Tags
Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, climate crisis, communism, D/S/Cs, democratic socialism, Donald Trump, Elizabeth Warren, green economy, joe biden, Las Vegas clown show, Michael Bloomberg, New Green Deal, non disclosure agreement, Pete Buttegieg
The media are yelling that this time, Elizabeth Warren won. And why did she win, gentle readers? She led the attack on Michael Bloomberg. Actually, the winner, as usual, was Donald Trump. What talking heads are lauding as Warren’s commanding performance was nothing more than a display of bad temper, anger and simmering hatred, not only for Bloomberg, but for Americans. Apparently angry attacks on political rivals of the same party are now far more important than rational, constitutional policies. She’s not a good person, and she demonstrated that in dramatic fashion.
Bloomberg was—and is—a pathetic figure. The Las Vegas “debate” revealed him to be a media creation, a man who animates only in carefully scripted commercials design to portray him as almost lifelike. On the “debate” stage, Bloomberg looked like a wax simulacrum, stony-faced, pale, unsmiling, and virtually unblinking. He needed to make a masterful showing; he was beaten like a rented mule. Rather than looking stalwart, he looked feckless, Walter Mittyish. The moderators did what they could to help him by not bringing up his particularly idiotic comments on farmers, or by asking any other particularly damaging questions. Under constant attack, he barely got a word in for the first half hour.
I refer to the event as a “debate”—God help me, I watched the whole thing this time–because it bore no resemblance to an actual debate where issues are discussed in depth. Aristotle believed effective rhetoric must have ethos—ethics, logos—logic and pathos—emotion. The Las Vegas clown show was rife with pathos. Ethos and logos were almost entirely absent, as were any details that would allow a viewer to have any real sense of what the D/S/Cs policies might actually be. Actually, the little substance present revealed an almost complete lack of the candidate’s logic and ethics.
There were only two policies discussed in any real depth, “depth” being measured in microns: communist health care and communist “climate crisis.” Apart from that, all of the usual D/S/C debate themes were at least touched on:
Trump is the embodiment of evil. “Democratic socialism”–talk about an oxymoron–isn’t really socialism because it’s democratic, and it’s absolutely not communism, no sir, and we can be sure of that because Bernie Sanders says so and he’s a democratic socialist. Guns must be controlled. The Climate Crisis is going to doom us all, doom, I say! in 2020, or six or seven years or so. Some flavor of “universal health care” will happen or we’re doomed, doomed! The police are evil and racist. We must “empower workers!” We must make lots of “investments” (free stuff
paid for out of the pockets of honest taxpayers). We’re going to utterly destroy the coal and oil business, which will create millions of jobs in the new “green economy.” We’re not going to raise taxes on small business, but on everyone else, except blacks and Hispanics, who are going to start all kinds of small businesses. Amazingly, no one actually called all Americans racist, which has been a primary debate theme until now, but of course, it’s implied by everything they said. There were, of course, no American flags anywhere in sight.
The debate format gave each candidate only a bit over a minute for statements, and less for responses. This caused them all to speak very rapidly, and most adopted the “scream angrily, attack constantly, stare fixedly, and gesture wildly” method of speechifying. They spent so much time yelling at each other, the five moderators only got in a few questions over the two hours, which felt like an eternity.
On to the candidates:
Bernie “I’m not a communist” Sanders: He was, if anything, even angrier, louder, more manically gesturing, wild-eyed and red-faced than usual. He immediately attacked Bloomberg on “Stop and Frisk” (I addressed that issue here). Bernie informed us he will bring everyone together—while attacking half of America—and his agenda will work for everyone because Universal Health Care and Green New Deal, and “workers”—he just can’t stop with the communist terminology—haven’t had a raise in 45 years. By that definition, I’m apparently not a worker. He’s going to spend untold trillions to save billions on health care and that will work because he’s going to raise taxes on everyone, but they won’t have to pay for health care they won’t get due to shortages and rationing, so it’s all good. Bernie is going to entirely ban fracking because we have only 6-7 years left until absolute climate doom! And he’s a democratic socialist because some countries have a higher standard of living than we do.
Michael “I really like black people and women” Bloomberg: As Previously noted, he was as animated as a wax statue. I was almost sure I saw him blink once, and he may have had the barest hint of a smirk on his stony face once too, but I’m not sure about that one. Bloomberg knows Sanders can’t beat Trump because he’s going to take away everyone’s insurance, but he can beat him and run the country, and he’s spending millions to get rid of Trump which is the only thing that will prevent the imminent destruction of the universe. Trump’s not a manager, but he is. He likes Obamacare, but he wants to double down on it and impose even more Obamacare than Obamacare, but he’s not for universal health care, no Sir!
When he was attacked about being a racist because of Stop And Frisk, he gave a rambling, repeated pseudo apology, something about it was in effect when he became mayor, but “it got out of hand,” so he stopped “95%” of it. He’s going to entirely kill the coal industry. He had the most telling comment of the evening when he said:
Sanders’ and Warren were outraged, the audience and rest of the candidates groaned, and Sanders’ and Warren’s little hands shot up: “OOO, OOO, Me, Me!” They were very anxious to reassure the audience they were too communists and they were too going to throw out capitalism.
Elizabeth “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” Warren: She was even louder, angrier, and more hectoring than usual. She immediately attacked Bloomberg for calling women “fat broads” and “horse faced lesbians,” and observed Democrats can’t “substitute one arrogant billionaire for another.”
She challenged Bloomberg to void all the nondisclosure agreements he has with women formerly in his employ. He helplessly stuttered the NDAs were “consensual,”—the women, not he, wanted them—so he wouldn’t. She’s going to stop mining and drilling on public lands, and will stop all off shore drilling. She wants to “get more power into unions,” and make them easier to join. She observed she has been a politician a shorter time than anyone on the stage, and she’ll “fight for families.” During the evening, she told several ostensibly tear-jerking anecdotes to illustrate her points, sad stories full of virtue because of her caring for unfortunates, but they were so rushed and obscure, people’s eyes glazed over. That particular Warren tactic got old about the 3rd debate. Her shrill and intrusive tactics won her most of the talking time.
Amy “I’m just like you toothless WalMart shoppers” Klobuchar: “I’m the only one for rural and suburban voters.” She attacked Bloomberg for a campaign memo suggesting three of the candidates should drop out in favor of Bloomberg. She also said something I hadn’t considered: a women president would stop sexism on the Internet, apparently because she would be president, and a woman. The token Telemundo moderator, a woman with an outrageous Hispanic accent, made Klobuchar apologize gushingly about not knowing the name of the Mexican president, which set off a sickly sweet diatribe about how wonderful and important Mexico is.
She has, for some time, claimed to be a capitalist, which she summed up like this: “I believe in capitalism, but the President of the United States should be a check on that.” Of course he/she should.
She announced she opposed at least 2/3 of the Trump judges—can’t have people that make rulings based on the Constitution and the law—and said: “we have a president that doesn’t have a heart.” She, of course, does. Gay Pete and she had several nasty exchanges. There’s no love lost there.
Gropin’ Joe “Where am I?” Biden: He was in “speak really fast, say nothing, shout loudly, look really angry, gesture wildly and attack everybody” mode. His makeup was very thick, but he must have missed his most recent Botox appointment. His brow was heavily furrowed, his eyes were wide and staring, and he had red marks over his right eyebrow and on his left cheek as though the makeup people were trying, and failing, to cover bruises. He continues to look every day of his age, but was more energized than usual, if not more coherent. He attacked Bloomberg early over Stop and Frisk, calling it “a violation of every right people have.” It apparently also involved free speech, religion, and the right not to have troops quartered in one’s home. Who knew? He noted a recent NBC poll shows he’s the best person to beat Trump. The audience was silent about that, but later during his closing statement, he was loudly heckled, forcing him to stop until the hecklers—it was impossible to make out what they were saying—were removed.
Biden too is all for the Green New Deal, and he thinks we have to find a way to transmit the power from windmills and solar installations across the country, so we have to invest in batteries, and high speed rail, lots of that. No battery technology to do that sort of thing exists, nor does high-speed rail, but he also wants electric vehicle chargers everywhere. He also explained why he’s running: “I’m running because so many people have been left behind.” Yeah. It’s that darned terrible Trump economy.
Pete “I’m a lot more Christian than you, and Gay too” Buttegieg: He was pale, and had a heavy five O’ Clock shadow, particularly on his upper lip. Was he trying to look older? He announced Sanders and Bloomberg “are the most polarizing figures on this stage,” and said “let’s put forth somebody who’s actually a Democrat.” Pete is a socialist as any of them, but he was rolling… If we don’t elect a climate hysteric instead of Trump by 2020, we’re all doomed! He spent considerable time shamelessly pandering to Blacks and Hispanics—which isn’t a bad idea considering how badly he’s doing with both—though it likely didn’t help him at all. And in a rare moment of faux introspection, observed: “we can’t afford to alienate half the country,” which is what they all spent the evening doing. He has been trying to present himself as the sane, moderate alternative to everyone else, and thus far, has been fairly successful in that pretense, but should he gain in the polls, his socialist upbringing and beliefs will be exposed.
Final Thoughts: The event was chaotic, full of petty sniping and no actual illumination of candidate’s actual policies, to say nothing of how they’re going to pay for them. Even so, several things are clear:
*Bloomberg’s money won’t be enough to win the presidency—or will it?
*Every one of them intends to bankrupt the nation through Universal Health Care and some sort of Green New Deal.
*A few pretend they won’t take away everyone’s insurance, but that’s a promise in the same vein as “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Period.”
*All are going to utterly destroy the coal and oil industries, and eliminate all the infrastructure and industries involved, which would represent the destruction of the economy through the elimination of millions of jobs and innumerable communities. But that doesn’t matter because the new, sustainable energy economy would make up all the difference.
*Though they barely mentioned it, they’re all in for disarming the public.
*Though they barely mentioned it, they’re all in for partisan judges.
*The D/S/Cs are desperate. It’s entirely possible, even likely, the DNC will once again rig the nomination to deny Sanders. Will they, after his pathetic performance, anoint Bloomberg and his billions? Possible, but a dark horse like Michelle Obama can’t be counted out.
*The Trump derangement and hatred of half or more of America that consumes them will make it impossible for national reconciliation. Should one of them win, they’ll double down on bending Deplorables to their will, and fundamentally transforming America so no Republican can ever again be elected. Should Trump win, they will be entirely incapable of even the slightest pretense of honoring American Constitutionalism, and will make the current “Resistance,” look like a Girl Scout picnic.
Even if Trump wins in November, if Republicans don’t hold the Senate and retake the house, we’re in for a rougher ride, gentle readers. It’s not going to be pleasant under any possible outcome.
UPDATE, 022120, 2015 CST: Visit my favorite Bookworm’s take on the debate and the candidates.
I don’t care all that much for any specific Dem candidate. What I DO care for is getting rid of Trump… for the exact same reasons Conservatives voted for Trump because they hated Hillary. How might Trump loose? It will be far less about the charisma of a Dem candidate capturing voters, and far more about Trump shooting himself in the foot as he always manages to do.
Take for example this DNI ridiculousness. Trump’s enraged at the last DNI briefing the House intel committee that there is intel indicating the Russians already have plans to help Trump win. The meeting was last week apparently. Trump gets ticked, helps the last DNI out the door (under the guise that the law says he has to go.. the fifth since Trump’s election.) and now appointed yet another of his lacky loyalists as another “temp” cabinet position to by-pass Congress, with NO intel experience (against the law) to keep “bad” Russian intel news from getting to Schiff.
Oh yes.. I have total faith in Trump.
If you wanted to simply spread improvised fear your points were pretty good, Mike.
Trump is getting a new ODNI because the Senate won’t approve a non-swamp critter into that position or other critical positions, like Attorney General and director of the FBI, in order to keep their own crimes hidden. So Trump is having to appoint a new “acting” ODNI when the last one’s term expires. He tried to appoint Rep. Ratcliffe, who has vast experience in the House intelligence committee, but he was withdrawn immediately when the Senate Republicans objected, clearly because they don’t own him like Barr and Wray. Just look at the case of Adam Wolfe, the security director of the senate select intelligence committee, who was caught red- handed leaking classified documents (the Carter Page FISA) in a classic counter intelligence investigation, but as soon as his lawyer threatened to call to testify the Senators on that committee he was suddenly allowed to plead guilty to one charge of lying to the FBI, and he served only 2 months in jail. Compare that to Roger Stone’s 3+ year sentence for process crimes in the course of the Mueller investigation into a crime that we now know didn’t happen.
And don’t claim that this is a conspiracy theory or has been debunked. We know that the day Wolfe received the 82 page FISA, he sent 82 text messages (a photo of each page?) to his reporter-girlfriend who quickly published the details. But the document was altered slightly so investigators knew exactly who leaked it. This is all public record. Look it up for your self.
I hope Grenell releases all of the relevant documents that Barr is sitting on. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
You really ought to consider what you are supporting Trump doing just to save his own criminal butt. But.. you and other fellow Trumpians don’t care how far Trump goes to sidestep, overtly defy, and to use the common descriptive… shred, the Constitution. The end does not justify the means.
Doug,
Oh, and it’s off topic but I just saw this chart and thought it was perfect for you. It shows the substantial decrease in the violent crime rate over time against the dramatic increase in AR-15 sales.
So we can say conclusively that more guns does not equal more crime. We cannot positively conclude that more guns equal less crime, but that is a possible outcome.
I appreciate your passing that my way.. and that I am on your mind. :)
I don’t have any personal use for suggesting more guns=more crime… for two reasons.
1. Common sense suggests that if there were absolutely no guns in America then no Americans.. criminals or church ladies.. could use a gun for killing another person. BUT.. we do not live in such a vacuum… and we certainly will never, ever, attain that kind of national ban simply because the guns are already part of our culture and are here to stay. There’s a rule of reasonableness simply because the numbers of guns already sold are here to stay.
2. I owned a business in a past life that designed questionnaires and forms for conducting research, as well as computer entry and subsequently tabulated collected data.. primarily marketing data. Statistics can be accurate yet presented to mean anything someone wants. Perfect for this day and age of fake news to suit your cause. So when I see a chart like this I first question, not the data collected that cause these graphed results, but rather what data was NOT included in this result. If I recognize a source of the graph being credible I then will try and determine if I am seeing ALL the data or just selective data to imply a preferred conclusion.
So what do I question on this chart? At face value your interpretation would seem accurate. I see in the graph that in the real world comparing two wildly diverse sets of data.. MSR’s to “violent crime rate” there’s a huge gap of potential interpretive inaccuracy. I immediately suspect “Who is trying to play with my mind?”. For one thing.. guns are a commodity that are directly tied to huge variables such as current economy, supply and demand of product availability (the decline), changes in government regulation, politics, etc. in all those time periods. For example, we already know gun sales surge right after a mass shooting and cries of gun control echo in the land. In the same vein, does “violent crime rate” mean only crimes using guns… or were all other kinds of violent crime included, thereby suggest a possible interpretive bias (intended or not)?
I’m not saying the chart is “wrong”, but unless we know how the data was collected, the hypothesis behind collecting the data (what is to be proven or disproven).. the chart is just a chart. This is one reason that sources of charts are important as most research firms do follow some semblance of objective data analysis.
D’oh! The leaker is named James Wolfe. Sorry.
Doug,
Don’t worry, you’re just another leftist troll to me. This just happens to be one of my pet peeves, that people like you seem to only be concerned about murder victims if they’re killed with a gun, as if that’s the only way people are murdered, and who make no distinction between legally and illegally owned guns, completely ignoring all of the people who’s lives are saved by legally owned guns.
Oh, and those who promote socialism but ignore the 100 million people killed in cold blood in the 20th century by their own socialist governments.
“there’s a huge gap of potential interpretive inaccuracy” That’s funny. It’s a very simple chart, with the FBIs violent crime rate plotted against the number of AR-15s sold legally in the US. Not much room for manipulation. Just to reinforce, it’s a fact that more guns does not equal more violent crime. Live it, learn it, love it.
And remember that we have your hero, Saint Barack, to thank being the greatest gun salesman in history.
Not sure how my interpretation of that graph.. which wasn’t necessarily contrary to the point you were attempting to make to me, ends up with you lumping me into the Liberal-take-away-our-guns bunch. Just goes to show the hair-trigger response (pun intended) of the they’re-taking-away-our-guns community by reading everything as a fear. And who said anything about socialist governments?
But… I do realize there is enough frustration on both sides of the Trump dilemma… and he will cause more as time goes on. I also know that followers of Conservative blogs are there to not have their opinions challenged but rather validated between each other that they are a common community in universal agreement. If nothing else the Conservative blog is a refuge from the real world where many feel threatened because of their opinions. That indeed would presume that my presence is in fact… holding to the characterization of a troll, albeit my intent is not to agitate and cause a ruckus… the end result is still the same.
Easy fix.
Dear Doug:
I beg to differ regarding your thoughts on why people patronize conservative blogs. It has been my practice, to read widely, including the major media pretenses on the Internet, and no small number of what might be called progressive blogs. It is also my experience that readers of this blog, and other “conservative” blogs do the same. This is hardly evidence of timidity or fear.
I certainly don’t expect everyone to agree with me, merely to be civil in agreement or disagreement. Of course, you know this.
It is, rather, progressives, that avoid reading conservative sites, as Bookworm–a reformed progressive, explains:
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2020/02/05/a-few-words-about-rush-limbaugh/
You typed a lot of words to try and dismiss a simple graph. Intent seems pretty clear.
Trump and Bernie are thriving because they are authentic. I don’t agree with Bernie but I have to give him credit for being honest about his beliefs. You and most of the left won’t admit that you want socialism, which is just pathetic. You want a small group of people (which includes you of course) to make all of the decisions for everyone else, because the general public won’t the make the “correct” decisions. And then after the promised utopia doesn’t appear, the people get blamed for not getting on the socialist bandwagon, so the re-education camps get built and filled. The famines come later.
Phil, Your reasoning seems reasonable yet what do we know about its motivation? Such reasoning as your leads to only one conclusion, given the outcome of your reasoning. I certainly don’t want to impugn your motives, but you do intend to keep a fascist in the White House. But blogs like this allow people like you to reveal their true selves. I hope you don’t take me the wrong way. Nothing like having informative exchanges of ideas. I am the only real conservative, honest.
In one of his posts, Doug asserts that President Trump is a criminal.
I would love it if he could cite a SINGLE crime Trump has committed
in office or in his private life! The left has been crawling up his ass
with microscope for over three years and has yet to find even the
slightest trace of evidence of a parking ticket, let alone a real
crime. Being a sponge for false media-generated narratives
only proves he has a world-class case of gullibility!
The other Phil, that graph is evidence of the Butterfield Effect. Fox
Butterfield was an idiot leftist reporter who made a statement that
that was so incredibly stupid they named an effect after him. “Crime
down despite more incarcerations,” Pardon me while I open up
another tab for the definition:
“Crimes rates were falling because bad guys were behind bars and
invented the term “Butterfield Effect” to describe the failure of someone
to put 2 + 2 together.”
Even back in the 70s, the New York Times was staffed with Forest
Gump type tools of the left!
I just couldn’t force myself to watch it. Did they have Bloomberg standing on a box so he looked as tall as the other candidates?
Dear pieslapper:
He wasn’t on a box, but they had him on an end, so the difference in height wasn’t quite so obvious.
I’ve long maintained the D/S/C candidate will be whom ever survives the backroom knife fight between Hillary and Michelle. No longer. Valery Jarrett won’t let the Obama brand be tarnished by a possible (certain?) loss in 2020. Michelle will be waiting in the wings for 2024
Dear Stretch:
It’s going to be interesting–and ugly.
Doug
Merrily calling DJT “criminal” is delusional at this point. Face it, he is now about the most investigated person in American history. Remember the ransacking of his own lawyers files? Remember how the SDNY was “closing in” regarding his activities in NYC? Mueller had a blank check in every respect and all the malice in the Universe and it came down to ” I cannot prove he is innocent.”
So, if he has committed “crimes” where else is there for them to be hiding?
Dug, are you saying that Trump is a fascist? I thought a fascist was a socialist who advocated for socialism on behalf of nationalism, as opposed to the Marx/Lenin’s advocacy of the same thing on behalf of the workers of the world. It’s in the names that they gave themselves, where Hitler’s nazis were the national socialist party, while Lenin’s USSR is the union of Soviet socialist republic.
Both believed in government control of society and the economy, banned religion and free expression, oppressed minorities, wages war in their neighbors, and murdered dissidents by the millions.
Trump has done none of this. Nor is he a dictator, who generally kill anyone who is critical of the state.
Or please provide your definition of a fascist.
I’m sorry, I’m advance, if I misunderstood you comment.