DiscussMormonism.com

I watched most of the debate, and I have to say, my reaction to everyone across the board seemed to be different from what I heard people opine.

For the first time, I was a little put off by Buttigieg. People were saying he had a strong night. I thought he was too aggressive. There's a fine line between confidence and belligerence.

I heard people saying Warren had a bad night. I'd say she handled the increase in attacks coming her way nicely. Democrats are trying to make hay out of the fact that they can't get her to admit she'd raise taxes to pay for Medicare for All. I think that's a cheap, GOP-like attack to focus on that. If you listen to her answers, she's implicitly saying she would raise taxes, but you'll be better off. They're attacking the nuance, and it's dumbing down the conversation. She's trying to avoid giving the sound byte Yes I'll raise taxes, and she's smart to do so, because she knows it will be used incessantly out of context by the right.

Biden was OK. Everyone else seemed mediocre to me. Nobody stood out for me really, except maybe Tom Steyer, but only because he kind of entertains me. Can't see ever throwing my full support behind him in the primary.

Oh, this is what I wanted to ask this group... is it just me, or does Amy Klobuchar always sound on the verge of tears in debates and in interviews?

I sense a ton of nervous energy when she speaks.

Actually, now that I think about it, I guess I would say I liked Cory Booker more than usual this time around. Maybe I was in the mood for his tone. I completely agree with him that Democrats should avoid character attacks at all costs. This is not the time to be providing the right with sound bytes.

She's trying to avoid giving the sound byte Yes I'll raise taxes, and she's smart to do so, because she knows it will be used incessantly out of context by the right.

Back to your conservative roots I see? I'm just curious what you mean when you say that. I can't really think of a single conservative belief you now have or ever had?

Bernie seems to have no trouble admitting he would raise taxes on pretty much everyone but in his opinion we'd be better off because of it. I think he's an evil communist but I'd still give him an A for being straightforward and honest about it.

ajax18 wrote:

She's trying to avoid giving the sound byte Yes I'll raise taxes, and she's smart to do so, because she knows it will be used incessantly out of context by the right.

Back to your conservative roots I see? I'm just curious what you mean when you say that. I can't really think of a single conservative belief you now have or ever had?

That's because conservationism to you has something to do with inbreeding.

My post was self-explanatory. That you completely missed the point, demonstrated by your question, will surprise no one.

ajax18 wrote:Bernie seems to have no trouble admitting he would raise taxes on pretty much everyone but in his opinion we'd be better off because of it. I think he's an evil communist but I'd still give him an A for being straightforward and honest about it.

Evil communist... you really don't know what words mean to everyone else outside the myopic little community in which you exist.

Do you imagine anyone takes you seriously? I know you won't answer that, so it's rhetorical. I'm not sure you have the faculties to process the question anyway.

I care. I came in probably 3/4 of the way through and I can't find a video of the full debate to save my life. I thought it would go to video within an hour or so. But no and no comment until I do see it for myself.

I watched only the very first part of the debate because Tuesday night is the night the chorale group I sing with practices. I did not see enough of it to form a strong impression about it.

Well I did watch the week in review with Rush Limbaugh. He cited Biden using a conservative talking point. He pointed out that taxing everyone who makes more than $10 million/year or more at 100% and completely shutting down the Department of Defense would allow the government to run the social welfare spending they want for about 4 months. Warren had no idea what to say because she'd never heard a Democrat point this out.

To me this entire Syria controversy attests to Trump's brilliance. Name a single other Republican who could get the Democrats to beat the war drums and call us into combat?

ajax18 wrote:Name a single other Republican who could get the Democrats to beat the war drums and call us into combat?

What Democratic Congresscritters are calling for combat, and against which entity?

I'd be for fighting if we were allowed to do it right without Democrat and libertarian interference. Since that is there, the world can pay for our police service from now on.

ajax18 wrote:I'd be for fighting if we were allowed to do it right without Democrat and libertarian interference. Since that is there, the world can pay for our police service from now on.

What Democratic Congresscritters are calling for combat, and against which entity?

ajax18 wrote: ... the world can pay for our police service from now on.

So, you think the huge US defence budget is there because the US is providing a 'police service' for the rest of the world free of charge, and that it does that simply because it is generous to a fault. That point of view is not only naïve in the extreme, but is highly dangerous to the long-term interests of the US itself.

Let's think ... so why does a relatively poor country like Russia spend so much on its armed forces? Why is China steadily building up an ever larger and ever more sophisticated war-fighting capacity? I suppose they are just going to provide a 'police service'? Or could it be that they maintain those ever-growing forces because they see them as essential in advancing and protecting their political and economic interests? Just like every other large country has, since the beginning of warfare?

Let's get real: the brute fact is that US forces are where they are because the US has world-wide political and economic interests that it needs to protect and extend in competition with other state entities who would love to see the extent of those interests reduced in favour of their own, making the US weaker and poorer as a result. That's perfectly normal state behaviour. Governments certainly like to present all military actions as selfless interventions for the benefit of others and 'world peace'. But when Russia says that, do you believe them? I doubt it. And Russia is currently delighted at the way Trump has abandoned US allies and destroyed its own bases and materiel in northern Syria, leaving Russia a much freer hand in areas it has long wished to control.

Look, I know you are committed to Trump heart and soul. But, just for a moment, pause and ask yourself whether you need to believe that everything he does, however thoughtless and impulsive, however much it flies in the face of advice from people much more experienced in international and military affairs, is necessarily in the best interests of the US.

Because ultimately, you care about the US much, more more than you care about Trump, don't you?

At least I hope you do.