Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Not much action except the push-and-pull between the radicals who want to remake the system and the moderates who want to win an election. 

One thing I noticed was when a minor candidate revealed a little too much about the "Medicare For All" plan, which is that everyone would be eligible to BUY a Medicare plan.  Say WHAT?  BUY a plan?  You mean it isn't FREE?  I thought it was a human right to force other humans to make us well whether we pay them or not.  Now I'm totally confused.

The other thing was, did anyone notice how nonchalantly they all claimed that under THEIR Presidency we would have "strong border security"? 
"On day 1 as President, I will grant citizenship to Dreamers, asylum seekers and students who overstay their visa."  
    - But won't that encourage millions of others to come here and use those loopholes?  
"No, because we'll have "strong border security". 
     - and the host just lets them get away with that.  What would that look like, I wonder?  A wall maybe?

Eh, we know the left is a bunch of morons. My dad also gets upset about such things. Don’t let the left raise your BP. I’m pretty sure that’s their new tactic, be stupid as [BLEEP] and give older republicans heart attacks. It’s really only one of a few things that make sense. It wouldn’t be murder chargers unless it was reversed. And they get to ween out legit voters.

Lol.... I was going to start ** The Official Debate v2.0 Thread ** but it was too depressing last night. Hopefully tonight is better.

The Dems are DOA in the general. There is no coming back to the center from this.

"Corporations are evil and causing all our problems!"

"Koch, Koch, Koch, Koch, Koch, Koch, Koch, Koch,Koch, Koch, Koch, Koch,Koch, Koch, Koch, Koch,Koch, Koch, Koch, Koch,Koch, Koch, Koch, Koch,Koch, Koch, Koch, Koch"

"Vote for us and we'll give you all the free [BLEEP] you want!"

"Illegals are citizens too!"

"IF you like your plan you can keep your plan!"

Wait, that last one doesn't work anymore.

Kamala getting smoked like a ham on healthcare.

Now Joe wants to send illegals back.

Gabbard isn't hard on the eyes.

A few thoughts.

*Biden's debate skills scare me.  He often has an absence for words and abruptly ends this turn midway through a sentence (or thought process)
*K Harris is feisty and passionate (as an attorney and former prosecutor) but not that people are digging into her records and challenging her, she seems vulnerable.
*B. Sanders - pretty well spoken but his position is too far left --- I can't vote for a complete college debt forgiveness.
*E. Warren - a pretty strong debater.  I really didn't care for her months ago but she's a pretty strong candidate (from a knowledge and communication perspective).  Still not sure if she can win over the millennials and minorities..
*C. Booker - so far, this is my top candidate.  Well spoken, charismatic, and would have a strong chance to challenge Trump.  He could mirror the Obama vote.
*Yang -- Giving every adult $1,000/month -- [BLEEP] -- I can't vote for that.  Also, the dude is pretty well spoken but is only worth $3 to 4 million which really isn't that much considering he portrays himself as an entrepreneur in global technology.
*Buttigieg - He's doing very well and I can't argue with the fact that he's very well spoken. That said, there is no way this voting population (in 2020) is going to win an election knowing the 1st lady will be a guy.  I can easily get past that but I think the general public needs another 4 to 8 to perhaps 12 years to absorb that.  I could see him in 2024 or 2028 having a much stronger chance
*Castro - This is my 2nd choice so far.  Again, he'll likely be eliminated soon due to popularity (media coverage) but this guy has been strong over the initial 2 debates.
* Others -- nah.

---

(07-31-2019, 08:59 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]Now Joe wants to send illegals back.

Gabbard isn't hard on the eyes.

She had a good makeup job last night

Before



After

This has been a total clown show. Each trying to out clown horn the next.

Night 1 Williamson is the only still left with any dignity. Like her views or not (hell, whether you feel they're sane or not,) she's the only with honest conviction of her views. All else are the same old pandering to the extremes and margins. She's the most honest to her own platform.

Night 2 was Harris' to lose, and she absolutely got destroyed on the facts. Her problem is the same as most... dishonesty, and a loosely constructed, indefensible platform that can't hold up to honest, intellectual scrutiny. Yang had the opposite problem of Williamson. He had the likeability going in, then self destructed when he started talking about the details of the things he proposed.

That's a recurring theme for all the candidates over both nights. Self-destruction because their views are poorly founded, and implode when you dig into the details of unworkable fantasy platforms.

Since the Democrat voter values emotion over substance, there will always be a chance for someone to exploit that to come out on top. Kamala had that going for her, but still blew it. She can still pull it out, but she's about as sloppy as Joe when it comes to debate. But remember, substance is at the bottom of what appeals to today's Dem voters. Joe is seeing that he can't run on his failed administration, since there are no positives to sell. The false nostalgia of what Dems felt like during that time (while in reality having no achievements to mention) could still hold off most competition until late in the contest.

If there are enough moderates left, Joe probably eeks it out despite his massive problems selling himself. I wise, savvy candidate could shred him - but I'm not sure there's any that capable here. If not, the radicals will rally behind Kamala for the feels, if she can pull herself together enough.

It's abundantly clear there's no Trump killer among these lightweights. They are shrinking/melting under the lights, where Trump shines brightest (whether you like him or not.)

Probably the most stand out/notable were the so-called "moderators" being Democrat participants, by leading with commentary-laden "questions" and not actually doing any moderator work. In fact, they would conveniently cut off and run away from valid counterpoints and follow up questions made by debaters towards the others.

If the response didn't check the box they expected, they ignored it and moved on.

That's not moderating, that's participation.

(08-01-2019, 01:12 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Joe is seeing that he can't run on his failed administration, since there are no positives to sell.  The false nostalgia of what Dems felt like during that time (while in reality having no achievements to mention) could still hold off most competition until late in the contest.

Sorry you missed out on the Obama economy in which most of the US population prospered.

(08-01-2019, 01:12 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]It's abundantly clear there's no Trump killer among these lightweights.  They are shrinking/melting under the lights, where Trump shines brightest (whether you like him or not.)

The media has always been the Republican killer. I think it's foolish to say that any of these candidates are going to be pushovers, at least right now.  Democratic primaries are typically pretty vicious, so it's easy to assume that the candidates are weak. However, when the full force of MSM throws its weight behind a nominee, it has a way of turning an average candidate into a cultural icon. No where is this more evident than with Beto O'Rourke.

When Beto ran against Cruz, people were singing songs about him. Some in the media were calling him the next Obama. In fact, his media hype is what carried him into the primaries. He raised over 6 million dollars within 24 hours of announcing his candidacy. He had a ton of momentum... right up until you put him against other candidates. Without the support of the media, people quickly recognized that he was tacky and entitled. The opposite will happen once the candidate is finally picked. All of their flaws will be whitewashed, and the American public will be presented with a squeaky clean image that will be contrasted against Trump. It's a completely different show than what we're watching now.

That said, this is the first time in a long while I can remember the media being this mistrusted. It will be interesting to see the narrative with regards to the Presidential election. It's been the same for the last 4 years, so I'm not sure what they can throw at Trump that hasn't already been heard ad nauseum.

(08-01-2019, 01:34 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-01-2019, 01:12 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Joe is seeing that he can't run on his failed administration, since there are no positives to sell.  The false nostalgia of what Dems felt like during that time (while in reality having no achievements to mention) could still hold off most competition until late in the contest.

Sorry you missed out on the Obama economy in which most of the US population prospered.

He unnecessarily lengthened/delayed recovery held back growth with bad policy.  His economy has been completely overshadowed in just the last 2.5 years by simply undoing the damage he did.

I didn't watch either "debate" in it's entirety, only clips of them.

From what I saw only one stuck out to me as being somewhat "reasonable" though I don't know much about him.  John Delaney  I doubt that he is going to go much further because he's not far enough to the left for the MSM.

Sadly for the democrats I think that their choice is going to come down to one of four.  Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden or Kamala Harris.  God help us if any of them make it to the Presidency.

(08-01-2019, 12:25 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]A few thoughts.

*Biden's debate skills scare me.  He often has an absence for words and abruptly ends this turn midway through a sentence (or thought process)
*K Harris is feisty and passionate (as an attorney and former prosecutor) but not that people are digging into her records and challenging her, she seems vulnerable.
*B. Sanders - pretty well spoken but his position is too far left --- I can't vote for a complete college debt forgiveness.
*E. Warren - a pretty strong debater.  I really didn't care for her months ago but she's a pretty strong candidate (from a knowledge and communication perspective).  Still not sure if she can win over the millennials and minorities..
*C. Booker - so far, this is my top candidate.  Well spoken, charismatic, and would have a strong chance to challenge Trump.  He could mirror the Obama vote.

I only watched part of the first debate. Booker sounded strong, and then Warren came on. Her speaking skills were so bad I tuned it off at that point.

This is scary... the "moderate" wants to try and phase out fossil fuels.... this is coo co land

(08-01-2019, 01:34 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-01-2019, 01:12 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Joe is seeing that he can't run on his failed administration, since there are no positives to sell.  The false nostalgia of what Dems felt like during that time (while in reality having no achievements to mention) could still hold off most competition until late in the contest.

Sorry you missed out on the Obama economy in which most of the US population prospered.

Those with large stock portfolios prospered. Is that "most"?

In spite of spending nearly a trillion dollars per year more than the Bush budgets (excluding the bailout year), the job market languished. The working class didn't get a raise in the first five Obama years, most workers were saddled with significantly higher med insurance deductibles, and tens of millions never got another job after they lost theirs in 2009.The recession lingered longer than any other one since the great depression (also a Dem president). Such prosperity!

(08-03-2019, 12:47 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-01-2019, 01:34 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry you missed out on the Obama economy in which most of the US population prospered.

Those with large stock portfolios prospered. Is that "most"?

In spite of spending nearly a trillion dollars per year more than the Bush budgets (excluding the bailout year), the job market languished. The working class didn't get a raise in the first five Obama years, most workers were saddled with significantly higher med insurance deductibles, and tens of millions never got another job after they lost theirs in 2009.The recession lingered longer than any other one since the great depression (also a Dem president). Such prosperity!

The last two or three years of Obama's presidency were a very strong economic performance, though.

(08-03-2019, 01:15 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-03-2019, 12:47 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Those with large stock portfolios prospered. Is that "most"?

In spite of spending nearly a trillion dollars per year more than the Bush budgets (excluding the bailout year), the job market languished. The working class didn't get a raise in the first five Obama years, most workers were saddled with significantly higher med insurance deductibles, and tens of millions never got another job after they lost theirs in 2009.The recession lingered longer than any other one since the great depression (also a Dem president). Such prosperity!

The last two or three years of Obama's presidency were a very strong economic performance, though.

Raises were still meager as companies were still stuck in Obama-economy mode, and the deductibles never decreased back to what they were before Obamacare. But housing had mostly recovered, unemployment had dropped, and the stock market was still strong, so I guess he gets credit for not taking a full eight years to get most things back on track.

But the original point was that the Dems are now mostly hitting Biden on Obama's failures.

Viva el presidente Trump!