Democrats Debate in Houston

Update: Here is the transcript.

The third Democratic debate will take place tonight in Houston. CNN says this is what to watch for.

CNN pints out the three leading Democratic candidates are over 70 years old? So is Donald Trump.

If the choices are really down to Biden, Sanders and Warren, I'd recommend Elizabeth Warren. I think she does have a chance of beating Trump because he is so offensive to so many women. I think only wealthy Republican women and underinformed rural women will vote for Trump.

I'd be okay with an Elizabeth Warren-Julian Castro ticket. I might even get excited about it.

Who would you like to see with the nomination at this point? Here's a place for your thoughts on tonight's debate and the 2020 election.

< Dorian and Tuesday Open Thread | Monday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I like Warren-Castro (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CST on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 05:12:52 PM EST
    Or even Castro-Warren but I don't think that's likely at this point. I also like a lot of other candidates but unless one of them breaks out soon it looks like the top 3 is pretty much set.  Given that,  Warren is an easy choice for me.

    Could be Biden (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 05:37:11 PM EST

    Biden (none / 0) (#11)
    by FlJoe on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 05:59:56 PM EST
    will definitely pick a woman, IMO opinion not Warren,  I'm thinking Stacy or even Kamala.

    I am close to going all in for Warren, the whole "too far left" does have some merit but not a dis-qualifier for Warren, unlike Bernie I think she can sell her big ideas to the American people.


    Whoever we nominate (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 06:18:32 PM EST
    Will be the worst most dangerous evil unchristian communist existential threat to humanity since Hillary.

    Pretty much everyone is predicting the worst dirtiest lowest most repulsive and embarrassing political campaign in the history of earth.

    So it really becomes a question of who will deal with that mist effectively. Warren has been dealing with it pretty much forever.   I don't think Biden has that much experience in being on the bottom of the dogpile.


    Also important (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 06:28:23 PM EST
    Could be the "oppo potential" of the democrat.  Sure, they can call Warren names scream socialism but I worry more about what they might do to Biden.  A history as long as Biden's provides a target rich environment.  

    Supposedly (none / 0) (#15)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 06:33:23 PM EST
    there is good oppo on Warren though who knows if there is any truth in that. The fact that Biden is older than a mentally unstable Trump is not gonna be helpful outside of whatever oppo dump they have on him. The one who absolutely has deadly oppo is Bernie.

    And if they can pressure the Ukraine (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 06:35:57 PM EST
    To "investigate" Biden?  Sure it's nonsense.  



    Well, (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 06:40:08 PM EST
    I would not be surprised to see our nominee no matter who it is "under criminal investigation". Sure they can do the Ukraine with Biden but they will find something on any candidate. Maybe they will go after Warren for "falsifying information" on legal forms.

    I wish I had paid more attention to what was going on in the Ukraine when Hillary was SOS. The Ukraine through mostly no fault of their own has been a source of great misery for this country.


    My point (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 06:42:54 PM EST
    The worst they are going to do with Warren, as far as I know, is miss stating her race.  

    Weak tea.

    But I think you meant to say "some people say" there is good oppo on Warren though who knows if there is any truth in that.


    As far as (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 06:46:28 PM EST
    we know. They're not beyond having a criminal investigation. If Warren is the nominee I expect to hear chants of "lock her up" again at Trump rallies.

    Scott Brown (none / 0) (#22)
    by CST on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 06:54:25 PM EST
    Went there hard on the whole Native American thing, that's the only reason any of us have ever heard about it.   I doubt there's anything he wouldn't have touched and they clearly did oppo research.

    Well (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 07:04:43 PM EST
    that would have worked in MA anyway. Sometimes things resonate in other states that don't resonate in others.

    Really (none / 0) (#28)
    by FlJoe on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 07:11:57 PM EST
    Warren is such a political neophyte there is no chance of finding some hidden pay to play or some such is nil, she was a Republican for much of her life, a respected and in no way controversial professor, at least not until she got in Biden's face during the Bankruptcy bill hearings (don't be surprised to hear about that tonight).

    I agree her race against Brown was a high profile,
    very high dollar affair, I'm sure no one was scrimping on the oppo budget, it's hard to think anything consequential was missed.


    Lock her up (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 06:56:39 PM EST
    Lock him up

    Pretty safe bet.


    And speaking of 'Lock him up!', ... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 04:24:44 PM EST
    ... while Gen. Mike Flynn's crackpot attorney Sidney Powell spins fanciful yarns about the Deep State being out to frame her client, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan has scheduled Flynn's sentencing for December 1.

    What a difference three years has made in Flynn's life, eh? Not too long ago, he likely thought himself on top of the world. Now he's staring at a potential five years in the klink for believing that rules somehow don't apply to him.



    Stacey Abrams (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 08:45:23 PM EST
    always impresses me every time I hear her.  Very talented.

    Nobody (none / 0) (#86)
    by NoSides on Sat Sep 14, 2019 at 10:03:46 AM EST
    would be fooled by a Biden/Warren ticket. As in an effort to give the appearance of moderating the worst tendencies of Mr. Biden.

    It would be another of those ticket-balancers that ultimately mean nothing whatsoever.

    Whatever progressive ideas Warren might have...she'll wind up at supermarket openings and graduation ceremonies.

    In addition, although I don't like to bring it up, there really is no excuse for her "Native American" exercise - and it took her forever to own up to it. So, being a progressive, or a leftist - or a far-leftist - she is appealing to me, but it's not like she doesn't have significant baggage that the Trumpster would doubtlessly exploit big time.

    Nevertheless, Warren at the head of a ticket would be promising. And at the least, it would be interesting because at her best, she doesn't mince words and could give as good as she gets from Mr. T.


    Bernie (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 07:03:56 PM EST
    Is a croaking terrifying ghoul

    It can not be Bernie.

    Amazing (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 07:06:52 PM EST
    how different the story is on him for 2020 than it was in 2016 isn't it? Because it's the same Bernie.

    And that's different than (none / 0) (#32)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 08:04:45 PM EST
    the stuff you said about him in 2016, how exactly?

    Don't remember what I said (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 08:04:29 AM EST
    But he definitely looked more buggeyed than I remember.

    More importantly (none / 0) (#81)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 05:28:59 PM EST
    It's hard to dodge the "Socialist!" attack when you call yourself a socialist.  Drawing a distinction between Socialist and Democratic Socialist is going to be a very hard sell.

    Oopsie (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 09:46:03 PM EST
    Castro goes mean against Uncle Joe.

    But according to Jonathan Karl on ABC, Castro mischaracterized what Joe said (he did not contradict himself or "forget," as Castro put it, what he said two minutes earlier.)

    Castro also did this against Beto but did not gain from it.  But he was arguably right on the merits of that exchange.  But wrong here???  And saying Biden was forgetful and implying he was too old???  Not good.

    Let's see how Biden handles this:  He takes the high road, and his people skewer Castro?

    As a lawyer, Castro should (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 09:49:25 PM EST
    know if you go hard against someone on Cross, better have your ducks in a row, because the jury won't like it even if you are right, and will not forgive you if you are wrong.

    One of the hardest (none / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 10:35:49 PM EST
    lessons I learned during trial was going after the adverse party too hard during Cross.  

    I lost the case (there were other problems), and afterwards the jurors said that the adverse party had a lot of credibility problems and was basically lying.  So, mission accomplished, right?  Nope.  They ruled in her favor anyway.....

    My client is still scratching his head years later.  The jury said I proved she was a liar, and it did not matter.


    Future (none / 0) (#45)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 04:37:41 AM EST
    Trump voters on the jury?

    You saw the OJ trial, right? (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 11:21:57 AM EST
    "That DNA stuff is just the prosecution trying to trick us."

    In fact, defense attorney Barry Scheck (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 05:03:48 PM EST
    did a brilliant job at the O.J. trial of showing why the prosecutors' forensic evidence, including its DNA testing, left reasonable doubt about the results. Barry then took his O.J. fee and used it, in part, to establish the Innocence Project, which has deployed DNA testing and other means to win exoneration for hundreds of the wrongly convicted, including many on death row. He and his partners have then used that record of exonerations to undermine public support for the death penalty.

    Seems ironic that (none / 0) (#83)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 05:43:24 PM EST
    in the OJ trial Barry won by convincing the jurors that DNA was, essentially, hokum, according to at least on of the jurors. But afterwards, via the Innocence Project, he won by establishing DNA as, essentially, iron-clad.

    Not that I am complaining about the latter.


    You are describing (none / 0) (#84)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 06:25:00 PM EST
    One of the great lawyers of our times.

    Absolutely, Barry is one (none / 0) (#148)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 05, 2019 at 04:23:33 PM EST
    of the great lawyers of our time. And in the OJ case, his four day cross examination of criminologist Dennis Fung was one of the highlights of the trial.

    Here is my favorite part of his cross. It's from April 11, 1995. Dennis Fung is denying he touched the envelope with Ron Goldman's prescription glasses. Barry shows him a video in real time, slow motion and then a still from the video and Fong still denies he touched it.

    Barry then plays it again, with Judge Ito chiming in telling the tape handler to go backwards a bit. When they hit the spot that clearly shows Fung picking up the envelope, Barry shouts "How about THAT Mr. Fung?  The whole segment is about 12 minutes long, from 41:22 to 53:40. The link should start the video at 41:22 but you can watch more of it if you want.

    After "If the glove fits, you must acquit", I "How about THAT Mr. Fung" is about the most memorable line of the trial.

    Yes, the Innocence Project was founded in 1992, before OJ. Here is a clip with Barry talking about it.


    I Watched the Segment of the Video (none / 0) (#149)
    by RickyJim on Sat Oct 05, 2019 at 10:31:27 PM EST
    that you linked, Jeralyn, and it did not have proof that the item that Fung touched was the envelope.  Fung thought it might be a notebook.  But so what?  If Scheck really thought the "real killers" and or Fung's fingerprints were on the envelope, he could have demanded, as Fung mentioned, that it be printed.  Do the judges you are familiar with always allow such extended nitpicking about matters having little apparent bearing on the main issues of a case?  A good analysis of Scheck's performance is in the book O.J. Unmasked by M.L. Rantala

    Innocence Project Was Established in 1992, (none / 0) (#101)
    by RickyJim on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 09:15:35 AM EST
    three years before the OJ trial.  And that is not the only inaccuracy in your post.

    What else in inaccurate? (none / 0) (#109)
    by McBain on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 04:22:20 PM EST
    I took Peter's comment to mean Barry Scheck is an excellent lawyer, especially his work with the Innocence Project.  

    If O.J.'s successful criminal defense somehow brought more money and attention to the Innocence Project, and therefore helped overturn wrongful convictions, it was well worth it.  


    You are correct to note that my use of (none / 0) (#111)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 11:09:47 PM EST
    "establish" to imply "found" or "create" was mistaken; but a good part of his O.J. money, I believe, went into building up the Project and ensuring its resilience (that it be "well established," that is). The rest of what I wrote, I believe, is all correct.

    The 2016 Presidential Election and the OJ Case (1.00 / 2) (#112)
    by RickyJim on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 09:09:28 AM EST
    In both instances, a weak case was sold to an unsophisticated jury through hokum, aided by an incompetent adversary. I suppose that means Trump is also "great" at what he does.

    "incompetent adversary" - heh (none / 0) (#150)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 06, 2019 at 07:07:21 AM EST
    Reminds me of my uncle who screams at the NFL games every week and actually believes he knows more than all the coaches/players.  We just laugh quietly .

    It is Not Just Me Screaming (none / 0) (#151)
    by RickyJim on Sun Oct 06, 2019 at 10:53:16 AM EST
    The deficiencies of the OJ criminal prosecution in presenting their case and countering the defense's has been well documented.  Bugliosi's "Outrage" is one example.  I haven't read a book dissecting Clinton's mistakes in the 2016 campaign but maybe somebody can recommend one.  The issue has been discussed in many articles and blog posts.

    No doubt (none / 0) (#152)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 06, 2019 at 12:38:14 PM EST
    There are also books documenting Pizzagate, Seth Rich and the birthers, too.  Lots of spectators/rubes agree with them, too, not because they're knowledgeable or objective, but because it's what they want to believe.

    Ugh! Don't remind me. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 04:29:47 PM EST
    The prosecution and LAPD went up for a slam dunk and then, to quote the late, great L.A. Lakers announcer Chick Hearn, "The mustard fell off the hot dog!"

    I thought that was pretty bad (none / 0) (#50)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 08:05:53 AM EST
    It seemed desperate and kind of mean.

    I applauded Beto (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 10:55:35 AM EST
    for using his stage time to be the canary in in the coal mine on mandatory buy backs.

    Because here's the truth.  Unless we do that people are going to keep dying just as they have.

    It's IMO the only gun control issue that will make any real difference.

    "My AR is ready for you Robert Francis."
    - State Rep. Briscoe Cain (R-Deer Park)

    ... from a Texas GOP (natch!) state legislator. Twitter's suspended his account for threatening violence, but rather than apologize, he's doubling down on stupid by seeking to fundraise off the incident.

    The road to Hell is paved with Republicans.


    Prima facie, that tweet (none / 0) (#79)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 05:05:38 PM EST
    could be a serious criminal offense.

    Beto's Campaign (none / 0) (#102)
    by smott on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 09:31:56 AM EST
    Has notified the FBI

    No candidate but Biden (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by smott on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 09:37:20 AM EST
    Could survive that meandering, obliviously racist lost-my-train-of-thought SQUIRREL MADURO answer, without the white bread equally cluelessly racist media protecting him.

    Yes he's a Media Darling and if the WaPo can assure us that Joe had a good debate then it's obvious he can't have a bad one.

    Looking far more likely that he rides media protection to the nom.

    Iowa is everything.  

    If he continues like this, (none / 0) (#108)
    by NoSides on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 01:37:52 PM EST
    he is assured of the nomination:

    In answer to a question on racial inequality, Mr. Biden replied:

    "The teachers are -- I'm married to a teacher, my deceased wife is a teacher. They have every problem coming to them. Make sure that every single child does, does in fact, have 3-, 4- and 5-year-olds go to school. Not day care, school. We bring social workers into some and parents to help them deal with how to raise their children. It's not that they don't want to help, they don't know what -- they don't know quite what to do. Play the ­radio, make sure the television -- excuse me, make sure you have the record player -- on at night, make sure that kids hear words, a kid coming from a very poor school -- a very poor background will hear 4 million words fewer spoken by the time we get there."

    By the time we get there, mind you. Not before.


    Did you seriously just call ... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 05:02:49 PM EST
    ... Biden a racist - not to mention the entirety of the "media", who is (of course) "protecting him">

    Dear gawwwwd ...


    The entirety of the media? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by smott on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 01:53:03 PM EST
    For heavens sake. Go read some of the (few) POC pundits.
    Jamil Smith at Rolling Stone has a good article.
    Anand Giridharadas at Time is very good too.

    And YES Biden is racist in an institutionalized, soft, clueless way, the way many whites folks are. As is Dan Balz and Phil Bump of the WaPo who barely noticed the problems with his answer.
    Very reductive in how he refers to POC. See the "Corn Pop" story.
    Biden doesn't mean it. His racism is gentle, as Anand describes:
    "This is the gentle racism of where are you from oh you speak such good English can I touch your hair oh I could never pronounce that can I have that in a medium oh you don't work here sorry why didn't your parents give you a more professional name do you have a dad, etc., etc."


    Did I stutter? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2019 at 05:42:00 PM EST
    Yes - "the entirety of the media", since your accusation was leveled at the media as a whole without naming anyone in particular (i.e. the white bread equally cluelessly racist media protecting him).

    I read/watch many POC pundits, but I don't need them to tell me who is r@cist.  You only provide one quote from Giridharadas, but even IF Smith agrees, that's two pundits who share an opinion with you.  They (and you) should talk to the millions of actual POC who support Biden and don't need pundits to tell them who is "racist".  Maybe someone can whitesplain it to them.


    You clearly (none / 0) (#113)
    by NoSides on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 11:20:52 AM EST
    don't know of, or are interested in, the dire consequences upon Black people of Biden's 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, signed by Clinton.

    "Many of us who grew up in the black community in the '90s," said Patrisse Cullors, a political organizer and co-founder of the Black Lives Matter movement, "we witnessed the wave in which the policies that came from both federal government but also local government tore our families apart."

    "I think that any person coming to office who was really a part of that is going to have to deal with a large amount of criticism from those who were affected by this policy," she said.

    Just as important, Ms. Cullors said, is for candidates to offer concrete proposals to roll back policies that have contributed to racial disparities in the criminal justice system and replace them with new ones "that are about valuing black life."

    So you can see how, even if you grant that Biden is not a racist, his crime bill was.


    You clearly (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2019 at 05:30:06 PM EST
    ... know absolutely nothing about me, among a wide variety of other subjects.  Not to mention the fact that your conclusion is entirely different than the claim in question.

    BTW - The candidate you voted for also supported the 1994 crime bill, as well as the Congressional Black Caucus.


    linea? (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 17, 2019 at 06:57:24 PM EST
    The thought has crossed ... (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Yman on Tue Sep 17, 2019 at 06:59:28 PM EST
    ... my mind previously.

    FYI (none / 0) (#115)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 11:54:03 AM EST
    many Black politicians and community leaders supported the crime bill (albeit with reservations).

    Elizabeth Warren (none / 0) (#1)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 03:02:47 PM EST
    could be the nominee.

    But she would scare me that she could not win.  She seems  much like Hillary in many ways, which I think is a good thing.  But....

    If Biden does get it, it seems pretty clear that Stacey Abrams would be the VP.

    Warren/Castro would be good.

    I could see a Warren/Klobuchar too; or Warren/ Booker.....Most likely imo she would need a more "moderate" person to run with her...

    But if Biden totally implodes, the moderate vote could coalesce around Harris or Booker....They could absorb the African American vote that Biden now has.  And while Warren and Bernie fight over progressives......a moderate could get through.

    I feel (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 03:10:31 PM EST
    like the trio of Warren, Bernie and Biden are all holding each other up or back. Warren and Bernie are vying for the same voters and moderates are lining up behind Biden mostly for fear of Bernie getting the nomination.

    Warren is like Hillary in some ways and in some ways not. She definitely is like Hillary in that she believes in plans. Maybe that is a female thing where we always have plans for things. She's definitely not like Hillary in the "toughness" department from what I have seen. Warren doesn't have the whole badass thing going on like Hillary did.

    Biden would be a terrible president and likely only one term. I hope I don't have to vote for him.


    Not could be. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 05:57:35 PM EST
    Will be.

    We absolutely (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 06:30:00 PM EST
    should take the advice or beliefs of a Trumper seriously??? NOT NEVER EVER DUDE. I don't know why you bother posting here other than it's just another place to slime with your talking points from the Kremlin.

    To me it's just a horse race (none / 0) (#31)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 08:01:13 PM EST
    My money is on Lizzy. She has the crowds, the excitement, and the momentum.

    Makes you happy? (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 10:57:59 PM EST
    What would you do if Warren gets the nomination and beats Trump by 70,000 votes?  The polls show her beating Trump by a little.  And with a slowing economy....

    And Voila! your guy gets beat and gets beat by a girl.....


    Live with it. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 06:07:03 AM EST
    Trump polled behind Hillary, so the polls may not be predictive these days.  Her two big problems in the general are gaming affirmative action hiring to get ahead and the promise to ban fracking everywhere on the first day in office. Last I saw, 3.8 million jobs go out the window with the termination of fracking. Good luck winning Pennsylvania.  

    The utility in New York is turning down new customers for gas.  Pennsylvania is close enough to notice.

    BTW, I'm into competition shooting and get beat by girls and women fairly often.


    I love this (none / 0) (#47)
    by CST on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 07:07:51 AM EST
    Two big problems.

    How many does Trump have again?

    I wonder how many jobs were lost when he single handedly killed soybean trade.


    Did (none / 0) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 07:34:45 AM EST
    it hurt pulling such a ridiculous number out of your ass?  
    3.8 million jobs go out the window with the termination of fracking.
    The entire mining industry only employs 600k nationwide. Link

    This study says 14.8 million.

    The number of jobs is not just jobs on the rigs, but upstream manufacturing (you can't drill without pipe), training and other services, as well as local services and housing.  Then there is downstream employment. There would be no export LNG terminals built and operated without low cost and plentiful natural gas.

    Further, low cost residential natural gas means more money in the average consumer's pockets fueling the economy.

    Look at what fracking has done for the North Dakota economy.


    Look at what fracking (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by leap on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 08:18:51 AM EST
    It is so bad (none / 0) (#95)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 07:02:13 AM EST
    That NoDak has the second highest population growth rate in the country.



    So what? (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 02:20:31 PM EST
    Abdul: "It is so bad [t]hat NoDak has the second highest population growth rate in the country."

    150 years ago, the largest city in Nevada was Virginia City, which was almost due to the now-legendary Comstock silver lode. Further, Nevada back then had the highest population growth rate in the country and was considered the richest per capita.

    That growth convinced the federal government in 1863 to split Nevada off from Utah Territory as its own state. Well, that and President Abraham Lincoln's desire to create a pro-GOP state with its much-needed electoral votes just in time for his 1864 re-election campaign, but that's another story.

    However, once those silver mines began to play out in the latter half of the 19th century, the population of Virginia City and Nevada declined accordingly - and precipitously. Today, only 811 hardy souls live in Virginia City. And whereas Nevada's population in 1870 was centered around the eastern Lake Tahoe region (where Virginia City is located), today 75% of state's residents are found about 350 miles to the southeast in the state's new boomtown of Las Vegas.

    The history of the United States is rife with similar examples of boom-and-bust towns, like Bodie CA (gold), Tombstone AZ (silver) and Dahlonega GA (site of America's first gold rush in 1829). That's because local economies that are dependent upon extraction industries rather than productive ones tend to be unsustainable over the long term, because the resource that's being exploited is eventually exhausted.

    Once the oil fracking boom plays out in North Dakota as it inevitably will, especially since the country is continuing to reduce its reliance upon fossil fuels, many of those new transplants will eventually be compelled to move elsewhere to seek employment.

    What North Dakota ought to do is avail itself of this present opportunity to reinvest its oil-derived tax revenues in further efforts to diversify its economy. But as of right now, it's not to the extent that's necessary to be of long-term benefit, because most of the Republicans who currently run the state are too busy living for today to think about what happens tomorrow when the party's over.



    Living for today.. (none / 0) (#124)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 02:33:24 PM EST
    And these are the folks whose traditional values, they claim, are opposed to instant gratification - which would imply that they pefer to take the long, comprehensive view..

    I guess when it's a choice between profits and prophets, one has to be discarded by the wayside..


    Well, I would not write off the demand (none / 0) (#126)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 02:57:39 PM EST
    for fossil fuels so blithely.

    Don't put words in my mouth. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Sep 17, 2019 at 03:16:40 PM EST
    Nobody here is "writing off the demand for fossil fuels." But the current trend-line clearly shows that there's been a gradual decline in demand for oil products in this country, and that decline can only accelerate as cheaper and cleaner alternative energy sources become available. The automobile industry is already starting to move away from its reliance on the internal combustion engine. Responsible governance requires public officials to anticipate and embrace such changes in the marketplace and plan accordingly.

    Trump and the Bushes aren't going to be around forever, you know. No doubt, there will be others like him who will similarly attempt to retard the scene on clean energy development, but prevailing circumstances such as population growth, the necessity for environmental protection and mitigation efforts for climate change will eventually doom such attempts to failure.

    American exceptionalism is a Reagan-era myth. We are only 4% of the world's population, and we are hardly omnipotent in our existence. Our relationship with the rest of the planet and its peoples is one of mutual co-dependence.

    Socio-economic retrogrades like Trump are pi$$ing into a 50 mile-per-hour headwin-- excuse me, I mean an 81 kilometer-per-hour headwind, because circumstances will likewise eventually dictate that we join the rest of the world and convert to the metric system, as well.



    Once the oil fracking boom plays out in North Dakota as it inevitably will, especially since the country is continuing to reduce its reliance upon fossil fuels

    It's so bad (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 01:33:59 PM EST
    economic realities that is..

    When people are willing to go anywhere lured by the prospect of a little financial security.

    No offense, North Dakota.

    Isn't there quite a bit written in the conservative's vaunted Holy Scripture about "despoilers of the earth"? Or is that another one of those sections they conveniently skip over, like a lot of other parts?


    North Dakota.. (none / 0) (#121)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 02:12:47 PM EST
    where the wind comes sweepin down the plain..

    No wait, that's Oklahoma.

    North Dakota's so uncongenial, even Fargo didn't actually take place in Fargo.


    Or, selling their soul (none / 0) (#142)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 17, 2019 at 06:59:23 PM EST
    for a mess of potage.  I like that one.

    Not sure if I've shared this before (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 08:33:16 AM EST
    If I have it happens

    As a kid I was told, as all my siblings were, that there was significant Native American blood in our family.  Both sides. Mother and father.  At least a quarter.  We were told.

    This is what we were told.  I in turn told many people in my life the same.  I never personally did this, maybe I did a couple of times,  but my sister pretty much from the time she entered the workforce lister herself as Native American.

    I can't say why Warren did what she did but I can tell you my sister could have cared less about gaming the affirmative action system.  She did it because she liked the idea.  Trust me, affirmative action wasn't even a thing.

    Not long ago my brother had his DNA done.  And he was very confused.  He even had it done again by another service.

    There is no Native American blood in my family.

    I have no doubt this is a pretty common thing.  And can be explained as such.  And I repeat if that's all they got it's clear sailin  


    Kinda OT, but related. (none / 0) (#66)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 11:16:49 AM EST
    My buddy is from Nicaragua. Married a local blonde woman.

    About 10 years ago their son came home from school and his mom saw that he was upset. He told her that he was really, really scared for dad.

    "Why are you scared for dad?!"

    "Because we were talking about black history in school today and dad's black."

    "Dad is NOT black, son!"

    Awesome story that family and friends have been laughing about ever since.

    A few months ago my buddy's sister had her DNA done. >10% black.


    PS (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 11:32:37 AM EST
    My fundie brother who is and has always been a whiney little b!tch was traumatized BECAUSE THEY LIED TO US!!

    After some stroking we get to "they were not lying, this is what they were told"

    Which has brought on a whole other thing.  Why.  Why were they told this.  Why do our ancestors seem to think it was good to tell their children and grandchildren a lie.
    Or better, they were not lying. Why would people SAY they are Native American.

    We have been emailing the family historian about all this.

    It's an interesting thing.


    Kind of the opposite thing (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by CST on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 11:41:17 AM EST
    But at my grandfather's funeral his nephews found out they were Jews. They reacted in surprise that their "German" grandparents were Jewish. No one had the heart to let them know that they were Hungarian.

    When I was a kid (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 01:37:54 PM EST
    everyone said they were one quarter Cherokee.   It was just cool to be Cherokee for some reason.

    Interesting to see conservatives salivate over attacking Warren on this.  Pretty childish....Few will care beyond the MAGA people....

    I think, however, Uncle Joe may well win the Nomination....


    Paul Revere and the Raiders (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 02:07:44 PM EST
    Indian Nation

    Made my 9 year old self want to be part native american.


    An (none / 0) (#56)
    by FlJoe on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 08:56:02 AM EST
    even bigger turd.

    Do you have any idea (none / 0) (#58)
    by CST on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 09:14:30 AM EST
    How many jobs will be needed to replace the fossil fuel economy?

    It's not like people don't also work in the solar/wind industry and those jobs will grow astronomically.


    But but (none / 0) (#59)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 09:15:53 AM EST
    Cancer and dead birds

    Trump polled 3.2% (none / 0) (#82)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 05:32:04 PM EST
    ... behind Hillary.  he beat him by 2.1%.

    The polls were accurate.


    I have my favorites. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 03:27:03 PM EST
    But I'm keeping that to myself because to be perfectly blunt, I'm going to vote blue in 2020, no matter who. Given what's currently in the White House, we simply do not have the luxury this year of being adamantly ideological to the point where we hold our own party hostage. And if we'd like to exercise that particular choice in the future, then let's please forgo it this year and remember that perfect is the enemy of good.

    And so, I'll happily support my candidate come our state caucuses next year, and I've already stated my reservations about our party's current frontrunner Joe Biden. But I refuse to denigrate any of our Democratic candidates publicly in the way that some had trashed Hillary Clinton in the past. Our candidate needs to be electable come the fall of 2020, not damaged goods by our own hand -- and despite his perceived shortcomings, Biden's practically the Second Coming when compared to Trump.

    So, let's please strive to make the focus of our efforts in this particular election more about our nation's long-term well being, and less about our individual short-term political desires.


    Biden (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 03:40:24 PM EST
    Better have an Adderall or two in his pocket.  Three hours and if he nods off he's done for.

    I agree Warren could be it.  And I am becoming less fearful about that.  Tonight could be really important.

    I keep waiting (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 04:37:37 PM EST
    for a Klobuchar or Booker or Castro breakout. However I think that might be wishful thinking on my part. I'm not enamored of the front runners right now.

    This debate is (none / 0) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 04:29:54 PM EST
    an opportunity for the contenders to show how they would campaign against Trump. The universe of Trump's horrors are infinite, so it would be revelatory to learn what strategies and tactics they would deploy.  It appears that the number one issue for Democrats is the defeat of Trump; accordingly, that should be the priority.

    The debate formats and the moderator's questions are unlikely to permit the effective detailing of plans and proposals.  Indeed, a broad-brush approach is more conducive to these debates than getting into the weeds of it all.

     It may be more, how they say it, than what they say, especially, when (a)the goals of these candidates are similar and the real issue is how to best achieve them, and (b)none of the plans will become reality without compromise and adjustments.  So why fall on your sword, or plunge a sword in a Democratic colleague, over each and every detail, at this point?

    This is not to say, that plans should not be presented, just that this is a television show with the power and limitations that brings. The folly of climate denial, the frolic of de-regulation, and the concerns for the Supreme Court are apt and ample areas for interchange and will give a sense of the candidate's leadership capabilities.

    I will be on an airplane during the debates, so I look forward to TL perspectives and analysis.

    Yes, I would (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 04:39:17 PM EST
    like for each of them to show us how they would run against Trump.

    I do expect some elbows (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 06:34:14 PM EST
    At least.  Biden has warned he going after Warren.  Go for it.  And the also rans have to fish or cut bait.  The money is going to run out before the debates do.

    With Russia (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 06:43:04 PM EST
    and Putin being such an issue from at least 2016 until now I cannot believe no one has asked either Biden or Bernie any questions regarding Russian interference or the fact that Russian intelligence was aiding Bernie in 2016.

    Our country revolves (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 07:00:48 PM EST
    Around the almighty dollar.  

    First words from the guy who's offering to buy votes.


    Good joke follow from Pete.

    "It's original I'll give you that"

    Clearly (none / 0) (#29)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 07:20:32 PM EST
    They learned the lesson of not criticizing the most popular democrat on earth.

    Yep (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 07:31:16 PM EST
    and it is a lovely sight to see :).

    If Joe Biden is the nominee, (none / 0) (#33)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 08:27:18 PM EST
    we're all in trouble. The GOP slime machine will chew him up and put him away wet. Aw shucks ain't gonna cut it against Orange jesus.

    Joe Biden will be fine if he's our nominee. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 05:02:02 PM EST
    People seem to forget that Biden basically saved Obama's ass in 2012 in the wake of that lackluster and disinterested performance against Mitt Romney in the first presidential debate. In the ensuing VP debate, Biden played the happy warrior, chewed up GOP wunderkind Paul Ryan onstage and then afterward, picked his teeth with the bones and asked what the GOP had for dessert.

    People are genuinely weary of Trump's shtick. It worked once in 2016 -- and even then, he only won by drawing the equivalent of an inside strait with the Electoral College, thanks to then-FBI Director James Comey and the "But her emails!" coverage by the east coast media. That's not going to happen again.

    Republicans are right to be worried if Biden's the nominee. They could very well get skunked badly.

    My own worry, which I've mentioned here earlier, is that Biden is a creature of the Beltway and if we want genuine reform, he's likely not the guy to deliver it for us. But that aside, our immediate priority right now is to rid Washington of the Trumps.



    Sorry. But I think you've made a mistake. (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Sep 23, 2019 at 09:41:18 AM EST
    I understand that you are Democratic operative and don't want to denigrate any potential presidential nominees, but I believe I've been proven right already.

    Biden's entire reaction to this whistleblower thing and the claims made against his son are troubling. He has looked like a deer in the headlights.

    I think the substance of orange jesus' claims are pure BS. But that doesn't stop the lies. And Joe Biden just doesn't know how to react. The sliming has begun and Biden is unprepared. This is just the start. This is an easy one.


    The really maddening part (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 23, 2019 at 09:51:46 AM EST
    Is it's such an easy one.  It's a lay up.  It's a gimme.  This is so easy.  Even FOX is laughing at Rudy on air.

    If he can't run with the craven injustice of smearing his family for this he is done.  IMO

    And he should be.


    Wish I had your confidence Donald (none / 0) (#119)
    by smott on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 01:59:52 PM EST
    I really think Joe is past it and is showing his age in more than just the silly-gaffe way (which torpedoed both his previous runs).
    I don't know. I really fear he'll be the nominee but have serious issues in the general /debates.

    I'm not confident he generates the enthusiasm Dems need to turn 2020 into a wave. Younger voters don't like him, and those are the voters who have to be motivated to vote.

    I think there will be a significant enthusiasm gap w Biden.
    He may well win the  WH, but he'll never gen the wave needed to flip the Senate.
    Which leaves us with Moscow Mitch in charge, a recession likely, and potentially Trump v2.0 in 24 (the competence upgrade).
    Biden terrifies me.


    I'm an older voter. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 02:31:55 PM EST
    and I don't like him.

    Yes, I agree that Joe Biden is old. But that said, while I'm still not sure that he will eventually be the Democratic nominee, nevertheless I will support him unequivocally if he is. That's because what we have in the White House right now is wholly unacceptable, and further represents a mortal threat to the long-term well being of our country.

    Your speculation that Biden will have no coattails is exactly that and further, it's based almost entire upon your own negative framing. And frankly, I'm getting really tired of listening to pessimistic Democrats repeatedly talk themselves into a funk. I know old habits die hard but please, let's finally realize that all too often, we've been our own primary obstacle to electoral success. As I've said time and again, perfect is the enemy of good. So, let's make a real effort this time to stop doing that to ourselves.

    Right now, we have a lot of advantages that we did not enjoy in 2016. We are facing off against an unpopular president and an equally unpopular opposition party who are running on the rancid fumes of their own sewer gas. We have a lot of highly motivated candidates who are declaring for public office at all levels of government, because they know we need better than what we're getting at present. And we have our own increasingly angry and motivated political base, whose members are more than ready to embody the sort of change that we both want and need to see.

    Therefore, I would respectfully suggest that you instead focus your own thoughts and efforts upon our very real potential to make something wonderful happen across the board, rather than lament your own conjecture about an upcoming election that's yet to occur. Think good thoughts, and then work hard in your own community over the next 14 months to make it happen. And if there's a local office for which there is no declared Democratic candidate, such as city council or school board, consider picking up the standard yourself and running with it.



    Based on my own framing? (none / 0) (#144)
    by smott on Wed Sep 18, 2019 at 07:17:16 AM EST
    My concern about Biden and younger voter demo is based on polls, Donald. He's like single digits with younger voters and Millenials , a demo where Sanders was 25% or thereabouts.

    That's an enthusiasm gap.

    And yes I'll vote Biden with gusto should he win the nom.  


    The polls you refer to are (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Sep 19, 2019 at 08:58:46 AM EST
    Primary polls.  

    I like Donald believe Trump offers the only motivation needed in the next election.

    I'm not wild about Biden.  But when the rubber hits the road next fall there will be very few NoSides/linea voters.

    IMO almost certainly a vanishingly important number.  

    We have a whole year of Trumpsanity till then.  


    More worrisome than his age now (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Towanda on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 05:05:55 PM EST
    is his age in ten years.

    We need a candidate who can serve two terms -- because as close as are our elections of late, we need the reelection benefit in 2024.

    And that second term ends  in 2029, ten years from now.

    Biden will be 86 then. Seriously, an 86-year-old president? No.

    Even an 82-year-old president in 2025, if he serves only one term? No.

    (Please note that I am old. I know of what I speak.)


    I don't know... (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by desertswine on Tue Sep 17, 2019 at 02:04:56 AM EST
    Anybody who can handle the notorious Corn Pop...

    Seriously, that Corn Pop story.


    I'm a few minutes behind (none / 0) (#34)
    by CST on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 08:32:26 PM EST
    So far I'm liking Booker.  But he's always been one of the strongest debaters, IMO.  

    The winner tonight is ABC which makes CNN seem even more ridiculous.

    Warren (none / 0) (#35)
    by CST on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 08:40:33 PM EST
    I liked her answer on immigration but don't think it's good politics.

    Didn't like her answer on trade, do think it's good politics.



    I was big fan (none / 0) (#36)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 08:41:25 PM EST
    of Cory Booker long before he ever announced for President. Since he's been in this race, he just hasn't been that strong or bold. He just isn't making the case why he should be POTUS.

    That said, I'll take him over Bernie or Biden in a heartbeat. Speaking as an old white guy, I'm weary of old white guys being in power and running everything.


    Booker is great (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 08:46:40 PM EST
    Josh is asking why he isn't doing better.

    I like his translation of his answer into Spanish:  "No."


    Anybody able to understand (none / 0) (#39)
    by Peter G on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 09:19:21 PM EST
    What the protesters were yelling at Biden?

    It gave me (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Thu Sep 12, 2019 at 09:31:57 PM EST
    a flashback of the Berners trying to shout Hillary down during her acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention.

    Turns out, it was (none / 0) (#55)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 08:56:00 AM EST
    DACA. Poorly planned and poorly executed protest, I'm sorry to say, although for a good cause.

    Record player (none / 0) (#54)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 08:45:42 AM EST
    Biden is being snickered at for this.  But wait, records are definitely coming back (1) and two, have you ever noticed that if there is EVER a shot of starting music in a movie, movies being released right now, it always a record player.  

    Yes the racial component of this (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 09:58:23 AM EST
    Was beyond cringeworthy.

    Jus sayin record players.


    In a way (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by CST on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 10:35:15 AM EST
    The record player thing is unfortunate because it's a distraction from just how offensive that response was in the moments that it was coherent.

    The comment by Booker about "They way some people on this stage talk about communities of color" was spot on.


    It was a looney comment (none / 0) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 10:51:13 AM EST
    Unfortunate, maybe.   Fortunate maybe if he hangs on.  We are thru the looking glass

    He definitely gets (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by CST on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 10:58:17 AM EST
    Media darling status.  But to be fair, so does Warren, and that one I wasn't expecting.

    Stephanie Ruhle (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 11:58:35 AM EST
    Is all over the record player

    I also thought Booker was better (none / 0) (#57)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 09:09:56 AM EST
    But IMO he needs to bring the teeth bearing intensity down from 11 to about 9.5

    Off topic. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Chuck0 on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 10:28:13 AM EST
    One less Ticket to Paradise. Rip Eddie Money.

    About 300 miles off topic (none / 0) (#73)
    by fishcamp on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 03:39:35 PM EST
    Tropical depression number nine passed my latitude last night on its way to the Bahamas and then up the mainland coast much like Dorian, but way smaller.  We are getting bits of rain and wind here.  Then there are two more out there, one mid Atlantic and another just leaving the Cabo Verde islands.  They are not fully organized.  We also have a large tropical depression out in the Gulf, but it's now north of us.  So it's fear and hope for another month or so.

    Well, then ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 13, 2019 at 05:14:25 PM EST
    ... somebody better warn the people of Alabama.


    Out here in the Pacific, we're watching Tropical Storm Kiko, which is presently at 16 degrees north and 115 degrees west and is expected to become a hurricane tomorrow.

    It's that time of year, and will be until November 30. And even then, we had a hurricane pass just south of us last December. The old norms no longer apply.

    Ciao 4 now.


    I'd vote (none / 0) (#85)
    by NoSides on Sat Sep 14, 2019 at 09:47:53 AM EST
    for Warren/Castro.

    No way could I vote for Biden.
    No how.

    And THAT ... (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 14, 2019 at 11:59:49 AM EST
    ... is precisely how we end up with an incompetetent, r@cist, $exist, megalomaniac, white nationalist, kleptomaniac in the White House.



    So, I take it (none / 0) (#92)
    by NoSides on Sat Sep 14, 2019 at 09:41:28 PM EST
    you would vote for Biden - as a means of dethroning Trump.

    My opinion, which I gather you hold in low regard, is that Biden would lose big time to Trump.

    The idea that Biden would dispatch Trump handily - because he is experienced and presidential - is reminiscent of what was thought to be the expected shoo-in for Hillary in 2016. I thought then, and I think now, that Sanders would have demolished Trump. But that possibility was taken off the table.

    There's nothing I can do about it if the Democrats want to put Biden forth as its nominee. I would find it sad that the Party would have to resort to Biden. Another lost opportunity.


    Of course I would (none / 0) (#96)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 07:18:12 AM EST
    What sane, rational person wouldn't?

    The idea that Biden would dispatch Trump handily - because he is experienced and presidential - is reminiscent of what was thought to be the expected shoo-in for Hillary in 2016.

    Who here is claiming "Biden would dispatch Trump handily"?  Strawman arguments are fun, aren't they?  These comparisons to 2016 always crack me up.  In 2016, Republicans were energized after 2 terms under Obama.  Democrats were (relatively) complacent.  In 2020, those roles are reversed.  It's never easy taking on an incumbent, but Democrats are highly energized after experiencing 3 years of Trump.  You're comparing apples to oranges.

    I thought then, and I think now, that Sanders would have demolished Trump. But that possibility was taken off the table.

    That's cute.  My niece thinks the tooth fairy is real.  BTW - Your candidate has to win more votes in the primaries before they can run in an actual general election, not an imaginary one.  We'll see if he can do it this time - or if some of his supporters decide to help Trump by pushing their laughable conspiracy theories ("It was RIGGED!").

    As far as your baseless personal opinions, you're wrong.  They would need to rise several levels before I would hold them in low regard.


    What (none / 0) (#100)
    by NoSides on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 09:01:24 AM EST
    sane and rational person wouldn't vote for Biden?

    Maybe, for starters, some of the thousands impacted by his draconian "Crime Bill" which became law in 1994.  

    Also, as I mentioned, no less a personage than Jeralyn Merritt wrote that Biden was the one Democrat for whom she could not vote.

    I think Ms. Merritt is very sane, very literate and very rational. Don't you?

    Perhaps, she has changed her opinion in the current climate of "anyone but Trump". I don't know. But she did say that about Biden.

    As for, "Who here is claiming "Biden would dispatch Trump handily?" I saw Donald from Hawaii write that with a great deal of certainty and conviction.

    I do think we could have a dialogue without your gratuitous insults. But that's up to you.


    Not sure how she feels (none / 0) (#104)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 01:10:18 PM EST
    ... presently, but I stand by my opinion that a rational person would vote for ANY of the Democratic candidates over Trump.

    BTW - To be clearer, my point was that it's not an argument that I'm making.  If Donald is making that argument, you should address it with him, rather than making a strawman argument with me.

    As far as "dialogues", I'm not particularly interested.  Bitter Berners just aren't rational.


    Ok (none / 0) (#106)
    by NoSides on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 01:15:47 PM EST

    If you use phrases like "Bitter Berners", there is just no point in discussing anything with you.
    No offense.

    You are the one who asked whether anybody on this site was expressing that Biden would walk away with the election. That is why I referenced Donald's post. I am not interested in arguing the point with anyone.


    How odd (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 14, 2019 at 12:06:36 PM EST
    Just 6 months ago (literally), you "wouldn't trust her with anything."  Now you claim you want her to be POTUS.



    You're right. (none / 0) (#90)
    by NoSides on Sat Sep 14, 2019 at 09:23:21 PM EST
    You're right.

    I softened.
    In the light of the opposition, she looked better.

    But, upon reflection, you're also right that, though I might root for her to win, I couldn't honestly expect her to come through on her promises.

    So forget that.


    Upon (none / 0) (#94)
    by NoSides on Sat Sep 14, 2019 at 11:32:33 PM EST
    further reflection, the most I could honestly say is that I would find a Warren candidacy to be interesting. I would watch a debate between her and Trump with interest.

    But, your reminding me of my previous comment 6 months ago also brought me back to what I had felt about her at that time.

    I think her politics were very much in harmony with Bernie Sanders - much more so than with Clinton.
    But she wouldn't endorse Sanders at a time when her endorsement might have made a difference. My impression then, as now, is that she bought into the idea being peddled to us that Hillary was a sure bet to win - and by laying low, if Hillary got the nod, she could endorse her, and perhaps garner a cabinet position. In other words, she put her ambition before her principles. In doing so, whatever her principles might have been, they became obscure to me.

    I also was affected by that "Native American" business. Her explanations were not credible.

    So - I guess I would even have to modify my statement that I would "root" for her. I don't even know that. The most I could say is that it would be an interesting contest - and if she were to win - it would be interesting to see what she does - or tries to do.


    Such conviction (none / 0) (#97)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 07:25:10 AM EST
    The only constant seems to be your love of Sanders and your criticism of anyone who opposes him or doesn't sufficiently support him.

    Just curious - would you actually vote for Warren (or whichever Democratic candidate gets the nomination) - if it's not Bernie?  Also, why do you assume Warren wouldn't be able to deliver on her promises and that Bernie would?


    I don't know... (none / 0) (#99)
    by NoSides on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 08:48:25 AM EST
    I was for Sanders the first time around...
    In my opinion, the DNC played a part in his demise. I think he would have won easily.

    This time around, I think his time has passed.

    At this time, I don't think either Warren or Bernie would deliver - but I do think that of the two, Bernie would try harder. Of the two, I think that Warren is the more calculating. In my opinion, that does not augur well.

    As I said above, Warren lost me to a great extent by laying low during the primaries in the last election. She certainly was much closer, in my opinion, to the policies articulated by Sanders than she was to Clinton. But she said nothing.
    And - also - as I mentioned - her use of the term "Native American" on her applications --- well - not very honest. And it took her a long time to own up to it. Trump would "Pocahontas" her big time in any debate. And there's really not much she could say to that...

    I don't "love" Sanders - or any of the contenders actually. The most natural one, I thought, was Castro - but you just know that there ain't gonna be a President Castro!

    For me - Biden is beyond the pale. That he could be considered a "front-runner" is baffling. Maybe it is a construction by media - his front-runner status - because they could attract more viewers to their "debates" - and make some more money.
    I could not vote for him. I wonder if Jeralyn could either.

    One other thing: For me, a major issue would be the immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. The legacy of GW Bush is still with us. And to the cry of, "we can't just leave", I would say, yes we can just leave. What's to stop us? And - I guess you read that the civilian casualties inflicted on the Afghan people by our coalition was more than that inflicted by the Taliban. Enough.

    So far, I see either no mention of, or passion for, ending these wars that have been a part of our lives for nearly a generation now. The wars are not even the subject of daily reports. The wars have become like wallpaper. An environment to which we pay little or no attention.

    I would love it if one of the candidates would express something about those wars - the immorality and lies leading to them - and what seems to me to be the commercial interests in keeping them going.


    BTW - The tinfoil, DNC ... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 01:18:57 PM EST
    ... conspiracy theories are even more laughable than they were in 2016, although Trump keeps pushing them, too.

    After all, it's what got him elected.

    Heeeeeey ... this fact-free, opinion thing IS really easy!


    All that babble ... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 01:15:26 PM EST
    ... and you never answered the question.  Will you vote for the Democratic candidate or not?

    The rest is just more trolling.  The Russians made good use of their bitter, dupes in 2016, but there's far fewer of you after 3 years of Trump.


    No way (none / 0) (#89)
    by jondee on Sat Sep 14, 2019 at 01:25:36 PM EST
    could anyone afford to passively lay back while scorched earth libertarians, Planned Parenthood snipers, the NRA, and QAnon conspiracy whackjobs are given easy access to the levers of power and influence.

    Even Biden is a step up and away from that status quo.


    I would remind you (none / 0) (#91)
    by NoSides on Sat Sep 14, 2019 at 09:27:27 PM EST
    that Jeralyn Merritt wrote that Biden was the one Democrat she could not vote for.

    This was a while ago.

    Maybe she has changed her view - and has shifted to an "anyone but Trump" position - even if it is Biden - with his abominable record - the crime bill of 1993 and his cringe-worthy treatment of Anita Hill - for which he has yet to apologize.


    I would remind you (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Sun Sep 15, 2019 at 07:29:23 AM EST
    ... that's one person's opinion (or was one person's opinion).  Why is that supposed to matter?  Do you want me to quote several people who say the one "Democrat" they couldn't vote for is Bernie?

    In this case, (none / 0) (#114)
    by NoSides on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 11:28:02 AM EST
    the person expressing that happens to be not only the creator of this website, but is also a brilliant attorney.

    Her opinion may not matter to you, but you could at least acknowledge that it is worth considering - and follow her reasons for having expressed what she did.

    And as for Bernie, if anyone declares that they couldn't vote for him, that is entirely understandable. Although I was for him in 2006, my enthusiasm for him has dimmed considerably.

    It's a free country.


    I would suggest that ... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 03:07:25 PM EST
    ... you look deep down inside of yourself, and see if you can find something within you - hell, anything within you! --  that's actually about us as a country in the collective sense.

    Because right now, I don't see any of that in you myself. Rather, I'm looking at what appears to be a furious amount of self-absorbed but otherwise aimless trolling.



    What you (none / 0) (#136)
    by NoSides on Tue Sep 17, 2019 at 12:08:26 PM EST
    see is what you want to see, or have the capacity to see.

    No you MUST (none / 0) (#118)
    by smott on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 01:53:56 PM EST
    Vote for Biden if he's the nominee.
    You must.

    You forget yourself (none / 0) (#120)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 02:05:48 PM EST
    I would remind you..

    Not 61 (none / 0) (#93)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 14, 2019 at 10:07:56 PM EST
    It is crucial to remind ourselves (none / 0) (#128)
    by KeysDan on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 03:53:24 PM EST
    that in 2020 we will be voting for not just a president, but also the Executive Branch of the federal government.

     And, the Republican candidate for president, if for some reason it was not obvious before, it should now be glaringly apparent that he is a racist and misogynist who is given to fascist rhetoric--all with the backing of religious extremists.

     His foreign policy, if one can be found, is exemplified by his latest "America Last" approach to the Saudi oil field drone attack--waiting to see what the Bone Saw Prince wants him to do.  Who knew Saudi Arabia was a member of NATO (Trump waffled on affirming Article 5 mutual defense for NATO allies).

    And, as for that "stable genius" part, the list is as long as the inventory of his lies--an example being when a refugee told him in the Oval Office that ISIS killed her mother and brothers, Trump asked what her mother and brother were doing now; and  just last week, he appeared to forget that he has a son by his third wife.

    And, for the Executive Branch.  Well, foisted upon us along with Trump, were the likes of Barr, Michael Flynn, Tom Price etc. etc. etc. A heady mix of incompetence and corruption. And, a revolving door of Cabinet and agency heads to assure chaos.  Moreover, the appointments of young, right wing judges and Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

    If Biden is the Democratic nominee, does any sane or sentient voter believe that he would be of the same depravity and corruption as Trump and that he would have the assorted miscreants that inhabit the Trump Administration?

     Yes, Biden is prone to gaffs, mostly misspeaks or out-of--fashion "bees knees" type comments.  Rarely, if ever, are they intended to be malicious. And, yes, he has a long public record with pluses and minuses.Fairness dictates that contexts and the times need to be taken into account in evaluation.

     If he is the Democratic nominee, he would be more than "not Trump", but a human and humane president who, as compared to Trump, will serve American interests and the American people.

    My issue (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 17, 2019 at 06:19:18 AM EST
    with Biden is that he doesn't "win the era" and doesn't seem to understand how completely evil the GOP has become along with the fact that he likely wouldn't be able to serve 2 terms. We'll be back in four or eight years dealing with all of this again. I just hope I don't have to vote for him not that he's a terrible person. I just think largely he's a product of his times and those times have passed.

    You nailed it. (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 17, 2019 at 08:34:12 AM EST
    Biden's time has come and gone. Joe Biden is absolutely the wrong candidate for the current time. He is doing a disservice to the Democratic party in not understanding that.

    EGO (none / 0) (#135)
    by jmacWA on Tue Sep 17, 2019 at 08:40:24 AM EST
    rules all

    Trump's words (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 04:39:23 PM EST
    "We're waiting to hear from the Kingdom who was the cause of the attack and how we should proceed."

    So the Saudis have the means and capability to know where the attack came from more than the U.S and it's other allies does? Really?


    Correction: (none / 0) (#130)
    by jondee on Mon Sep 16, 2019 at 04:42:20 PM EST
    "Who They believe was the cause of the attack"