4 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Many people said that Harris was getting too far ahead of herself on impeachment, but she turned out to be right (funny how quickly people are willing to dismiss the words of a former prosecutor regarding matters on the law).  Harris made some salient remarks with passion, which sad but unsurprisingly were overlooked.  This thread is worth a watch.  I don't know whether the rest of America will catch up with Harris in time, perhaps she truly is too far ahead for this country.

 

I wish she got more coverage. I'm still Team Kamala but realistically I see Elizabeth Warren as the woman going forward (not that I have any problem with that, just not my 1st choice) 

 

 

 

LOL knowing that dumbass he probably thinks Pres is PRESS 

Federal prosecutors are alleging that a bank, which is majority owned by Turkey, has been exchanging BILLIONS of dollars of Iranian oil money to violate U.S. sanctions.

Prosecutors say high-ranking Turkish government officials received millions in bribes to promote the scheme. https://t.co/uaDaxTGf4Q

— Tom Winter (@Tom_Winter) October 15, 2019

Between the heavy pushing of Amy Klobuchar and the incredibly stupid, pathetic question begging the Democrats to name their best Republican friend (Republicans would never be asked that type of question), CNN is no longer even bothering to hide their right wing bias. 

 

I am so fed up of all these hanger-ons like Klobuchar or Gabbard or Buttigieg who are just taking up time and in many cases reading Republican talking points. And Booker and Castro and O'Rourke are mostly just done - I feel like Booker in particular is stuck in some kind of parody world at this point.

 

I just wish the whole thing was over already. Another night where I have a hard time imagining any of the Democrats being able to handle a general. I think Harris is the one who is most likely to stay cool under pressure. Biden can't, Bernie is Bernie, and Warren seems to be getting rattled. Yet they are the main three...

Why was Tulsi Gabbard even still there?!  Tom Steyer is simply taking up space to continue his vanity campaign when I believe he could be far more effective tackling some critical issue from his base, like the fact that legitimate, very active voters in Ohio are being kicked off the voter rolls, or even agitating the impeachment issue on his own, as he did in the past before he decided to launch this campaign.

 

I hope that the number of candidates is whittled down by the next debate and that other broadcasters besides CNN and NBC will provide the debate platform going forward.  I suspect PBS will come in later once they know they can have a more constructive, focused debate with fewer candidates.  I was able to watch via CNN's website, although I don't subscribe to cable but these debates need to be more accessible to even those without Internet access (believe it or not, there are still people out there who don't have reliable access) or cable. 

 

And CNN always seems to neglect the very same set of questions each and every time they conduct these debates.

11 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Between the heavy pushing of Amy Klobuchar and the incredibly stupid, pathetic question begging the Democrats to name their best Republican friend (Republicans would never be asked that type of question), CNN is no longer even bothering to hide their right wing bias. 

 

I actually wish Klobuchar was getting more attention. She much more representative of what the Democratic Party is than Warren or Sanders. She's also the most effective Democrat in the Senate so she actually knows how to make policy. The fact that she's not doing better is a sad commentary on the state of the Dem party right now. I really want her to be Biden's VP because she'll be ready to take over for him on day one if something happens.

11 hours ago, DRW50 said:

Between the heavy pushing of Amy Klobuchar and the incredibly stupid, pathetic question begging the Democrats to name their best Republican friend (Republicans would never be asked that type of question), CNN is no longer even bothering to hide their right wing bias.

 

Trump is always so quick to call the MSM "the enemy (of the people)."  However, if the s.o.b. were to read an actual newspaper or watch a network other than Faux News, he'd see just how favorable the MSM tends to be toward him and his party.

 

3 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

I suspect PBS will come in later once they know they can have a more constructive, focused debate with fewer candidates.

 

I hope so.  PBS is shaping up more and more to be the only news source I can trust.

 

Would someone please explain the difference to me between "Medicare for All" and "Medicare for All Who Want It"?  Because, the more I look into these separate plans, the more confused I become.

Edited October 16, 20196 yr by Khan

Klobuchar has some issues of being too difficult with staff, so that probably is a factor in why she isn't doing much better. She had a problem staffing her campaign because of her reputation. In a Democratic primary being abusive to your staff is pretty much a no go.

When I read an article about this, I thought it was some odd satire but sadly, I see that it really happened.  Bizarre to have a man in the WH who behaves as if he believes that he is always on the set of some reality television show.

 

 

14 minutes ago, marceline said:

 

I actually wish Klobuchar was getting more attention. She much more representative of what the Democratic Party is than Warren or Sanders. She's also the most effective Democrat in the Senate so she actually knows how to make policy. The fact that she's not doing better is a sad commentary on the state of the Dem party right now. I really want her to be Biden's VP because she'll be ready to take over for him on day one if something happens.

 

I'm sure she's very effective for her state, and has some good ideas, but after all these years the "I can win because I won (Republican Congressional district) in my state" no longer moves me. I feel like she has ended up being known more for what she doesn't support than what she does. It's just been a really lousy campaign year that has dragged everyone down. In another year she might have had more of a chance. 

15 minutes ago, Khan said:

Would someone please explain the difference to me between "Medicare for All" and "Medicare for All Who Want It"?  Because, the more I look into these separate plans, the more confused I become.

 

Medicare for all gets rid of all private insurance plans. 

10 minutes ago, ReddFoxx said:

Klobuchar has some issues of being too difficult with staff, so that probably is a factor in why she isn't doing much better. She had a problem staffing her campaign because of her reputation. In a Democratic primary being abusive to your staff is pretty much a no go.

 

I must admit her reputation among staffers is pretty awful.  However, whenever I hear about a woman who has been branded as "difficult" by those who work or have worked for her, I always wonder whether these same individuals would still complain if the she were a he.

 

4 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Medicare for all gets rid of all private insurance plans. 

 

So, how is that different from Buttigieg's "Medicare for All Who Want It"?  And why does it seem like so many other candidates are proposing variations on "Medicare for All," when the concept's basically the same?

 

Thanks, @DRW50!

Edited October 16, 20196 yr by Khan

2 minutes ago, Khan said:

So, how is that different from Buttigieg's "Medicare for All Who Want It"?  And why does it seem like so many other candidates are proposing variations on "Medicare for All," when the concept's basically the same?

 

I think with Medicare for All, you have no option of a private plan. There is a government-run system with no alternatives. With his plan, I guess, you can keep your insurance if you want to do so.

5 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

I think with Medicare for All, you have no option of a private plan. There is a government-run system with no alternatives. With his plan, I guess, you can keep your insurance if you want to do so.

 

That makes sense.

 

I started looking into this issue yesterday after a friend of mine posted the following on FB:

 

Buttigieg is too smart not to know that his health plan will only give people the ability to "choose" who they pay their premiums to, not who they can see for their care. If you've ever had to deal with high medical expenses, know that Mayor Pete doesn't care about you.

 

Hence, my stupid questions.

Edited October 16, 20196 yr by Khan