Biden and Harris to square off in Round 2 of Democratic presidential debate

[mikebike]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It would have been sleazy and inexcusable not to do it. He saw what 45 was and Hillary was the only person in the way of that tragedy happening.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Yet almost every other traditional politician wouldn't have. Hillary would not have backed Bernie if it went the other way.

[meand]

20 hours ago, Guitarzan said:

Assad, is perhaps the only Muslim leader that protected Christians in his country.  He and his wife where on the cover of Time magazine, and made all the elite social rounds.  The world loved them, until Russia announced they were going to build an oil pipeline through Syria to the mediterranean sea. 

In Tulsi's coverage, they interviewed the locals and they all said the US was backing the terrorists against the Syrian people.  I liked her ever since that interview, she has an air of integrity about her. Too bad she's a democrat. 

When you get a good one, finally, it does not matter what party they are in. Your intuition is right on the money. The reason she does well in the debates is because she never flip flops because she is not pandering to anyone, and does not take pac money. 

[Jingthing]

In a sentence, this is what is wrong with "democracy" in America right here.
 
She is a candidate who is clearly fighting for the people. That is her number one priority. Not pleasing the rich and the likes of the military industrial complex, but actually fighting for the people. 
 
 

Whatever. I hope she doesn't make it to the next debate. The people that seem to like her appear to be largely Republicans or maybe independents. This is a democratic party primarily.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[mogandave]

In a sentence, this is what is wrong with "democracy" in America right here.
 
She is a candidate who is clearly fighting for the people. That is her number one priority. Not pleasing the rich and the likes of the military industrial complex, but actually fighting for the people. 
 
 

Clearly, but which people?

[Guitarzan]

5 minutes ago, meand said:

In a sentence, this is what is wrong with "democracy" in America right here.

 

She is a candidate who is clearly fighting for the people. That is her number one priority. Not pleasing the rich and the likes of the military industrial complex, but actually fighting for the people. 

 

 

Yea, but she’s working for the Russians. 

[Jingthing]

When you get a good one, finally, it does not matter what party they are in. Your intuition is right on the money. The reason she does well in the debates is because she never flip flops because she is not pandering to anyone, and does not take pac money. 

She does well does she?

One percent in the polls right?

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

Yet almost every other traditional politician wouldn't have. Hillary would not have backed Bernie if it went the other way.

You're 100 percent wrong! I'm amazed that you or anyone actually thinks that.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[meand]

11 hours ago, Misty said:

Perhaps, or is she just for Assad?  " But only Gabbard consistently struggles to admit that Assad is one of the worst war criminals in history. Only Gabbard asserts that the United States (not Assad) is responsible for the death and destruction in Syria, that the Russian airstrikes on civilians are to be praised, that efforts to protect Syrian civilians are wrongheaded and that the United States must side with Assad. " https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/tulsi-gabbards-syria-record-shows-why-she-cant-be-president/2019/08/01/f804c790-b497-11e9-8949-5f36ff92706e_story.html?utm_term=.17a08db4d615

"For Assad". You have got to be kidding. 

 

There is no nice way to say, people like you are what is wrong with America. We can't get good leaders elected because of people like you, who just fall hook line and sinker for the establishment's talking points.

[mikebike]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You're 100 percent wrong! I'm amazed that you or anyone actually thinks that.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Monied establishment did not then, nor ever will, back a democratic socialist. If you think Hillary would have fallen in line behind Bernie, you are delusional.

[Guitarzan]

6 minutes ago, meand said:

When you get a good one, finally, it does not matter what party they are in. Your intuition is right on the money. The reason she does well in the debates is because she never flip flops because she is not pandering to anyone, and does not take pac money. 

I voted for Obama in 2008, before that I voted for Gore. I hated Bush with the same intensity of the TDS infected of today.  

 

The problem is you elect Tulsi Gabbard,  you open the door to the rest of the lunatic left. I could actually she her change parties at some point, that would be a good move for her. 

[mikebike]

2 minutes ago, Guitarzan said:

The problem is you elect Tulsi Gabbard,  you open the door to the rest of the lunatic left.

Damn... we lost Hawaii already then. Only 49 left... Ok maybe 50, D.C. could fill in.

 

I mean really, Hawaii is only PR with extra privileges...

[mogandave]

Monied establishment did not then, nor ever will, back a democratic socialist. If you think Hillary would have fallen in line behind Bernie, you are delusional.

Is there a Democrat candidate that is not leaning towards socialism?

If so, which one(s)?

Most big-business supports the left, and virtually all of big tech and media.

[mikebike]

5 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Is there a Democrat candidate that is not leaning towards socialism?

If so, which one(s)?

Most big-business supports the left, and virtually all of big tech and media.

 

A. Democratic Socialism is not Socialism. There are no Dem candidates (including Bernie) that come anywhere near socialism on the political spectrum.

 

B. Big business/tech and MSM are socially left but fiscally conservative, establishment, and as far "right" as you can get.

Edited August 2, 2019 by mikebike

[Jingthing]

28 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Monied establishment did not then, nor ever will, back a democratic socialist. If you think Hillary would have fallen in line behind Bernie, you are delusional.

I'm sure you're wrong. If Bernie had been nominated there was no other choice for any democrat. If Bernie had been nominated he would have been running on the democratic party ticket. You can hurl empty insults at me but there is no way Hillary Clinton, first lady of Bill Clinton, U.S. senator, secretary of state under Obama, would not have endorsed Bernie. Whether she would have worked hard enough for him is another question. 

[Jingthing]

10 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Is there a Democrat candidate that is not leaning towards socialism?

If so, which one(s)?

Most big-business supports the left, and virtually all of big tech and media.

 

None of them are socialists. Bernie comes closest. I get it, "trump" fans think they can win with red baiting. Sure, that might work. The battle awaits. 

[mogandave]

A. Democratic Socialism is not Socialism. There are no Dem candidates (including Bernie) that come anywhere near socialism on the political spectrum.
 
B. Big business/tech and MSM are socially left but fiscally conservative, establishment, and as far "right" as you can get.

A. So if it’s not socialism, why do they call it that? It’s the government taking over parts of the private sector, yes?

B. Most of their donations go to left wing candidates, and they stand to benefit from the left-wing giveaways more than anyone.

[Jingthing]

Just now, mogandave said:

 

A. So if it’s not socialism, why do they call it that? It’s the government taking over parts of the private sector, yes?

B. Most of their donations go to left wing candidates, and they stand to benefit from the left-wing giveaways more than anyone.
 

 

Advanced nations in general have some flavor of universal health care and that doesn't mean they have socialist governments. The USA is an outlier in this regard but even the USA has such programs for the very poor and elders. 

[mikebike]

13 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I'm sure you're wrong. If Bernie had been nominated there was no other choice for any democrat. If Bernie had been nominated he would have been running on the democratic party ticket. You can hurl empty insults at me but there is no way Hillary Clinton, first lady of Bill Clinton, U.S. senator, secretary of state under Obama, would not have endorsed Bernie. Whether she would have worked hard enough for him is another question. 

 

OK. You continue to believe that. Hillary is way closer to 45 than she is to Bernie politically and philosophically...

 

"Delusional" is not an insult. It is the fact that you are fooling yourself into believing something you REALLY want to believe...

 

Remember you like Klobuchar. A Republican in Dems clothes. Apparently you can delude yourself into almost anything...

Edited August 2, 2019 by mikebike

[champers]

14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Advanced nations in general have some flavor of universal health care and that doesn't mean they have socialist governments. The USA is an outlier in this regard but even the USA has such programs for the very poor and elders. 

The UK has the National Health Service (NHS) which isn't truly free as people in work automatically pay a tax; National Insurance; to fund it. Millions of £s in charitable donations prop up the NHS annually and pay for specialised research.

There is a genuine fear that more and more privatisation and outsourcing undermines the NHS's viability. US companies are behind much of the privatisation and there is always a worry that the right of centre Conservative Party have a hidden agenda to privatise the NHS and Americanise health insurance.

Edited August 2, 2019 by champers

[mogandave]

The UK has the National Health Service (NHS) which isn't truly free as people in work automatically pay a tax; National Insurance; to fund it. Millions of £s in charitable donations prop up the NHS annually and pay for specialised research.
There is a genuine fear that more and more privatisation and outsourcing undermines the NHS's viability. US companies are behind much of the privatisation and there is always a worry that the right of centre Conservative Party have a hidden agenda to privatise the NHS and Americanise health insurance.

It’s free for tax recipients, yes?

If the system is providing great, low-cost medical care, why the push for privatization?

[mikebike]

13 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

A. So if it’s not socialism, why do they call it that? It’s the government taking over parts of the private sector, yes?

B. Most of their donations go to left wing candidates, and they stand to benefit from the left-wing giveaways more than anyone.
 

 

A. They don't call it that. You did. They call it the correct term: democratic socialism.

 

B. Their donations go pretty much equally to both parties. In a sense you are correct, they are the benefactors of social spending. But they are the benefactors of republican socialism. Democratic socialism is for the benefit of people (Medicare-for-all, green new deal, subsidized higher learning...), not corporations. Although, in the USA it is very difficult to distinguish corporatist left from right. They both serve the same donors.

[mikebike]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

If the system is providing great, low-cost medical care, why the push for privatization?

 

Follow the money Lebowski. Corps want to make green off your misfortune... Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

[Guitarzan]

46 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Damn... we lost Hawaii already then. Only 49 left... Ok maybe 50, D.C. could fill in.

 

I mean really, Hawaii is only PR with extra privileges...

I have no idea what you just said. 

[Jingthing]

  OK. You continue to believe that. Hillary is way closer to 45 than she is to Bernie politically and philosophically...

 

"Delusional" is not an insult. It is the fact that you are fooling yourself into believing something you REALLY want to believe...

 

Remember you like Klobuchar. A Republican in Dems clothes. Apparently you can delude yourself into almost anything...

 

No she isn't. My interest in her was that she has a good argument on how she would not only be able to beat 45 but best him in a landslide. I like most democrats think that beating 45 is the most important thing. If he isn't beaten dramatically he is likely to not accept the defeat.  

But she did not convince enough people of her pitch. I did hear today that she made the next debate. But she's a very long shot.

 

Yes calling people names such as delusional is most certainly an insult.

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

 

[meand]

51 minutes ago, Guitarzan said:

I voted for Obama in 2008, before that I voted for Gore. I hated Bush with the same intensity of the TDS infected of today.  

 

The problem is you elect Tulsi Gabbard,  you open the door to the rest of the lunatic left. I could actually she her change parties at some point, that would be a good move for her. 

I do not care what party a candidate who is fighting for the people, putting a stop to counterproductive wars, and spending the money at home on its citizens is in. 

[meand]

Here is a link cued up, so you do not even need to spend more than two seconds to dispel this absolutely ridiculous "Assad apologist" notion: 

I know it wont matter though. You cannot fix stupid. 

 

[mogandave]

A. They don't call it that. You did. They call it the correct term: democratic socialism.
 
B. Their donations go pretty much equally to both parties. In a sense you are correct, they are the benefactors of social spending. But they are the benefactors of republican socialism. Democratic socialism is for the benefit of people (Medicare-for-all, green new deal, subsidized higher learning...), not corporations. Although, in the USA it is very difficult to distinguish corporatist left from right. They both serve the same donors.

A. I meant why do they call it Democratic Socialism if it’s not a kind of socialism?

B. Most business and virtually all big-tech/big-media execs support left wing candidates.
i. Who pays for most health insurance now? “Medicare for All” is a big win for big business. They’ve been paying for it 70 years and now they won’t have to.
ii. Who will make the bulk of the money from the “Green New Deal”? Big business (particularly tech). Who’s making all the money from “renewable” energy now?
iii. Who benefits from a highly educated workforce?

None of the things you mention will benefit middle-class Americans.

[mogandave]

Follow the money Lebowski. Corps want to make green off your misfortune... Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

For example?

[amexpat]

On 8/1/2019 at 7:28 AM, BobBKK said:

Stage full of fantasists promising the world but not saying how to pay for it.

How to pay for the trillion dollar tax cut - 80% for the wealthiest and corporations; and one third of them outside the USA?? 

 

The GOP will want to pay for it by cutting social security and telling the carpenters, waitresses, truck drivers, et. al. that they must work a few more years so the investment bankers, trust fund kids, et. al. can have another vacation home.

[Guitarzan]

39 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

A. So if it’s not socialism, why do they call it that? It’s the government taking over parts of the private sector, yes?

B. Most of their donations go to left wing candidates, and they stand to benefit from the left-wing giveaways more than anyone.
 

 

They disguise socialism by putting the word democrat in front of it, to make it more palatable. 

 

If you want to see where it will all lead look at Venezuela 50 years ago, one of the richest countries on earth, now a brutal bleep-hole. 

 

It’s easy to get poor people to rebell. It all starts by demonizing the rich, and class division, accusations of racism to divide people. Socialism sounds interesting, having an appeal to those whom fancy themselves intellectuals.  We are in the early stages, a slow creep towards authoritarianism, it’s a long term strategy.