Cheesy FL-Vol
Junior Associate
"Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing." -- Helen Keller
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:13:50 GMT -5
Posts: 6,742
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":""}
|
Post by Cheesy FL-Vol on Jun 25, 2019 2:22:09 GMT -5
Bernie claims "the right to a free education". ….. I haven't seen that Amendment to the Constitution. ………… Or the free part.
Life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness. What you want out of life ……………. ya gotta get it yourself. And pay for it yourself. No such thing as a free ride, somewhere along the line someone has to pay the bill. I always thought that because in US unlike any other country the higher education is so expensive then one should be determined to get the best out of it. And they do! It’s just that by having so much debt due to education costs, everybody is stressed out of their minds which means reduced productivity and poor results. Moreover, education is being “sold” not “sought” which in turn means that you might end up with a degree that is absolutely useless. Thats how we ended up with college grads asking the most common question :”would you like some fries with that?!” Education on the higher levels(college and above) SHOULD be free but a spot should be gained thru competition and not the kind where you write a nice essay home and email it. For all I care, someone else with the necessary skill set wrote that for you! Free education removes stress, increases productivity etc. ALL education should be better funded. More teachers, better pay for them would be even better!Do that and see the results and then can claim “we are making America great again!” IMO teachers are one of the most valuable resources a country can have. NONE of us would be where we are without teachers.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jun 25, 2019 6:13:48 GMT -5
I wonder if they give "Mayor Pete" a question on police relations with the black community in South Bend Indiana to discuss. This would make or break him. I wonder if they give 'president' trump a question during the presidential debates about the 24 women who claim trump sexually assaulted them to discuss. The debate host(s) should invite the 24 women to all the presidential debates and give them front row seating. This would make or break him. Isn't it fun to divert a thread discussig Democratic potential nominees to a discussion about Trump? It is all about Trump for you, and you and the potential nominees have nothing to stop him in 2020
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jun 25, 2019 6:20:04 GMT -5
Sigh. Where do we vote to get rid of this nonsense of a 2 year election period. Like max starting Jan 1 of election year. Including limits on the bs presidential stops that are just freaking rallies. So over this shit dragging on for years. So you are ok for democratic Governors, Mayors, Congress people, and Senators doing this but not an incumbant President? I do agree the process is way way too long. I would prefer federal laws in place where no political office holder could have any fundraising efforts until serving one year in their present office position for Congress people, two years for Senators and the President as well as any primary family members or staff.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 25, 2019 7:08:35 GMT -5
Sigh. Where do we vote to get rid of this nonsense of a 2 year election period. Like max starting Jan 1 of election year. Including limits on the bs presidential stops that are just freaking rallies. So over this shit dragging on for years. So you are ok for democratic Governors, Mayors, Congress people, and Senators doing this but not an incumbant President? I do agree the process is way way too long. I would prefer federal laws in place where no political office holder could have any fundraising efforts until serving one year in their present office position for Congress people, two years for Senators and the President as well as any primary family members or staff. I think in the UK you're only allowed to campaign for something crazy like 8 weeks.
I saw two pro-Trump campaign ads on TV just this morning. It's crazy - not just the constant commercials, but the amount of money spent on those constant commercials.
Eight weeks of commercials, then it all has to end, no yard signs, no radio ads, nothing. I could totally get behind that.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 25, 2019 7:56:29 GMT -5
Sigh. Where do we vote to get rid of this nonsense of a 2 year election period. Like max starting Jan 1 of election year. Including limits on the bs presidential stops that are just freaking rallies. So over this shit dragging on for years. So you are ok for democratic Governors, Mayors, Congress people, and Senators doing this but not an incumbant President? I do agree the process is way way too long. I would prefer federal laws in place where no political office holder could have any fundraising efforts until serving one year in their present office position for Congress people, two years for Senators and the President as well as any primary family members or staff. No I mean everyone. I just admit I'm not sure how to make it so incumbents don't make speeches turn into rallies as they shouldn't have an advantage like that if we're stopping their competitors. I'm not saying he's the only one that's done it, but trump pretty much has made every speech a campaign rally.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jun 25, 2019 8:22:55 GMT -5
The Democrats have been in election and Trump removal mode since 10 minutes after he won the election, Then complain that Trump is doing election rallies, half way thru his presidency.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,412
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 25, 2019 8:28:30 GMT -5
So you are ok for democratic Governors, Mayors, Congress people, and Senators doing this but not an incumbant President? I do agree the process is way way too long. I would prefer federal laws in place where no political office holder could have any fundraising efforts until serving one year in their present office position for Congress people, two years for Senators and the President as well as any primary family members or staff. No I mean everyone. I just admit I'm not sure how to make it so incumbents don't make speeches turn into rallies as they shouldn't have an advantage like that if we're stopping their competitors. I'm not saying he's the only one that's done it, but trump pretty much has made every speech a campaign rally. I agree that everyone is always running for re-election, so limiting new comers will only worsen our problem that incumbents are hard to beat. Given that political speech is highly protected by the constitution, I am not sure what a federal law would look like that would prevent a person from going around "running for president". What we really want is for it to stop being highly covered by the media. If every cable and internet news outlet in the country didn't make a daily segment out of the election, no matter where is the cycle we are, you wouldn't really notice. Candidates would still travel around the country and speak to groups to get their voice out there. But, we wouldn't have daily stories about how Joe Candidate said billion when he meant trillion, and therefore, he is a total idiot. No reason to cover people currently in office so meticulously either. If we could just focus on the important stuff, our country would be better off. But, capitalism, so news will still do what gains them money. Fox will rial up conservatives with inflammatory programming. And CNN will rial up progressives with inflammatory programming. And all us peasants will get our adrenaline fix every day by coming to the internet and arguing. And we will all think our lives have some kind of meaning and purpose because of it.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 25, 2019 8:47:50 GMT -5
No I mean everyone. I just admit I'm not sure how to make it so incumbents don't make speeches turn into rallies as they shouldn't have an advantage like that if we're stopping their competitors. I'm not saying he's the only one that's done it, but trump pretty much has made every speech a campaign rally. I agree that everyone is always running for re-election, so limiting new comers will only worsen our problem that incumbents are hard to beat. Given that political speech is highly protected by the constitution, I am not sure what a federal law would look like that would prevent a person from going around "running for president". What we really want is for it to stop being highly covered by the media. If every cable and internet news outlet in the country didn't make a daily segment out of the election, no matter where is the cycle we are, you wouldn't really notice. Candidates would still travel around the country and speak to groups to get their voice out there. But, we wouldn't have daily stories about how Joe Candidate said billion when he meant trillion, and therefore, he is a total idiot. No reason to cover people currently in office so meticulously either. If we could just focus on the important stuff, our country would be better off. But, capitalism, so news will still do what gains them money. Fox will rial up conservatives with inflammatory programming. And CNN will rial up progressives with inflammatory programming. And all us peasants will get our adrenaline fix every day by coming to the internet and arguing. And we will all think our lives have some kind of meaning and purpose because of it. True. I wonder if making the campaigns federally funded would change things. I know other countries just hand each candidate the same amount of money. So it would at least limit it, even for incumbents. Like trump's speech in Arizona where they're still waiting for money from his campaign - that was obviously a campaign stop and not an office thing since his campaign is paying. Limiting the money would limit the time and scope - at least for the really big things.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,511
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 25, 2019 9:52:41 GMT -5
I wonder if they give 'president' trump a question during the presidential debates about the 24 women who claim trump sexually assaulted them to discuss. The debate host(s) should invite the 24 women to all the presidential debates and give them front row seating. This would make or break him. Isn't it fun to divert a thread discussig Democratic potential nominees to a discussion about Trump? It is all about Trump for you, and you and the potential nominees have nothing to stop him in 2020 It is as valid an issue as you make yours out to be. Or did you forget who trump invited to his debates with Hillary Clinton? You seemed to be perfectly okay with those invitees.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 25, 2019 10:05:31 GMT -5
The Democrats have been in election and Trump removal mode since 10 minutes after he won the election, Then complain that Trump is doing election rallies, half way thru his presidency.
when did he stop doing election rallies?
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Jun 25, 2019 11:48:36 GMT -5
There is some time needed to weed down the field. An incumbent doesn't need to weed down the field. Also... the issue with declaring the day after you win is that a whole lot of issue arise as to what is a campaign event and what is your fucking job.... not that anyone will hold you accountable though, apparently.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jun 25, 2019 11:51:33 GMT -5
I wonder if they give 'president' trump a question during the presidential debates about the 24 women who claim trump sexually assaulted them to discuss. The debate host(s) should invite the 24 women to all the presidential debates and give them front row seating. This would make or break him. Isn't it fun to divert a thread discussig Democratic potential nominees to a discussion about Trump?It is all about Trump for you, and you and the potential nominees have nothing to stop him in 2020 ROTFLMAO! Isn't it fun to divert a thread discussig [sic] Democratic potential nominees to a discussion about Trudeau? You do that all the time, but bitch mightily when others do it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:02:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2019 12:53:28 GMT -5
Sigh. Where do we vote to get rid of this nonsense of a 2 year election period. Like max starting Jan 1 of election year. Including limits on the bs presidential stops that are just freaking rallies. So over this shit dragging on for years. You use the process for creating an amendment, that overrides the First Amendment. Kind of how they got rid of prohibition. Damn if that pesky First amendment gets in the way, of that wish for government control of campaigning.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 25, 2019 13:39:24 GMT -5
Sigh. Where do we vote to get rid of this nonsense of a 2 year election period. Like max starting Jan 1 of election year. Including limits on the bs presidential stops that are just freaking rallies. So over this shit dragging on for years. You use the process for creating an amendment, that overrides the First Amendment. Kind of how they got rid of prohibition. Damn if that pesky First amendment gets in the way, of that wish for government control of campaigning. Actually, there's various ways to do things that don't require creating an amendment. There have been changes to how the elections go all the time - they're called election laws. One such law birthed the hellscape that is PACs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:02:07 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2019 12:02:42 GMT -5
You use the process for creating an amendment, that overrides the First Amendment. Kind of how they got rid of prohibition. Damn if that pesky First amendment gets in the way, of that wish for government control of campaigning. Actually, there's various ways to do things that don't require creating an amendment. There have been changes to how the elections go all the time - they're called election laws. One such law birthed the hellscape that is PACs. Yes you can birth the pacs as you say, through election regulation. But you can't pass a law that overrides an Amendment. It will be shot down by the courts in short order. That's why it usually isn't even tried.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 26, 2019 13:18:46 GMT -5
I agree that everyone is always running for re-election, so limiting new comers will only worsen our problem that incumbents are hard to beat. Given that political speech is highly protected by the constitution, I am not sure what a federal law would look like that would prevent a person from going around "running for president". What we really want is for it to stop being highly covered by the media. If every cable and internet news outlet in the country didn't make a daily segment out of the election, no matter where is the cycle we are, you wouldn't really notice. Candidates would still travel around the country and speak to groups to get their voice out there. But, we wouldn't have daily stories about how Joe Candidate said billion when he meant trillion, and therefore, he is a total idiot. No reason to cover people currently in office so meticulously either. If we could just focus on the important stuff, our country would be better off. But, capitalism, so news will still do what gains them money. Fox will rial up conservatives with inflammatory programming. And CNN will rial up progressives with inflammatory programming. And all us peasants will get our adrenaline fix every day by coming to the internet and arguing. And we will all think our lives have some kind of meaning and purpose because of it. True. I wonder if making the campaigns federally funded would change things. I know other countries just hand each candidate the same amount of money. So it would at least limit it, even for incumbents. Like trump's speech in Arizona where they're still waiting for money from his campaign - that was obviously a campaign stop and not an office thing since his campaign is paying. Limiting the money would limit the time and scope - at least for the really big things. If you federally funded the campaigns and then prohibited any other donations of any kind to the campaign from any other source while at the same time limiting the election cycle to a few months, IMHO it would help take politics out of the big donors/corporate hands and back to we the people.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 26, 2019 13:26:40 GMT -5
True. I wonder if making the campaigns federally funded would change things. I know other countries just hand each candidate the same amount of money. So it would at least limit it, even for incumbents. Like trump's speech in Arizona where they're still waiting for money from his campaign - that was obviously a campaign stop and not an office thing since his campaign is paying. Limiting the money would limit the time and scope - at least for the really big things. If you federally funded the campaigns and then prohibited any other donations of any kind to the campaign from any other source while at the same time limiting the election cycle to a few months, IMHO it would help take politics out of the big donors/corporate hands and back to we the people. Exactly, it seems like it would kill a lot of birds all at once.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jun 26, 2019 15:34:12 GMT -5
If you federally funded the campaigns and then prohibited any other donations of any kind to the campaign from any other source while at the same time limiting the election cycle to a few months, IMHO it would help take politics out of the big donors/corporate hands and back to we the people. Exactly, it seems like it would kill a lot of birds all at once. Oh boy. Sounds like a Presidential race in where........a third world country or shall I dare say it......Russia? How can you legally prevent a billionaire from spending his own money to run? It would be loss of freedom of speech for the select bilionaires........ Even Bernie Sanders would be a non entity under these rules because most of America would not bother listening to his shit, and the young kids could not fund his campaign. Even the soccer moms would get shut out from the process of backing third tier candidates who do not have a chance of winning.
|
|
Blonde Granny
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 15, 2013 8:27:13 GMT -5
Posts: 6,919
Today's Mood: Alone in the world
Location: Wandering Aimlessly
Mini-Profile Name Color: 28e619
Mini-Profile Text Color: 3a9900
|
Post by Blonde Granny on Jun 26, 2019 15:49:49 GMT -5
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of the "unalienable rights" which the Declaration says have been given to all humans by their creator, and which governments are created to protect.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 26, 2019 17:11:50 GMT -5
Exactly, it seems like it would kill a lot of birds all at once. Oh boy. Sounds like a Presidential race in where........a third world country or shall I dare say it......Russia? How can you legally prevent a billionaire from spending his own money to run? It would be loss of freedom of speech for the select bilionaires........ Even Bernie Sanders would be a non entity under these rules because most of America would not bother listening to his shit, and the young kids could not fund his campaign. Even the soccer moms would get shut out from the process of backing third tier candidates who do not have a chance of winning. We have campaign finance laws right now - we'd just change them so that only the designated federal funds can be spent on newspaper ads, TV spots, yard signs, etc. Not a loss of freedom of speech for anyone - the candidates are free to fly themselves around the country stumping for votes, or doing TV interviews, or web based townhalls, etc. All we'd be missing would be all the special interest PAC money that Big Oil and Big Pharma and Big Everything Else pours into campaigns to fund those horrible 24/7 TV commercials, in return for assistance from the candidate when needed to pass special bills or stop other bills from being passed.
I'm not sure how the soccer moms fit in- there are plenty of 'third tier' candidates who don't have a chance to win right now that people can vote for. People have their reasons for not voting for one of the two big party candidates, that wouldn't change.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jun 26, 2019 21:59:47 GMT -5
Fifteen minutes left in the debate tonight. This conservative's opinion for what it is worth here.
Winners Elizabeth Warren by far Cory booker came in second, but not that close.
Losers Beto O'rourke Mayor Deblasio Jay Inslee Amy Klobuchar Felt some candidates were handed questions partially slanted towards their not being a total leftwinger to hurt them by the moderators while other candidates received questions that were not slanted towards their shortcomings in the party. I did like Ryan of Ohio, and Delaney, felt they held their own well. Tulsi Gabbard, not sure about yet. She might come out better from this debate. Julian Castro handled it pretty well too, but I did not call it a win for any of them. Over all I was impressed with the responses from the candidates tonight. Some wasted their original minute by not answering the question and then were given ten seconds extra to answer it. Not fair to others who answered the question immediately. Deblasio was allowed several times to just jump in after another candidate spoke, while others were immediately stopped by the moderators Warren showed me some fire in her debate tonight and did not come off as being a pain in the butt for me. That is a complement for me! She can handle Trump in a debate.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Jun 27, 2019 6:49:30 GMT -5
Fifteen minutes left in the debate tonight. This conservative's opinion for what it is worth here. Winners Elizabeth Warren by far Cory booker came in second, but not that close. Losers Beto O'rourke Mayor Deblasio Jay Inslee Amy Klobuchar Felt some candidates were handed questions partially slanted towards their not being a total leftwinger to hurt them by the moderators while other candidates received questions that were not slanted towards their shortcomings in the party. I did like Ryan of Ohio, and Delaney, felt they held their own well. Tulsi Gabbard, not sure about yet. She might come out better from this debate. Julian Castro handled it pretty well too, but I did not call it a win for any of them. Over all I was impressed with the responses from the candidates tonight. Some wasted their original minute by not answering the question and then were given ten seconds extra to answer it. Not fair to others who answered the question immediately. Deblasio was allowed several times to just jump in after another candidate spoke, while others were immediately stopped by the moderators Warren showed me some fire in her debate tonight and did not come off as being a pain in the butt for me. That is a complement for me! She can handle Trump in a debate. I didn't get to watch the whole thing but I did see Warren go off a little on how so many middle class families go bankrupt from a medical issue - even families that have health insurance. She was pissed and aggressive and I liked that. I think she did pretty well.
DeBlasio did seem to be doing his best to skew things as far left as possible. I don't think that's a good direction for the Dems.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Jun 27, 2019 6:53:57 GMT -5
Warren and Castro seem to be consensus. Then 3rd varies, Booker, Amy coming up most.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jun 27, 2019 20:40:39 GMT -5
Warren and Castro seem to be consensus. Then 3rd varies, Booker, Amy coming up most. this was what she needed to do. I think you can safely say she is in the hunt, now.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,511
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 27, 2019 22:03:03 GMT -5
Pete Buttigieg: "I hope when I am trump's age in 2055....."
Holy crap: I'll be 104 years old in 2055. I guess I really don't realize how old I am and how much younger Pete Buttigieg is than me.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jun 27, 2019 22:57:47 GMT -5
Well, in the debate, it comes across as get ready to start the confiscation of guns, No one seems to understand , the only one's that will be effected are the legal lawful gun owners. The crazies, and criminals, it will not effect them at all.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Jun 28, 2019 0:36:19 GMT -5
Tonight consensus seems to be Harris and Pete.
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jun 28, 2019 7:41:53 GMT -5
Warren and Castro seem to be consensus. Then 3rd varies, Booker, Amy coming up most. I imagine you are just giving a general consensus answer here, but here is the problem. No one should be looking for what someone else says is the winner or loser. Everyone should make up their own mind and not go with the crowd.........
|
|
Value Buy
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 17:57:07 GMT -5
Posts: 18,680
Today's Mood: Getting better by the day!
Location: In the middle of enjoying retirement!
Favorite Drink: Zombie Dust from Three Floyd's brewery
Mini-Profile Name Color: e61975
Mini-Profile Text Color: 196ce6
|
Post by Value Buy on Jun 28, 2019 7:54:14 GMT -5
I watched the debate last night. So different than the previous night. Never saw ten potential candidates try to out left their fellow leftists at every question. Yes, Harris was the absolute number one winner last night, but felt the entire night was terrible. Moderators let everyone jump in the first hour and attack each other. Yes, they attacked trump too, but expected that also. Also........please note in two nights, on the question of our number one concern in thw world as far as damaging to the U.S. only de Blasio claimed Russia was our largest area of concern. One person out of twenty candidates. This speaks volumes about Russia, Trump, and voter interference in the elections and what the democrats really believe is important. Think about it. Again, pretty obvious moderators wanted certain people to look really good. Surprisingly they kept Bernie fairly quiet. It was Mayor Pete and Kamala Harris's night to shine. It is obvious Biden is not their choice. Looks like they want a woman or Mayor Pete at the top of the ticket based on both nights right now. Bernie, based on last night has been thrown to the curb by MSNBC .
I was able to intently listen to the first night of the debate. Last night I left the room four times yelling at the moderators.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,481
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 28, 2019 8:27:28 GMT -5
... No one should be looking for what someone else says is the winner or loser. Everyone should make up their own mind and not go with the crowd......... ... Yes, Harris was the absolute number one winner last night, ... I agree with Value Buy on individual's deciding for themselves and wish that Value Buy would hear that message.
|
|