strong text[quote=“champ, post:3010, topic:61, full:true”]
this is Biden at his best, really an incredible answer that left Ryan with no place in the debate
[/quote]
It was also 7 years ago. This guy can barely string together coherent thoughts.
Yep, that’s the point. He’s clearly lost it.
Hi everyone, do you think Castro was a big meanie to Biden?
As with his debate against Paul Ryan, it’s a classic case of realizing it was never that Joe was that good, it’s that his opponents were that bad. I can do all sorts of fancy tricks on the court when I’m playing against my nephew, but the guy is eleven. What chance did he have?
I was a couple days late finishing the debate so I heard Biden’s rant as a highlight before I saw it in context. Don’t think this has been mentioned, his $60k salary and vocabulary deficit talking points were mentioned first by Booker and Yang. Was he even presenting his own misguided education plan or did he rip that straight from his opponents? It was very weird.
He’s been plagiarizing for a long time to be fair.
Zing
Didn’t watch the debate, because why? But this transcript reads like a Trump transcript, totally incoherent, that is to say, I’m sure like 40% of the viewers nodded along and thought it was a solid answer.
Castro would’ve gained 10 points being a dick if this was a republican debate
Although we Americans like to think our nation is exceptional, the choices made by defenders of democracy in 1922 Italy and 1933 Germany are worth revisiting. The parallels are not perfect. Our two-party tradition sets us apart from Germany and Italy, each of which had five major parties. But legislative gridlock and voter cynicism today are reminiscent of conditions that marked the last months of democracy in Italy and Germany. The threat to our democracy does not command militias, but hate groups incite violence. Our economy is stable but many Americans feel left behind. Most worrying, Republicans march in lockstep behind Donald Trump, while Democrats fragment – like opponents of authoritarianism in interwar Europe.
That’s a pretty poorly thought out article, though… From the second paragraph:
Whatever their differences, Democratic candidates must agree to broad principles related to key issues, for example, immigration, health care, and the growing wealth gap. A general consensus would leave plenty of room for healthy debates about implementation, but failure to emphasize shared ideals in relationship to two or three major questions will blunt Democrats’ offensive against a candidate whose campaign is based on slander and fear.
Is there not broad consensus in the Democratic Party on immigration (good), income inequality (bad) and health care (should be universal)? I mean, shit, the most disagreement is on healthcare where like 95% of the candidates are basically just arguing over whether Medicare for All should be an opt-in or opt-out program. The others are for single payer and basically agree with each other.
So I don’t see how there isn’t agreement on broad principles with healthy debate on implementation.
The issue is the fact that the party is not in lock-step on how to oppose Trump with regard to enforcing subpoenas, impeachment, investigations, etc.
I disagree that there is broad consensus, but I get where you’re coming from. I think that every candidate would say income inequality is a problem, but very few would consider drastic redistributive policies to change that. I think every candidate says they want universal healthcare coverage, but most of them are fine knowing that their plans don’t come close to achieving that. I think every candidate has basically the right talking points on immigration, but most of them don’t have any problem with how we’ve been doing things for the last 30 years.
This isn’t really a defense of the article you quoted, and I’m obviously preaching to the choir, but it really rustles my jimmies to hear the talking point that these candidates agree on most things, because like Amy Klobuchar clearly does not care about giving every American healthcare. The non Bernie/Warren/Yang people agree on things.
The fourth Democratic presidential debate — which will actually have more candidates onstage than September’s — will be on Tuesday, October 15, at 8 pm ET at Otterbein University, outside of Columbus, Ohio, and broadcast by CNN.
lets goooooo
It’s gonna suck with that many people is what to expect.
and yet my eyes will still be glued for the whole 3? hours to see the trainwreck
I’m going to be watching my Cardinals get swept by the Nationals. If it gets out of hand early I’ll tune in. Otherwise I will watch the highlights of the couple candidates I like later.
12 candidates on stage at once is just fucking dumb.
Eh, so is the American populace.
I will probably tune in to this one though. 12 on one stage is much better than two stages. Still dumb though. Get it down to 6 or fewer and then it starts to be a real debate. Right now it’s just waiting.