't a "conservative" until he started thinking about maybe running, aka, when he tried and largely succeeded in taking over the Birther idiocy.

You're very astute; I am generally conservative. Whether you were here or not, you can check any of my posts since I joined in 2011, but you won't find a single post in which I attacked, mocked, or disrespected former President Obama. Some of us are able to distinguish between fair criticism of a policy and dull, repetitive, and ignorant personal invective.
 
I think it's pretty simple:

It's an asset to be perceived as independent and someone outside of the press of the often anti-democratic party machinery in the general. This may hurt him in the primaries, but it'll be a strength in the general should he make it that far.



As stated, I'll be happy if Warren gets the nomination, ecstatic if Bernie does.

IMO they're the best shot this country has of not continuing its current ongoing march towards plutocracy and rule of the rich which is already a serious problem given the ubiquity and impact of private money on public office, and the vastly disproportionate and growing power the donor class and their lobbyist minions have over policy ( https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf ). I do earnestly see the plutocratization of America as a serious, ongoing and contemporary existential threat to popular representation and democracy; one that far surpasses any shadow of or claim to fascism that Trump is labelled with in terms of both immediacy and credibility, because it's already here, and its getting worse.

Actually, I think the biggest threat to our popular representation comes from the major political parties themselves. I have seen way too many straight party line votes in the last 20 years of so. Those used to be very rare. Way too many times our representatives and senators vote their party line instead of the wishes and wants of those they are suppose to represent.

I have always said that both parties owe their hearts and souls to wall street firms, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, mega money donors etc. as that is where both get their tens of millions of dollars to run their campaigns and organizations. With money now declared free speech, I don't think there is any possible way to changing that. Sure you have politicians rant and rail against Wall Street, corporations and the like, but it is all done with a wink and a nod. One doesn't bit the hand that feeds them.

Hillary raised and spent 1.191 billion on her 2016 bid for the presidency.

Tracking the 2016 Presidential Money Race: Clinton vs. Trump

Trump a lousy 646.8 million. But Trump was the master manipulator of the media. He was the star attraction so to speak. He was always the headline story with his outlandish comments. I suppose Hillary was your ultimate insider with 118 million from Wall Street and another 44 million from lobbyist.

Even when you get down to congressional levels, the midterms. Democrats house candidates spent 1.1 billion to Republican house candidates 661 million. In the senate it was 599 million for the democrats vs. 456 million for the Republicans.

2018 Election Overview | OpenSecrets

I don't see how one president can change that.

I personally would like to see our representatives and senators getting back to representing the folks from their districts and states instead of their political party.
 
Actually, I think the biggest threat to our popular representation comes from the major political parties themselves. I have seen way too many straight party line votes in the last 20 years of so. Those used to be very rare. Way too many times our representatives and senators vote their party line instead of the wishes and wants of those they are suppose to represent.

I have always said that both parties owe their hearts and souls to wall street firms, corporations, lobbyists, special interests, mega money donors etc. as that is where both get their tens of millions of dollars to run their campaigns and organizations. With money now declared free speech, I don't think there is any possible way to changing that. Sure you have politicians rant and rail against Wall Street, corporations and the like, but it is all done with a wink and a nod. One doesn't bit the hand that feeds them.

Hillary raised and spent 1.191 billion on her 2016 bid for the presidency.

Tracking the 2016 Presidential Money Race: Clinton vs. Trump

Trump a lousy 646.8 million. But Trump was the master manipulator of the media. He was the star attraction so to speak. He was always the headline story with his outlandish comments. I suppose Hillary was your ultimate insider with 118 million from Wall Street and another 44 million from lobbyist.

Even when you get down to congressional levels, the midterms. Democrats house candidates spent 1.1 billion to Republican house candidates 661 million. In the senate it was 599 million for the democrats vs. 456 million for the Republicans.

2018 Election Overview | OpenSecrets

I don't see how one president can change that.

I personally would like to see our representatives and senators getting back to representing the folks from their districts and states instead of their political party.

The parties by themselves are merely vessels for corruption that originates by and large from corporate/monied interests that have been more or less untethered in their ability to buy, corrode and subvert democracy since the SCOTUS idiotically ruled per Buckley v Valeo that political spending could be unlimited, and that said unlimited spending was constitutionally protected as speech; they are simply agents of plutocracy which is the real, fundamental threat. The way you change this is by amending the constitution to stringently limit professional lobbying and political spending.

I don't think one president is going to change that, but it is a major step in the right direction. If we manage to get an adequate Democrat House majority down the road, and a President in the bully pulpit that will fight for such a constitutional amendment, the fundamental root of this corruption can be expunged.

The alternative is waiting on a state convention.
 
OK, let's kick this pig!
 
Well, it all gets started tomorrow night. Let's get ready to rumble!!!!!!!!!!!!

2020 Democratic Debate Schedule (Primary Debates) - Election Central

When is the first 2020 Democratic Primary Debate?
The first 2020 Democratic Primary Debate, aired on NBC and MSNBC, will be held over two nights on June 26 and June 27, 2019. The debate will feature back-to-back primetime broadcasts on consecutive nights to ensure each candidate gets access to a primetime audience.

Which candidates will be in the first debate?
Night 1 – June 26
Booker, Castro, de Blasio, Delaney, Gabbard, Inslee, Klobuchar, O’Rourke, Ryan, Warren

Night 2 – June 27
Bennet, Biden, Buttigieg, Gillibrand, Harris, Hickenlooper, Sanders, Swalwell, Williamson, Yang

Moderator's Warning:
Moved your thread to US Elections and made it a sticky. Let's keep discussion of the debates here folks.
 
I don't think he's dumb enough to do it before, but after, should he win, god forbid? With 4 years to go? I can see runaway/slippery slope escalation happening easily, and he certainly appears eager enough to throw down with Iran.


A good grief. You people who raising holy hell before and after Trump won saying he was going to nuclear bomb N Korea and everyone else.
 
A good grief. You people who raising holy hell before and after Trump won saying he was going to nuclear bomb N Korea and everyone else.

I didn't say anything about Trump's handling of N Korea, except that he wouldn't be successful (he hasn't been).

He does have a demonstrable hard on for Iran though, and had to be talked out of an escalating strike.
 
I wonder when a single person will actually answer the question they were given.
 
Castro: "thank you very much for that question".

Translation: "Thank you very much for paying attention to me for 60 seconds."
 
Democrats still perpetuating the fake gender pay gap myth.
 
Am I the only one getting crappy reception here?
 
Why are half these idiots even here? What a waste of time for them. Book deals I guess.
 
The parties by themselves are merely vessels for corruption that originates by and large from corporate/monied interests that have been more or less untethered in their ability to buy, corrode and subvert democracy since the SCOTUS idiotically ruled per Buckley v Valeo that political spending could be unlimited, and that said unlimited spending was constitutionally protected as speech; they are simply agents of plutocracy which is the real, fundamental threat. The way you change this is by amending the constitution to stringently limit professional lobbying and political spending.

I don't think one president is going to change that, but it is a major step in the right direction. If we manage to get an adequate Democrat House majority down the road, and a President in the bully pulpit that will fight for such a constitutional amendment, the fundamental root of this corruption can be expunged.

The alternative is waiting on a state convention.

I agree that the only way is via a Constitutional Amendment. I don't see the House or Senate able to garner the 2/3rds majority that would take or 3/4th of the state ratifying it. A Constitutional Convention would also require 2/3rds of the states calling for it for the purpose of proposing amendments. Article V gives the details which also imposes limits. Even with a Constitutional Convention, whatever amendments approved by the convention still faces ratification of 3/4ths of the states.

That's quite a steep hill. I think whichever party that has the money advantage would oppose it.
 
Warren is gonna run out of free **** to give people soon.
 
I didn't say anything about Trump's handling of N Korea, except that he wouldn't be successful (he hasn't been).

He does have a demonstrable hard on for Iran though, and had to be talked out of an escalating strike.



Why don't you explain to us who exactly talked Trump out of a retaliatory strike on Iran?
 
The bald little dude seems to be the only one who isn't bat **** crazy.


He'll get kicked out of the primaries shortly.
 
Delaney is the most sensible so far. Tim Ryan probably gave the most powerful argument when he talked about outsourcing jobs. Warren is probably having the best performance, though I think some of her ideas are not that realistic.

The rest I am not impressed with.
 
Why don't you explain to us who exactly talked Trump out of a retaliatory strike on Iran?

Tucker Carlson was one of the people who talked Trump out of attacking Iran.

A half-hour away: How Trump opted against Iran strike

To Trump's credit, he was apparently frustrated with Bolton's war mongering, but on the flipside, he keeps downplaying the sheer magnitude and undertaking war with Iran would represent; not unlike Bush RE: Iraq (which as we know was a disastrously wrong assessment):

Trump says any war with Iran would not last long
 
Delaney is the most sensible so far. Tim Ryan probably gave the most powerful argument when he talked about outsourcing jobs. Warren is probably having the best performance, though I think some of her ideas are not that realistic.

The rest I am not impressed with.

Castro has surprised me, kinda like him. Warren is easily having the best night, not so loud, not so extreme, poised.
 
I agree that the only way is via a Constitutional Amendment. I don't see the House or Senate able to garner the 2/3rds majority that would take or 3/4th of the state ratifying it. A Constitutional Convention would also require 2/3rds of the states calling for it for the purpose of proposing amendments. Article V gives the details which also imposes limits. Even with a Constitutional Convention, whatever amendments approved by the convention still faces ratification of 3/4ths of the states.

That's quite a steep hill. I think whichever party that has the money advantage would oppose it.

I agree, it's going to be a long, hard, difficult road; but also one of the most necessary this nation has ever embarked on.
 
Each one brings something significantly to the conversation. Juaquin Castro, on immigration. Elizabeth Warren on removing the power of big business on our policies. All the women of course, strong on women's rights. I also like Bill Deblasio's knowledge and experience in keeping a major US City running smoothly but he has no popular support. Tulsi Gabbert has a good military mind because she's been there and has experienced war personally. John Delany offered a factual rebuttal to Medicare for all. Unfortunately we can't roll the best of each into one person, it would be a perfect candidate.

I still see Elizabeth Warren as a front-runner of this debate.
 
Back
Top Bottom