The Democratic debate #3 discussion (Without videos)

sprout said:

I have, on occasion, poked fun at DS for making 'Dad jokes', but his repartee includes many original puns, and other types of humor that include astute takes on something.

Proeasdf, if you think using the term 'kernel' is funny... well... perhaps the issue is that your sense of comedy may be better aligned with a younger crowd?

I don't recall ever commenting on the use of the term "kernel", but I suspect the confusion here might have been that until now nobody realized it was meant to be funny. I guess the fact that it was intended as a joke proves the point that it's such a fine line between stupid and clever. 

But I doubt the reference would land with younger people who would likely know nothing, nothing (!) about its origin. 

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 I'm not working for anybody. I am anti Bernie, but not obsessively posting screed after screed with demeaning and insulting comments, like you.

 Biden is what Biden is.  If drawing attention to his missteps, gaffes and brain sharts comes off as "demeaning and insulting" the fault lies in the missteps, gaffes and brain sharts.  

conandrob240 said:

Klinker said:

You know, people who watched the debate dismissed Harris but, for the majority of voters who didn't watch it, her line about the "little dude behind the curtain" is getting a lot of props. I would venture to say that, with the possible exception of Biden's brain shart about the gramophone, it is the signature line of the evening.

 It was such a stupid line. It didn’t even make any sense.

I watched the whole thing save for the first 6 minutes and I didn’t notice any “cackling” or any odd/weird/inappropriate behavior or sounds coming from Harris. 

 I loved it and I don't even support Harris.  Something about it was just very funny and it captured the pure insanity that is life in Dumpsters Ummerika.  Great delivery!

conandrob240 said:

Morganna said:

STANV said:

I couldn't watch, do thank you all for telling me about.

Did any of the candidates say anything of substance that he/she has not said before?

Did any of you change your view of any candidate? 

 Yes. I will not support Castro.

I was  very impressed with Beto. He has gone all out on taking away assault weapons. He seems to be closer to Cory on guns than most of the candidates. Its a big issue with me. Up there with climate change and women's rights. 

Agreed Castro has no respect from me now. I didn’t think of him one way or another before- now, I think he’s a jerk.

Booker rose another notch in my mind. 

Beto was finally the Beto we all wanted. If he had been that since Day 1, he’d be in this fight now.

Harris fell further in my mind as well. 

Bernie continues to make me want to vomit. That hasn’t changed.

I wish the field had been smaller so we could have seen more of a contest between Elizabeth and Joe. 

 Thank you both for responding. And thank you for engaging in substantive serious conversation.

STANV said:

 Thank you both for responding. And thank you for engaging in substantive serious conversation.

 All candidates + Tom Steyer will have a chance at the brass ring on October 15 and perhaps 16th depending on any growth in the field. Sponsored by NYT and CNN.

Yang, -crazy like a fox, -I referred to this probability in an earlier post;

Read here an excerpt from a Politico article today,

"Andrew Yang’s surprising debate gambit — giving away $120,000 to 10 families over a year to highlight his universal basic income proposal — helped the outsider candidate raise $1 million in the 72 hours since the debate and collect more than 450,000 email addresses from people who entered the online raffle, the presidential campaign told POLITICO.

The campaign said that over 90 percent of the email addresses are new, a huge expansion of the candidate's email list. He also gained more Twitter followers over the course of the debate than any other candidate."

Yang is the argument against narrowing the field prematurely.  Perhaps his Waterloo is around the corner but, thus far, his trajectory has been nothing but up.

OK, attempting to build on my limited understanding of economics by asking how Yang's plan would work. I get that although he may not be the nominee he is adding something different to the conversation.

As I was watching an economist on C SPAN discuss the signs of impending recession and trying to wrap my brain around the notion of sub zero interest rates and a host of other ideas discussed on this board like printing more money, I'm skeptical but trying to understand how Yang could propose this plan.

Admittedly I'm one who thought it was a gimmick and felt it was another game show idea and you can imagine my fear of any TV host techniques.

So why is Yang's idea smart other than he raised money and collected emails? How is it viable?

Morgana,

-Yang can better explain it on his multiple YouTube segments but his chief source/argument is similar to how for many years Alaskans have gotten a sort-of "dividend check" from the oil companies.

He particularly likes to point to Amazon, a trillion dollar company that is causing the closing of 30% of retails stores and paid zero federal taxes last year. He points to a recent study that states that data (the selling of personal data) is now more valuable than oil, -so he says "I ask people, did you get your dividend check from the data they collected from you?" He sees the bulk of the money coming from a micro piece of every Google search, every Facebook profile point etc etc etc. 

In other words, -we have been giving these companies for free, a valuable resource that they sell, pay us nothing for and pay no taxes on.

There are other aspects of the idea (including other funding sources) and how this sort-of additional income would be an economical boost, mostly going right back into the economy, lifting the economy from the bottom up instead of the false "trickle-down" model.

steel said:

Morgana,

-Yang can better explain it on his multiple YouTube segments but his chief source/argument is similar to how for many years Alaskans have gotten a sort-of "dividend check" from the oil companies.

He particularly likes to point to Amazon, a trillion dollar company that is causing the closing of 30% of retails stores and paid zero federal taxes last year. He points to a recent study that states that data (the selling of personal data) is now more valuable than oil, -so he says "I ask people, did you get your dividend check from the data they collected from you?" He sees the bulk of the money coming from a micro piece of every Google search, every Facebook profile point etc etc etc. 

In other words, -we have been giving these companies for free, a valuable resource that they sell, pay us nothing for and pay no taxes on.

There are other aspects of the idea (including other funding sources) and how this sort-of additional income would be an economical boost, mostly going right back into the economy, lifting the economy from the bottom up instead of the false "trickle-down" model.

 Thanks I'll look at his explanations. I've heard snippets from his debate appearances. Just wondered how enforceable it is. I'll do more digging.

With so many promises from the candidates, its helpful if we know what can be done by executive action because if they need McConnell's help, they're sunk. I'm pestering my friend in Colorado to get out and work for Hickenlooper. That's one senate seat. Hope Georgia grabs a win. If Bullock would drop out and run for Montana,and maybe a push for Arizona,  then we can make some serous changes.