I think characterizing Castro's stance as 'open borders' is off, he wants it to be a civil offense as best I can tell.
Anywho, Warren/Booker solid, Beto garbage, Castro maybe good enough to start to matter? Rest of the candidates aren't really in striking distance.
As someone who considers foreign policy the top priority, I think Gabbard stole the show. As she correctly stated, you can’t really focus on internal issues when there’s an imminent possibility of being drawn into spending millions of dollars overseas, not to mention the human toll.
I completely disagree with your assessment. Neil comes off as a complete ***. Can you find an example of him interviewing a liberal in the same style?
Yes, more are employed. Yet, underemployed.
Neil is a conservative.I completely disagree with your assessment. Neil comes off as a complete ***. Can you find an example of him interviewing a liberal in the same style?
He acts like an ***. Does he behave that way in every interview?Neil is a conservative.
Huh not sure I agree with you. I’m also not sure if he acts that way in every interview. But based on the response by the panel at the end, it seems like he is highly respected.He acts like an ***. Does he behave that way in every interview?
Tulsi Gabbard stood out to me tonight. Tim Ryan on the other hand made a fool out of himself.
Don’t you find it concerning that 4chan and twitter trolls were pumping her up during the debates? Methinks the enemies of the DNC are really trying to pump her up so she can Jill Stein 2020.
To me, not only does she lack substance on domestic issues,
Don’t you find it concerning that 4chan and twitter trolls were pumping her up during the debates? Methinks the enemies of the DNC are really trying to pump her up so she can Jill Stein 2020.
To me, not only does she lack substance on domestic issues, but her foreign policy scares me. No way should we retract America’s influence in the world to China and Russia. Capitulation to the worst dictators in the world is a recipe for disaster.
I think the legacy of Vietnam and now the recent history of Iraq have clouded peoples’ judgment on how positive of an impact we have had on the world. If we retract, others who might not share our same values or interests, will grow. I’m not ok with that.
I’m not cool with Poland, Hungary, Turkey, and even Ukraine falling back under Russian influence. I’m not cool with what China is doing in Southeast Asia. I get we’re tired of endless war (like Iraq) but that shouldn’t mean we secede influence to the scum of the world. Democracy needs support!
Nah, Tulsi Gabbard, Yang or Sanders. The rest is good old boring, inefficient Washington. Nice try though![]()
Boring? Efficiency? What about gabbard is imaginative, creative, or the opposite or boring? What about gabbard’s record shows that she’ll improve the efficiency of Washington? What does that even mean?
How would you quantify “efficiency” in DC?
Man you’re stubborn. I’d love to engage in an intense debate with you but I have to work. Maybe later.
Yang has the charisma of a paper bag. He seemed like a complete automaton at the debate.Nah, Tulsi Gabbard, Yang or Sanders. The rest is good old boring, inefficient Washington. Nice try though![]()
I pretty much agree with this. I think it will be pretty interesting to see Kamala and Warren in a debate together, they're probably the best of the group at this sort of thing.Yang has the charisma of a paper bag. He seemed like a complete automaton at the debate.
Sanders was good, but didn't set anybody on fire.
Buttigieg came off well, but a little bit underwhelming.
Biden blew chunks. He needs to crawl back under his rock.
I don't like Kamala Harris as a candidate, I think she's not fully explained enough of some of the crap she did as a prosecutor. But she absolutely owned the debate.
Warren ruled night 1, that's for damn sure.
I could never in a million years vote for Donald Trump. So my question to Democrats is: Will there be a candidate I can vote for?
According to a recent Gallup poll, 35 percent of Americans call themselves conservative, 35 percent call themselves moderate and 26 percent call themselves liberal. The candidates at the debates this week fall mostly within the 26 percent. The party seems to think it can win without any of the 35 percent of us in the moderate camp, the ones who actually delivered the 2018 midterm win.
The progressive narrative is dominating in part because progressives these days have a direct and forceful story to tell and no interest in compromising it. It’s dominating because no moderate wants to bear the brunt of progressive fury by opposing it.
To be clear, I think a second Trump term would be a disaster. But while Democrats claim they are focused on beating him, the candidates so far seem intent on alienating socially moderate Trump skeptics, gun owners, fiscal hawks, suburban swing voters and folks who would like to keep their own health insurance. In other words, they don’t seem very focused on defeating Trump at all.
One thing that irks me are the number of Never Trumpers online who have mostly left their party but now seek to turn the Democrats into the GOP. I’m talking about David Brooks, Bret Stevens, Charlie Sykes, and Tom Nicols. I typically enjoy reading their different perspectives since it’s not the typical conservative nonsense found on Fox News and on these forums. But the past 48 hrs have been silly.
They’re attacking Democratic candidates. They’re attacking the primary. They’re claiming that proposals of health care and college education are too liberal (never mind that literally every other industrialized nation has a single payer system) and seem to be trying to dictate our party’s policies.
Man you’re stubborn. I’d love to engage in an intense debate with you but I have to work. Maybe later.