Democratic debate circus, part 2

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: Jon Estes

Democratic debate circus, part 2

Postby William Thornton » Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:20 pm

Joe Biden; will be on his best behavior, no hair sniffing and stuff. Gaffe watch in effect.

Michael Bennet; has a plan for climate change. Not sure if the climate is paying attention to him. Mr. Nochance.

Pete Buttigieg; name pronunciation is his problem, not name recognition.

Kirsten Gillibrand; has a hard time sounding authoritative unless she has dropped her voice a couple of octaves.

Kamala Harris; Kick Butt Kamala; not sure how to pronounce her name either. Think she has done it a couple of ways.

John Hickenlooper; Absolutely no president of the United States named "Hickenlooper."

Bernie Sanders; Straight from Moscow, overshadowed by younger socialists.

Eric Swalwell; have no idea who this guy is

Marianne Williamson; who needs a crystal ball...just a few new age crystals; she may be unbeatable for the moonbeam vote.

Andrew Yang; not a clue on this guy
__________

Will do my best to stay up for this one, especially if the old white guys get testy with the others.

Election years can be fun, brethren.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12406
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Democratic debate circus, part 2

Postby Dave Roberts » Thu Jun 27, 2019 2:37 pm

And it's still over 200 days until the Iowa Caucuses.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7551
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Democratic debate circus, part 2

Postby KeithE » Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:36 pm

Kamala and Warren are the winners. Their firm, elegant responses were masterful. I have switch back to Kamala as my top pick as it stands tonight. But both were very good.

Marianne brought underlying truth of our political malaise. We have (1) a sickness industry not a health industry, and (2) love should win over fear were key, unique statements by her. But she is unlikely to survive and she shouldn’t due to lack of govt experience. Perhaps being a national chaplain would be fitting.

Overall, a lot of agreement on stage.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9193
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Democratic debate circus, part 2

Postby Sandy » Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:05 pm

KeithE wrote: Overall, a lot of agreement on stage.


It's hard for 20 different candidates to distinguish themselves on specific finer points of issues they all generally support. I agree, Kamala Harris definitely was the breakout candidate tonight. She already has a sizeable head to head lead over Trump for this early against an incumbent and she is exactly the kind of woman that he hates the most, intelligent, able to rise to an occasion, composed, educated and accomplished. And she's African American. She'd smack down trump in any debate.

William Thornton wrote: Bernie Sanders; Straight from Moscow, overshadowed by younger socialists.


You're a little confused there, Trump was the one in Moscow tonight. He and Putin are cozied up in a bedroom in the Kremlin somewhere shaking in their boots and planning how Russia is going to help trump get re-elected.

Buzz words. More Americans actually know the difference between Bernie Sander's definition of socialism and Russian socialism. At least, anyone with a reasonable high school education knows it. I still like Sanders a lot, and if he's still around by Illinois primary time, he might get my vote.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9449
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Democratic debate circus, part 2

Postby William Thornton » Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:20 am

Biden; from "Uncle Joe" to "Poor Uncle Joe"; looks feeble, frankly.

Michael Bennet; zzzz

Pete Buttigieg; reminds me of Marco Rubio, always composed and competent

Kirsten Gillibrand; thebincredible shrinking candidate; Madame Bromide.

Kamala Harris; Kick Butt Kamala...told ya; has a nice warm smile and is likable.

John Hickenlooper; Name is the most notable thing about him

Bernie Sanders; remimds me of the lovable family grouch; second acts don't work well.

Eric Swalwell; still have no idea who this guy is

Marianne Williamson; stick with Oprah; she has a cadaverous look, creepy. It's TV, looks matter.

Andrew Yang; my guy because of the no tie look; rich guy sounding competent
__________

Could only stand 30 minutes of this one.

Biden, Bern, Harris, Gillebrand, and Buttigieg make the cut. Biden on rep and Gillebrand hanging on by her toenails.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog, SBC Plodder
User avatar
William Thornton
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12406
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:30 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Democratic debate circus, part 2

Postby Haruo » Fri Jun 28, 2019 12:09 pm

William Thornton wrote:John Hickenlooper; Name is the most notable thing about him

A propos of this guy (and I suppose Buttigieg), thought I'd mention that last week I attended a neighborhood solidarity service at Renton's United Christian Church, a dually aligned UCC/DOC congregation that has recently been the target of anti-LGBTQIA+++ vandalism to their front-yard Pride Month display. It was an uplifting service, held out on the lawn, with large numbers of neighbors and smaller numbers of visitors and members (it's not a very big congregation, so a couple hundred neighbors quickly outnumber the natives) including representatives of the Muslim community, the Church Council of Greater Seattle, and King County Government. Reason I bring this up is... the name of the KC gov't representative, a county councilman named Dave Upthegrove. Nice guy. I gather he was the first openly gay WA state legislator from the southern suburbs.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12808
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Democratic debate circus, part 2

Postby Haruo » Fri Jun 28, 2019 7:45 pm

Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12808
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Democratic debate circus, part 2

Postby Sandy » Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:08 pm

William's comments and observations are not erudite by any stretch of the imagination. The "reality" of this election cycle is that 60% of the electorate will be more motivated than normal to turn out in November of 2020 to send Trump and Melania packing for their move back to Manhattan. So the distorters of truth will need to get used to the fact that one of the twenty individuals who appeared on the stage those two nights in Miami will be the next President of the United States.

The bonus for the Democrats is that their Republican opponents are against doing anything to benefit people, except, of course, the checkbooks of the wealthy. They are against everything related to the constitutional guarantee of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and if they are accidentally for something that benefits people, it's only because they need it for political purposes. The added bonus is that there wasn't a single person on that stage that is not superior to Trump in terms of either intelligence or morality, whether you evaluate the latter by secular or Christian standards.


https://www.nbcnews.com/card/almost-six ... ed-n936261
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9449
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Democratic debate circus, part 2

Postby David Flick » Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:03 pm

Sandy wrote:(1)Personal preference aside, whenever I hear that something was on Fox News of any importance, (2)I look up the fact checkers who for the most part tend to lean conservative. (3)Fox News never gets the facts straight. If a Fox news report said grass is green, I'd have to go outside and make sure. That's how bad they are.

    1. It's impossible to set personal preferences aside. Neither you, Keith, Dave, Haruo, Timothy, Fox, Robert Vaughn, William, or myself can, or will, set our personal preferences aside. Personal preferences are locked in to who we are. It's a myth to think you can set them aside.

    2. Yeah sure, most fact checkers tend to lean conservative. That's pure baloney cheese. The majority of the "fact checkers" lean to the liberal side. A perfect example of a liberal fact checking site is Factcheck.org. Almost all liberals quickly glom on to the propaganda put forth by the liberal fact checkers. (Voters Don’t Trust Media Fact-Checking; Don't Believe the Liberal "Fact-Checkers"!). Snopes is another good example of a left-wing factchecker.

    3 Oh really? That's funny. How are you going to go out in the morning to the balcony of your high rise in the morning with your coffee and "read the paper" on laptop and check to see if the grass is green? How much grass can you see from there? Your vision must be incredible. :-). Fake news, CNN, never gets the facts straight. If CNN reports that the world in coming to an end because of the climate change "crisis", I automatically know that everything is calm and Chicken Little, disguised an Don Lemon, is reporting the fake news. That's how bad they are.
(1)The Times is the most reputable news source in the world. (2)To date, when it is cited and someone here criticizes it because it is the New York Times, no evidence to counter their accuracy has ever been offered, just vague, nebulous opinion. (3)Apparently, it's readership gives it tremendous credibility. 130 million readers, and growing exponentially during the Trump era.

    1. It's reputable only to the leftist liberals of the world. Fact of the matter is that leftist libs of the world do not represent the thinking of the entire population. You assume that the whole world agrees with your assessment of the NYT. Believe or not, almost all conservatives will dispute your claim. Here's one blogger who expresses what I and most conservatives believe about the Times. He wrote:
    RICK JENSEN, Cagle Syndicate wrote:As for the New York Times, the reputation is beyond repair. As psychologists have noted, our politics are now “tribal,” in that anyone who disagrees with policies you support are the enemy: something is wrong with them and they must be destroyed. (Source)
    In my opinion, the NYT is a sorry source for accurate, fair and balanced news.

    2. There is plenty of evidence to to counter the accuracy and balance of the NYT. If you paid any attention to the article above, you would know the facts.

    3. The NYT readership is not growing exponentially. Not even close.
    In 2009, the newspaper began production of local inserts in regions outside of the New York area. Beginning October 16, 2009, a two-page "Bay Area" insert was added to copies of the Northern California edition on Fridays and Sundays. The newspaper commenced production of a similar Friday and Sunday insert to the Chicago edition on November 20, 2009. The inserts consist of local news, policy, sports, and culture pieces, usually supported by local advertisements.

    Following industry trends, its weekday circulation had fallen in 2009 to fewer than one million.

    In August 2007, the paper reduced the physical size of its print edition, cutting the page width from 13.5 inches (34 cm) to a 12 inches (30 cm). This followed similar moves by a roster of other newspapers in the previous ten years, including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. The move resulted in a 5% reduction in news space, but (in an era of dwindling circulation and significant advertising revenue losses) also saved about $12 million a year.

    Because of its steadily declining sales attributed to the rise of online alternative media and social media, the newspaper has been going through a downsizing for several years, offering buyouts to workers and cutting expenses, in common with a general trend among print news media. (Source)

    The Times isn't the most widely read newspaper in the world. Here's a list of the Newspapers With The Highest Circulation In The World The Times doesn't even make the top 10 list. You have a mighty inflated opinion of the paper.

For a long time, you could read the Times online for free. But the printed newspaper business is shrinking and revenue from print ads is dropping everywhere. The Times, along with the Washington Post, have transitioned to being electronic newsrooms with more circulation than a paper could give them, but now you have to subscribe to read the content. I think the "first click free" policy is passing on. I live in a 55+ senior high rise now, so I go out on the balcony in the morning with my coffee and "read the paper" on my laptop. I subscribe to the Times, the Post, and the Arizona Daily Star. MSNBC I watch by podcast on my phone.

I still get my newspaper fix thumbing through an actual paper, which I enjoy, by ordering my hometown newspaper via print copy through the mail. It is a weekly, so it doesn't really matter that it is a week old when it arrives. And I get the print copy of the Chicago Tribune on Sunday.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-y ... 2019-02-06

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-new ... rs-2017-12
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8478
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Democratic debate circus, part 2

Postby Haruo » Sat Jun 29, 2019 7:15 pm

Per capita, it looks like the Japanese are far and away the most newspaper-addicted people in the world.

I'm hoping, David, that you don't think, ss one of your cited authorities seems to, that Sandy and I (and probably Keith and Tim) need to be destroyed over this stuff.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12808
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 7:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Democratic debate circus, part 2

Postby David Flick » Sat Jun 29, 2019 8:24 pm

Haruo wrote:Per capita, it looks like the Japanese are far and away the most newspaper-addicted people in the world.

    I agree.

I'm hoping, David, that you don't think, ss one of your cited authorities seems to, that Sandy and I (and probably Keith and Tim) need to be destroyed over this stuff.

    Not at all, Haruo. I think you're misreading the quote. The author (Rick Jenson) is quoting psychologists who say the idea, not people, must be destroyed. That is to say, the idea that anyone who disagrees with policies you support are the enemy: something is wrong with them and they must be destroyed. You don't destroy people who disagree with you. You destroy the thought that the people who disagree with you are the enemy. You aren't my enemy. Keith isn't my enemy, nor is Tim. Perish the thought that because the three of you disagree with policies and opinions I support, you are my enemies. All of you are my friends. We just happen disagree on some things. Often vigerously. And we have fun doing it... :-)
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8478
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Democratic debate circus, part 2

Postby Sandy » Sat Jun 29, 2019 10:50 pm

David Flick wrote: The Times isn't the most widely read newspaper in the world. Here's a list of the Newspapers With The Highest Circulation In The World The Times doesn't even make the top 10 list. You have a mighty inflated opinion of the paper.


Your article references printed newspaper circulation, not how widely read it is. Those statistics on the Japanese papers show how many printed copies are circulated. The Times circulates about half a million printed copies, not anywhere near some of those Asian print editions. But if you'll read the information on the electronic circulation I cited, you will see that at least a portion of the NYT is read by over a hundred million people every month. Circulation of a printed paper doesn't necessarily translate into being widely read.

Go back and read those citations I posted. Yes, the Times print edition has declined. But currently, it has a larger newswriting staff than it has ever had because it has more than two million on-line subscribers and that number has grown exponentially over the past several years. Most of it's readers don't pick up a printed copy, they go to the website and get what they're looking for, That makes it the most widely read newspaper in the world. It is certainly one of the largest sources of news in this country, dwarfing the propaganda outlets like Faux Fake News. You need to get with the times, David. The New York Times isn't just a print newspaper. Also, you've never cited a single credible source proving the Times was in error in its reported facts.

Headline from The Business Insider: The New York Times soars past 3 million subscribers

Quote: "The New York Times announced it now has 130 million monthly readers and 3.5 million paid subscriptions, which is more than double the company's subscriber count since Q3 2015. "
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9449
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Democratic debate circus, part 2

Postby David Flick » Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:10 am

Sandy wrote:(1)Your article references printed newspaper circulation, not how widely read it is. Those statistics on the Japanese papers show how many printed copies are circulated. The Times circulates about half a million printed copies, not anywhere near some of those Asian print editions. (2) But if you'll read the information on the electronic circulation I cited, you will see that at least a portion of the NYT is read by over a hundred million people every month. Circulation of a printed paper doesn't necessarily translate into being widely read.

    1. There's no way you can accurately determine the number of electronic readers other than counting clicks..

    2. I did read the information you cited. So the Times has 100 million electronic readers. Computing 100 million monthly electronic readers and by dividing the number by a 30-day month gives you a daily average number of readers of 3.2 million. Even if you counted the half-million printed copies as readers, you would only have 3.8 million daily readers. Heck, USA Today has 4,139 million daily papers/readers. (Source) That computes to roughly 4.1 million daily readers.
Go back and read those citations I posted. Yes, the Times print edition has declined. (1)But currently, it has a larger newswriting staff than it has ever had because it has more than two million on-line subscribers and that number has grown exponentially over the past several years. Most of it's readers don't pick up a printed copy, they go to the website and get what they're looking for, (2)That makes it the most widely read newspaper in the world. (3)It is certainly one of the largest sources of news in this country, dwarfing the propaganda outlets like Faux Fake News. (4)]You need to get with the times, David. The New York Times isn't just a print newspaper. (5)Also, you've never cited a single credible source proving the Times was in error in its reported facts.

    1. I don't think you understand the meaning of "exponential". To increase exponentially is to grow rapidly by a factor of 10. And for the Times grow exponentially over the past several years would mean that the number of electronic readers would increase rapidly by the tens of millions. You say the the number of electronic readers increased by 2 million? To say the Times has grown exponentially is impossible!

    2. Impossible. The Times doesn't even make the top 10 newspapers in the world. (Source)

    3. The Times ranks 3rd in circulation in the US. It is dwarfed by USA Today and The Wall Street Journal. USA Today publishes 1,621,091 papers daily. The Wall Street Journal publishes 1,011,200 papers daily. By comparison, the Times publishes 483,701 papers daily. (Source) Granted, the Times is among the top electronic newspapers in the US, but it ranks 2nd behind USA Today. (Source)

    4. I believe I am with the times. I have exposed a number of errors which you have claimed about the Times.

    5. Perhaps I didn't cite errors in the Times. But I certainly can. How about this one? And this one? And this one? And finally this one?

Headline from The Business Insider: The New York Times soars past 3 million subscribers

Quote: "The New York Times announced it now has 130 million monthly readers and 3.5 million paid subscriptions, which is more than double the company's subscriber count since Q3 2015. "

    What's the source for that quote? How about documenting it?
User avatar
David Flick
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8478
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: Oklahoma City, OK

Re: Democratic debate circus, part 2

Postby Sandy » Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:51 pm

I did cite sources, two. Tells me you never really read the original post before you launched off on your tirade about newspapers in Japan. And when you're talking newspaper readership, print copies are no longer the measurement of a "newspaper's" influence. The Times is read and cited by over a hundred million readers a month, as documented by the Business Insider link I referenced in my previous post. Business Insider is not a partisan propaganda instrument like the sources you cite to "prove" the Times was in error. Newspapers are pretty much dinosaurs these days, as are cable news outlets. Far more people read their newspaper off their laptop or computer, or upload podcasts than watch television or pick up a printed copy of a newspaper. Your "evidence" is print copies.

You'll have to do better than extremist right wing sources to qualify as a credible source pointing out errors in the reporting in the Times. To date, you've posted nothing credible that is more than just someone's personal bias against the Times.


https://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-y ... 2019-02-06

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-new ... rs-2017-12

You'll have to go up a few posts to where these references were cited on the 29th. These links have expired.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9449
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago

All of the Circus is better than Trump

Postby Stephen Fox » Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:04 pm

Trump is the Disaster, the Elephant in every room.

Nitpicking the foibles of the Dems is a waste of Time. Bottom Line Biden is right, America may not survive another four more years of Trump and Mitch McConnell, the gravedigger of American democracy.

I had some important phone calls this morning.

Should have a blog out by early September. The legacy of FBC Spartanburg is in question, as Paul Weyrich looms large again, the crazy aunt in the attic, in abortion and race politics with FBC Spartanburg Truth for a New Generation Conferences the poster child.

And Eric Metaxas filled Ed Young's pulpit yesterday at 2nd Houston. Thornton should focus on the rot his friends Jerry Vines and Adrian Rogers helped foment, not on the foibles of the Dem Show.

I mean Willie Tee, how would you and me come across if we just got seven minutes to explain ourselves with ten others vying for attention and none of the 17 million or so viewers having read a book that mattered since high school.
"I'm the only sane {person} in here." Doyle Hargraves, Slingblade
"Midget, Broom; Helluva campaign". Political consultant, "Oh, Brother..."


http://www.foxofbama.blogspot.com or google asfoxseesit
Stephen Fox
 
Posts: 9295
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 8:29 pm

Re: All of the Circus is better than Trump

Postby JE Pettibone » Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:35 pm

Stephen Fox wrote:Trump is the Disaster, the Elephant in every room.

Nitpicking the foibles of the Dems is a waste of Time. Bottom Line Biden is right, America may not survive another four more years of Trump and Mitch McConnell, the gravedigger of American democracy.

I had some important phone calls this morning.

Should have a blog out by early September. The legacy of FBC Spartanburg is in question, as Paul Weyrich looms large again, the crazy aunt in the attic, in abortion and race politics with FBC Spartanburg Truth for a New Generation Conferences the poster child.

And Eric Metaxas filled Ed Young's pulpit yesterday at 2nd Houston. Thornton should focus on the rot his friends Jerry Vines and Adrian Rogers helped foment, not on the foibles of the Dem Show.

I mean Willie Tee, how would you and me come across if we just got seven minutes to explain ourselves with ten others vying for attention and none of the 17 million or so viewers having read a book that mattered since high school.



ED; Steve are you up on you meds?
JE Pettibone
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2016 10:48 am

Re: Democratic debate circus, part 2

Postby Sandy » Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:05 pm

Should have ended after the second paragraph. At that point, it was all clear and reasonable.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 9449
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: Chicago


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron