• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Steyer and Yang hit it out of the park tonight

D

Digger

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,302
Reaction score
489
Oddly enough, I think the lack of time that the two had to speak worked in their favor. Quality over quantity. The more popular candidates were clearly delivering canned remarks and when they got more questions they just kind of repeated each other or even themselves.

Yang got oddball questions. I think they were trying to show him up as a single issue semi-serious candidate who didn't have breadth of knowledge. But he showed them wrong. Talk about family leave. And he knew the thing about Papua New Guinea. That was impressive! And the humor landed well. What would you say to Putin in your first conversation? He stood there for a few seconds with this weird look on his face like wow, that's a weird question if you're only gonna give me like three chances to speak. And then he actually answered it directly and well. The last thing about combating White Nationalism was incredibly insightful. He's the first politician that I've ever seen address toxic masculinity from the perspective of compassion and understanding towards men and boys. It might have actually lost him some points with boilerplate liberals. Only females deserve special concern, not males. But it won him points with me for his direct honesty, insightful understanding, and compassion.

Steyer was really solid. Kept on hitting his two key points, which I agree are very radical, as in to the root. Climate change and structural reform. He said he's been building a grassroots movement for a decade. I'm gonna go check that out. My plan is to campaign and vote for whichever candidate I find is doing the best party building locally. I'm basically organizing for the general election. Whichever candidate's machinery shows up the most to help organize and GotV for the general election will win my vote in the primary.
 
Steyer & Klobuchar both sucked much less than previously, and Yang has always been great.

There was a hit out on Gabbard - the MSM colluding with Horror Show Harris to return the kneecapping favor - but Tulsi escaped unscathed.

Biden is going downhill fast - just really bad.

The rest - meh.
 
This is actually the opposite of reality.
 
I could seriously consider voting for a Gabbard/Yang ticket. It's a shame the DNC seems so lost in extremism that only mouth foaming far leftists seem to be viable. (And Joe Biden, the mindless gaff puppet).
 
digsbe said:
I could seriously consider voting for a Gabbard/Yang ticket. It's a shame the DNC seems so lost in extremism that only mouth foaming far leftists seem to be viable. (And Joe Biden, the mindless gaff puppet).
Click to expand...

Dream ticket!

:thumbs:

:)
 
Digger said:
Oddly enough, I think the lack of time that the two had to speak worked in their favor. Quality over quantity. The more popular candidates were clearly delivering canned remarks and when they got more questions they just kind of repeated each other or even themselves.

Yang got oddball questions. I think they were trying to show him up as a single issue semi-serious candidate who didn't have breadth of knowledge. But he showed them wrong. Talk about family leave. And he knew the thing about Papua New Guinea. That was impressive! And the humor landed well. What would you say to Putin in your first conversation? He stood there for a few seconds with this weird look on his face like wow, that's a weird question if you're only gonna give me like three chances to speak. And then he actually answered it directly and well. The last thing about combating White Nationalism was incredibly insightful. He's the first politician that I've ever seen address toxic masculinity from the perspective of compassion and understanding towards men and boys. It might have actually lost him some points with boilerplate liberals. Only females deserve special concern, not males. But it won him points with me for his direct honesty, insightful understanding, and compassion.

Steyer was really solid. Kept on hitting his two key points, which I agree are very radical, as in to the root. Climate change and structural reform. He said he's been building a grassroots movement for a decade. I'm gonna go check that out. My plan is to campaign and vote for whichever candidate I find is doing the best party building locally. I'm basically organizing for the general election. Whichever candidate's machinery shows up the most to help organize and GotV for the general election will win my vote in the primary.
Click to expand...

Steyer made his billions on coal and has pushed to replace carbon free nuclear with carbon emitting natural gas plants. He talks a good game with climate, but in reality, he is the least eco-friendly choice in the entire democratic field. He is greenwashing himself with his "grassroots movement".
 
digsbe said:
I could seriously consider voting for a Gabbard/Yang ticket. It's a shame the DNC seems so lost in extremism that only mouth foaming far leftists seem to be viable. (And Joe Biden, the mindless gaff puppet).
Click to expand...

If there is one thing the Trump era has taught me, it’s that facts and logical arguments have very little bearing on what people think and feel. We are primarily emotional creatures. Facts and logical arguments only come later to support our initial emotions.
 
ataraxia said:
If there is one thing the Trump era has taught me, it’s that facts and logical arguments have very little bearing on what people think and feel. We are primarily emotional creatures. Facts and logical arguments only come later to support our initial emotions.
Click to expand...

You have to be pretty young or a slow learner to have just discovered this the last few years.
 
Drawdown said:
Steyer made his billions on coal and has pushed to replace carbon free nuclear with carbon emitting natural gas plants. He talks a good game with climate, but in reality, he is the least eco-friendly choice in the entire democratic field. He is greenwashing himself with his "grassroots movement".
Click to expand...

He used to work with coal. Then he stopped when he realized how bad it was. At least that's his narrative and it makes sense to me. I used to eat meat. Then I stopped when I realized how bad it was. After a decade of consistent advocacy, can I run on that? If he's spent a decade greenwashing himself and all you can say is he used to be dirty, I'll say he's clean by now.

The nuclear issue is down in the weeds. Nuclear has it's own issues, as you well know. Reasonable people can disagree on that while still agreeing that climate change and structural political change are the two radical issues.

Anything else you don't like about him? That is not a rhetorical or a glib question. I want to know if there's a reason to withhold my support.
 
Digger said:
Oddly enough, I think the lack of time that the two had to speak worked in their favor. Quality over quantity. The more popular candidates were clearly delivering canned remarks and when they got more questions they just kind of repeated each other or even themselves.

Yang got oddball questions. I think they were trying to show him up as a single issue semi-serious candidate who didn't have breadth of knowledge. But he showed them wrong. Talk about family leave. And he knew the thing about Papua New Guinea. That was impressive! And the humor landed well. What would you say to Putin in your first conversation? He stood there for a few seconds with this weird look on his face like wow, that's a weird question if you're only gonna give me like three chances to speak. And then he actually answered it directly and well. The last thing about combating White Nationalism was incredibly insightful. He's the first politician that I've ever seen address toxic masculinity from the perspective of compassion and understanding towards men and boys. It might have actually lost him some points with boilerplate liberals. Only females deserve special concern, not males. But it won him points with me for his direct honesty, insightful understanding, and compassion.

Steyer was really solid. Kept on hitting his two key points, which I agree are very radical, as in to the root. Climate change and structural reform. He said he's been building a grassroots movement for a decade. I'm gonna go check that out. My plan is to campaign and vote for whichever candidate I find is doing the best party building locally. I'm basically organizing for the general election. Whichever candidate's machinery shows up the most to help organize and GotV for the general election will win my vote in the primary.
Click to expand...

I didn't get a chance to watch any of it last night which disappointed me. I like Steyer and find him an interesting candidate. He's also starting to register in the polls here in NH, as is Mayor Pete.
 
ataraxia said:
If there is one thing the Trump era has taught me, it’s that facts and logical arguments have very little bearing on what people think and feel. We are primarily emotional creatures. Facts and logical arguments only come later to support our initial emotions.
Click to expand...

It's vastly more complicated than simple emotion.

We consider may factors when weighing what we consider to be important decisions.

Whether, for instance, the speaker can be trusted - especially in the case of politicians.

Hence why frauds like Warren, Harris & Booty aren't going anywhere near the White House except as guests.

:thumbs:
 
RE: we are primarily emotion-driven vs facts and evidence-driven:
3leftsdoo said:
It's vastly more complicated than simple emotion.

We consider may factors when weighing what we consider to be important decisions.

Whether, for instance, the speaker can be trusted - especially in the case of politicians.

Hence why frauds like Warren, Harris & Booty aren't going anywhere near the White House except as guests.

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Sometimes it IS that simple.

For example, why would Americans reject the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet on climate change, but so eagerly and enthusiastically jump on and cheer what some Manhattan-real-estate-guy-turned-politician, with a history of highly questionable ethics and credibility, says on the matter? Or, for example, cheer that same guy on for six years straight when he kept telling them they weren't going to believe what his "top people" were finding on Obama's secret Kenyan birth certificate, enough so that even after he eventually admitted to them that he was lying to them about it all along, they still loved him enough to elect him to the presidency, but now don't believe their own lying ears when all his own hand-picked advisors are saying that he was spearheading and directing the extortion and blackmail of a critical international ally for his own personal and political advancement and self-interest?
 
Last edited:
Digger said:
He used to work with coal. Then he stopped when he realized how bad it was. At least that's his narrative and it makes sense to me. I used to eat meat. Then I stopped when I realized how bad it was. After a decade of consistent advocacy, can I run on that? If he's spent a decade greenwashing himself and all you can say is he used to be dirty, I'll say he's clean by now.

The nuclear issue is down in the weeds. Nuclear has it's own issues, as you well know. Reasonable people can disagree on that while still agreeing that climate change and structural political change are the two radical issues.

Anything else you don't like about him? That is not a rhetorical or a glib question. I want to know if there's a reason to withhold my support.
Click to expand...

Environmentalists tried their best to stop them and he crushed them. And then there are is private prisons. And then there is him creating tax shelters so high dollar investors could avoid paying US income taxes. You can support whoever you want but he spent decades being the very antithesis of the democrats and their platform. If an 11th hour greenwash is good enough for you, then go ahead and support him. He will NEVER get the nomination.
 
ataraxia said:
RE: we are primarily emotion-driven vs facts and evidence-driven:

I don't know about that. Sometimes it IS that simple.

For example, why would Americans reject the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization on the entire planet on climate change, but so eagerly and enthusiastically jump on and cheer what some Manhattan-real-estate-guy-turned-politician, with a history of highly questionable ethics and credibility, says on the matter? Or, for example, cheer that same guy on for six years straight when he kept telling them they weren't going to believe what his "top people" were finding on Obama's secret Kenyan birth certificate, enough so that even after he eventually admitted to them that he was lying to them about it all along, they still loved him enough to elect him to the presidency, but now don't believe their own lying ears when all his own hand-picked advisors are saying that he was spearheading and directing the extortion and blackmail of a critical international ally for his own personal and political advancement and self-interest?
Click to expand...

Emotion drives nothing; human beings are hyper-ratonal within their spheres of perception.

Even the hyper-insanity of the Democrats right now is driven by a kind of screwball reason.

But as with the equally rational Nazis, the Democrats are doomed to fail.
 
digsbe said:
I could seriously consider voting for a Gabbard/Yang ticket. It's a shame the DNC seems so lost in extremism that only mouth foaming far leftists seem to be viable. (And Joe Biden, the mindless gaff puppet).
Click to expand...

LOL! I have absolutely no doubt that you could vote for a Russian stooge and tool like Gabbard.
 
digsbe said:
I could seriously consider voting for a Gabbard/Yang ticket. It's a shame the DNC seems so lost in extremism that only mouth foaming far leftists seem to be viable. (And Joe Biden, the mindless gaff puppet).
Click to expand...

I don't know much about Gabbard's policies, admittedly. I simply won't vote for her (unless it's between her and Trump which I will vote for her while holding my nose) but I do know Yang's policies. I don't know what policies you consider far left, but I find your descriptions odd. He thinks we should raise taxes, implement a value added tax and then give everyone in the country a check from the government every month. He also advocates for a single payer health care system. I figured out a long time ago that when a Republican/Conservative says "I don't like this extreme, far left democrat, I'm surprised that democrats don't like this democrat" that all it really means is that they looked for the democrat who's doing well i the election and label them extreme, regardless of the facts, and then take the less popular and act like they are moderate. Regardless of whether they actually are.

They day I figured this out was then I was at work one day back in 2006/2007. I worked in a bullpen type office and my coworkers liked listening to Rush/Hannity during the day. So I spent months hearing about how radical Clinton was and that democrats wouldn't consider a less liberal, less extreme person. Hannity advertised his "Stop Hillary Express" day after day, hour after hour. And on one day when it seemed like Obama was in the lead and was likely going to win it, both of them turned on a dime and "stop hillary express" turned into "stop obama express" and both of them began saying that obama was even more extreme and radical than Hillary. It was instant.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! I have absolutely no doubt that you could vote for a Russian stooge and tool like Gabbard.
Click to expand...

^ ^Just one reason the Democrats will lose in 2020.

But there are so very many.

:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom