Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Democrat debates

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Democrat debates

    Started tonight

    Now that government has forced it's way into our medical care & decisions, guess who just won't let it go ?

    You guessed it

    Democrats

    That was the topic of the first of their debates !!

    These people are scary, they want to "fix it" some more !

    God help us

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Democrats Reveal Divisions on Healthcare During First Presidential Debate

    Democratic presidential contenders battled over healthcare coverage during their first debate on Wednesday, reflecting the party's divisions on whether to abolish private insurance and shift to a Medicare-for-All system.

    In the first of two back-to-back debates featuring 10 candidates each night, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio were the only two candidates to raise their hands when asked who supported a system that eliminated private insurance.

    Warren, a leader of the party's progressive wing who has been surging in opinion polls, said private insurance was taking advantage of Americans.

    She backs a government-sponsored Medicare-for-All approach and criticized those who said that was not politically feasible.

    "What they are really telling you is they just won't fight for it. Healthcare is a basic right, and I will fight for it," she said.

    But former U.S. Representative John Delaney, an outspoken critic of Medicare for All who supports a universal healthcare approach that would include private insurance, said Democrats should not throw away a system that some Americans are happy with.

    "I think we should be the party that keeps what’s working and fixes what’s broken," Delaney said.

    After years of defending former Democratic President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare law known as Obamacare from Republican attempts to repeal it, Democrats have struggled to agree on the best approach to fixing it.

    The Medicare for All approach pushed by Warren and U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, which has gained growing support in Congress, would create a government-operated plan that eliminates private insurance. It is modeled on the Medicare government healthcare program for seniors.

    Former congressman Beto O'Rourke said private insurance was "fundamental to our ability to get everybody cared for," but de Blasio cut him off.

    "Congressman O'Rourke, private insurance is not working for tens of millions of Americans when you talk about the copays, the deductibles the premiums - it's not working. How can you defend a system that's not working?"


    ...........


    https://www.newsmax.com/headline/dem.../26/id/922208/









  • #2

    First thing they do is come out yammering for socialism in our medical care systems

    That's what barack and nancy gave us with the marvelous obama "care"

    Do they believe we forgot already ?????????????????


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    That one weird voice of reality in the Democrat debate



    The Democratic debate was pretty well summed up by President Trump with one word: "BORING."

    And why not? The socialist froth was amazing. Candidates fell all over themselves, each trying to outdo the next on pushing the most socialist ideas, the most political correctness, the biggest virtue-signalling.

    Each promised to deliver the most of what the late unlamented Hugo Chavez called the "sea of happiness."

    Nobody would be left unhappy without free stuff, no one's interests would be trampled save for those of the evil corporations. It was groupthink writ large with each candidate pushing the next one more leftward.

    Any dissenter from this dynamic, any promoter of a spark of real-world common sense, whether on how to pay for mega-mega-mega government programs, or how it was that government bureaucrats with a monopoly grip on health care would be so much more loving and giving to taxpayers, would be met with stony silence.

    The way to the Democratic nomination, apparently, is all in how to out-left-wing the next guy.

    ..there was one exception, one voice of the real world, one voice of common sense that weirdly stood out like a Martian among the mud gnomes.

    In a must-read analysis by Jeff Greenfield, it came from an obscure candidate named Rep. John Delaney of Maryland, who brought up what amounts to a booby trap, "a landmine" for frothy leftist Democrats promising everyone the moon.

    He writes:


    The moment came when the ten participants were asked, by a show of hands, who would dispense entirely with private health insurance.

    Only New York Mayor Bill de Blasio and Warren signaled "yes." That's when Rep. John Delaney, one of the least visible of the 24 announced candidates, weighed in.


    After pushing back on the idea of taking something away from Americans that most are reasonably happy with, Delaney said this:

    "Also it’s bad policy. If you go to every hospital in this country and you ask them one question, which is how would it have been for you last year if every one of your bills were paid at the Medicare rate? Every single hospital administrator said they would close. And the Medicare for All bill requires payments to stay at current Medicare rates. So to some extent we're basically supporting a bill that will have every hospital closed." And then he finished with a stinger about his electrician father on union health insurance: "He’d look at me, and he’d say 'Good job, John, for getting healthcare for every American, but why are you taking my healthcare away?' ”

    Delaney was bringing up something important because it's likely to grab voter attention, particularly among independents:

    That when we all get that vaunted free government health care -- private hospitals are going to collapse.

    What Delaney described was how the signature shortages of socialism work, which come every time the government tries to control an entire industry. It happened in Venezuela. It would happen here, too. Hospital after hospital will go bankrupt, disappearing as if in a puff of smoke. Socialism is always a great thing for the elites, but for the ordinary people out there, well, no more hospitals, take a number and wait in line for the next appointment two years down the road 500 miles away in some big city. Socialism in action, the way it works, every time you try it.

    As John Merline has noted many times in his columns, having insurance is not the same as having actual care.

    Claiming full coverage and a "right" to health care is something that thrills Democrats, but as to whether anyone can get actual treatment under their socialist proposal, well, that's a different story. There's a reason Canadians and Brits of means come to the states for their treatments.

    We already have seen how rural hospitals have imploded with the advent of Obamacare in 2010 for this very reason. Now, we can have the same nightmare writ large as virtually all private hospitals, which must subsist on double-entry bookkeeping, go the way of the rural hospitals.

    Some of the Democrats - notably Cory Booker - complained about "corporate consolidation" in his district, as proof that corporations were evil and of course he claimed to be against it. But what the coming hospital implosion amounts to is exactly what Booker (who knows nothing about economics) complained about - consolidation. Under any socialized single-payer health care, which near-front-runner Warren advocates, what's euphemistically called consolidation will be turned up to 11. Hospital after hospital will shut down after each becomes forced to live on Medicare payments alone, which are government-dictated and which don't cover costs. Then poof. Boom. Implosion, and more implosion. No more hospitals. Oh, but health care is free.

    Sound like a nice bargain? One can only hope that voters, even Democratic voters, will demand answers on this. Sometimes, the real world intrudes in debates. What it shows is how out of touch with reality the Democratic candidates in this coming race really are.


    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...at_debate.html

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      But there were some fun times at the 'debate'

      When they weren't arguing or destroying your ability to access decent medical care, they made funny !!

      Here we have listed seven of the most entertaining moments, with video even ! - ( see @ link )

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      #1 Pandering pre-emption: Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren's reactions when Robert F. O'Rourke randomly switches to Spanish.

      This one wins the crown because it is visual, and because it captures both the pandering nature of the event and the phoniness of all the virtue-signalers. Watching a fake Hispanic worry a fake Indian and pre-empt a fake public housing project resident with a fake friend named T-bone is just fakelicious and captures the essence of the Democratic Party in 2019, You already saw the video of the Gringo-accented Spanish, so this one just gets a screen, cropped for your viewing convenience.

      #2 Julian Castro calls for taxpayer-funded abortions for biological males who are pretending to be women. Because it's only "justice."

      The words need a little parsing because there may be some attempt to wiggle lout of this absurdity:

      LESTER HOLT: Would your plan cover abortion, Mr. Secretary?"
      CASTRO: "Yes, it would. I don't believe only in reproductive freedom, I believe in reproductive justice. (Cheering and Applause) And, you know, what that means is that just because a woman, or let"s also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor, doesn"t mean they shouldn't have the right to exercise that right to choose. And so I absolutely would cover the right to have an abortion. More than that, everybody in this crowd and watching at home knows that in our country today, a person"s right to choose is under assault in places like Missouri, in Alabama, in Georgia. I would appoint judges to the federal bench that understand the precedent of Roe V. Wade and will respect it, and in addition to that make sure that we fight hard as we transition our health care system to one where everybody can get and exercise that right."

      A "trans female" is a biological male who wishes really, really hard he were a woman, and who goes to self-destructive ends (hormones or even genital mutilation) in order to make the masquerade slightly less ridiculous. For such a person to pretend to get pregnant, the services of an actual womb must be rented, along with an egg acquisition from a biological female. Under such circumstances, accidental pregnancies are impossible, and any pretend pregnancy comes at considerable cost and effort on the part of more than one person.


      #3 Cory Booker tells us, -"We Don't Talk Enough About Trans Americans, Especially African American Trans Americans"

      On behalf of handicapped differently-abled African American trans Americans, I protest this appalling lack of consideration of a minority that is even more persecuted by an America which is so horribly unjust that nobody would ever want to violate our border. We need to spend several minutes every waking hour discussing their plight. Or else we are bad people.

      #4 Robert F. O'Rourke randomly starts speaking Spanish with a Gringo accent (very appropriate for an Irish-American, but unhelpful in the pandering department)


      #5 Warmist fanatic Jay Inslee's non-sequitur claim that the filibuster is flooding Miami Beach.

      Hey, it's Democrats, Jake. Don't expect it to make sense.

      #6 NBC declares us a bi-lingual country, with moderator asking first-ever Spanish Language question in a US presidential debate

      More grim humor. Because Quebec is such a model of the utility of having two language groups hostile to each other (I am old enough to remember when Montreal was the largest city in Canada and the economic capital - a title it lost to Toronto starting the moment Francophone fanatics started kidnapping and killing official they regarded as Anglophone enemies), it was grimly funny (as in strange) to see a debate moderator pose a question in a language most viewers did not understand. This is such a good idea that I recommend MSNBC use Spanish for half of the minutes of each broadcast hour. It should do wonders for their ratings.

      #7 Bill de Blasio goes full commie

      This is humor of the grim humor genre, so it loses points in the hilarity competition, but gains them in the meaningfulness column. The Mayor of New York reflects a growing sentiment among Democrats with his implicit claim to spearhead the re-assignment of wealth from the hands of those who earned it into the hands of those who want it. Bill and his crypto-commie associates know which hands are the wrong ones to have money. "There's plenty of money" it's just in the wrong hands"


      https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...st_debate.html

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
        But there were some fun times at the 'debate'

        When they weren't arguing or destroying your ability to access decent medical care, they made funny !!

        Here we have listed seven of the most entertaining moments, with video even ! - ( see @ link )

        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        #1 Pandering pre-emption: Cory Booker and Elizabeth Warren's reactions when Robert F. O'Rourke randomly switches to Spanish.

        This one wins the crown because it is visual, and because it captures both the pandering nature of the event and the phoniness of all the virtue-signalers. Watching a fake Hispanic worry a fake Indian and pre-empt a fake public housing project resident with a fake friend named T-bone is just fakelicious and captures the essence of the Democratic Party in 2019, You already saw the video of the Gringo-accented Spanish, so this one just gets a screen, cropped for your viewing convenience.

        #2 Julian Castro calls for taxpayer-funded abortions for biological males who are pretending to be women. Because it's only "justice."

        The words need a little parsing because there may be some attempt to wiggle lout of this absurdity:

        LESTER HOLT: Would your plan cover abortion, Mr. Secretary?"
        CASTRO: "Yes, it would. I don't believe only in reproductive freedom, I believe in reproductive justice. (Cheering and Applause) And, you know, what that means is that just because a woman, or let"s also not forget someone in the trans community, a trans female, is poor, doesn"t mean they shouldn't have the right to exercise that right to choose. And so I absolutely would cover the right to have an abortion. More than that, everybody in this crowd and watching at home knows that in our country today, a person"s right to choose is under assault in places like Missouri, in Alabama, in Georgia. I would appoint judges to the federal bench that understand the precedent of Roe V. Wade and will respect it, and in addition to that make sure that we fight hard as we transition our health care system to one where everybody can get and exercise that right."

        A "trans female" is a biological male who wishes really, really hard he were a woman, and who goes to self-destructive ends (hormones or even genital mutilation) in order to make the masquerade slightly less ridiculous. For such a person to pretend to get pregnant, the services of an actual womb must be rented, along with an egg acquisition from a biological female. Under such circumstances, accidental pregnancies are impossible, and any pretend pregnancy comes at considerable cost and effort on the part of more than one person.


        #3 Cory Booker tells us, -"We Don't Talk Enough About Trans Americans, Especially African American Trans Americans"

        On behalf of handicapped differently-abled African American trans Americans, I protest this appalling lack of consideration of a minority that is even more persecuted by an America which is so horribly unjust that nobody would ever want to violate our border. We need to spend several minutes every waking hour discussing their plight. Or else we are bad people.

        #4 Robert F. O'Rourke randomly starts speaking Spanish with a Gringo accent (very appropriate for an Irish-American, but unhelpful in the pandering department)


        #5 Warmist fanatic Jay Inslee's non-sequitur claim that the filibuster is flooding Miami Beach.

        Hey, it's Democrats, Jake. Don't expect it to make sense.

        #6 NBC declares us a bi-lingual country, with moderator asking first-ever Spanish Language question in a US presidential debate

        More grim humor. Because Quebec is such a model of the utility of having two language groups hostile to each other (I am old enough to remember when Montreal was the largest city in Canada and the economic capital - a title it lost to Toronto starting the moment Francophone fanatics started kidnapping and killing official they regarded as Anglophone enemies), it was grimly funny (as in strange) to see a debate moderator pose a question in a language most viewers did not understand. This is such a good idea that I recommend MSNBC use Spanish for half of the minutes of each broadcast hour. It should do wonders for their ratings.

        #7 Bill de Blasio goes full commie

        This is humor of the grim humor genre, so it loses points in the hilarity competition, but gains them in the meaningfulness column. The Mayor of New York reflects a growing sentiment among Democrats with his implicit claim to spearhead the re-assignment of wealth from the hands of those who earned it into the hands of those who want it. Bill and his crypto-commie associates know which hands are the wrong ones to have money. "There's plenty of money" it's just in the wrong hands"


        https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...st_debate.html
        Trump said he couldn't watch the boring debate because he was on air force one off to save the free world. What an asshole. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...005125014.html Even when he's not on the debate stage he helps to define the choice between a relatively normal people and a raving D-bag.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Originally posted by redrover View Post

          Trump said he couldn't watch the boring debate because he was on air force one off to save the free world. What an asshole. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump...005125014.html Even when he's not on the debate stage he helps to define the choice between a relatively normal people and a raving D-bag.
          Once again, you're love for Donald Trump shines through LOL

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

            Once again, you're love for Donald Trump shines through LOL
            Trump at the G-20 is not quite FDR at Yalta despite what his fans might think. Tonight we get all the B-boys Biden, Bernie and Buttigieg. Right now my top three choices are Klobachar, Castro and Warren. I would be happy with any one of them In the first round Trump wasn't mentioned very often. I would expect Biden to spend more time going after Trumpy..

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Originally posted by redrover View Post

              Trump at the G-20 is not quite FDR at Yalta despite what his fans might think. Tonight we get all the B-boys Biden, Bernie and Buttigieg. Right now my top three choices are Klobachar, Castro and Warren. I would be happy with any one of them In the first round Trump wasn't mentioned very often. I would expect Biden to spend more time going after Trumpy..
              Meh. It all depends if the China trade deal can be made to end the trade war. You know: results. When Trump announced the tariffs, I wasn't a fan of them, but if China can be made to mend their exploitive trading ways, respect intellectual property of others, it may end up being worth it. But that's something that the future will determine.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post

                Meh. It all depends if the China trade deal can be made to end the trade war. You know: results. When Trump announced the tariffs, I wasn't a fan of them, but if China can be made to mend their exploitive trading ways, respect intellectual property of others, it may end up being worth it. But that's something that the future will determine.
                Those are worthy goals, but when dealing with Trump all you have to do is send him a few letters and then you can go on doing whatever you've been doing, He's a push over.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by redrover View Post
                  Trump at the G-20 is not quite FDR at Yalta despite what his fans might think. Tonight we get all the B-boys Biden, Bernie and Buttigieg. Right now my top three choices are Klobachar, Castro and Warren. I would be happy with any one of them In the first round Trump wasn't mentioned very often. I would expect Biden to spend more time going after Trumpy..
                  Good plan

                  Go get 'em Joe ! Git that Trumpy !!

                  I don't think Joe will even get a chance to though

                  We can hope !!

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    A good analysis of the democrat "debates"


                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    The first two Democrat debates were the height of farce. They featured hilarious, inconsequential, and pure bilge being passed off as serious political worldviews.

                    A farce is a literary piece that contains highly improbable situations, stereotyped characters, violent horseplay, extravagant exaggeration. "Collinsdictionary.com suggests that "If you describe a situation or event as a farce, you mean that it is so disorganized or ridiculous that you cannot take it seriously."

                    During the first night's debates on NBC among ten of the Democratic presidential contenders, Robert 'Beto' O'Rourke answered a straightforward question in Spanish, without even translating his answer. This was a startling and amateurish moment considering that no one knew what he was talking about, and he did not even bother to explain.

                    Cory Booker looked at him sidewise as did an obviously surprised Elizabeth Warren, though neither laughed although his sudden excursion into a foreign language was excruciatingly funny.

                    Putting forward an idea you consider vastly important in a language that only a few understand is the height of hilarity. Yet, only moments later, Booker, who had it seemed looked askance at O'Rourke, followed suit by also speaking in Spanish, but had the wisdom to translate his remarks. His finesse took away from the absurdity of answering in a foreign tongue.

                    Bernie did not take the same demagogic path as Booker or O'Rourke. Instead he took a more farcical path intended to leave us rolling in the aisles as we contemplated his 'vision for America.' He came out saying that the policies and laws in themselves were not at issue, but the country needs a president who comes out foursquare against the rich, the corporations, the banks, insurance companies, big oil, big pharma, private practice of medicine (hence, he's against the AMA), and the military-industrial complex. He basically was screaming in his best barking Brooklynese accents that his leadership is defined by what he is against, not what he is for.

                    Hearing him spew this nonsense, while laughing at the backwardness of his concepts, one can see clearly why he was in the shadows of American politics until our disintegrating system under President Barack Obama allowed him to seem a plausible national leader when he competed with Hillary for the 2016 nomination. He takes Obama's leftwing orientation to the next level of anti-Americanism.

                    Sanders wants to overthrow the United States of America and is asking the public for permission to do so.

                    His view is so vicious and pathetic, and at the same time is being given a credible platform by NBC. It is surreal, and the surreal is a farce making a claim on reality.

                    Bernie (again, the farcical boasting of Bernie) speaking of our border crisis, said that the real problems of migrants originate in their home countries - such as Honduras or Guatemala -- and should be dealt with hemispherically. Yet, non-interference in the internal affairs of our Latin American neighbors has been an essential policy since Franklin Delano Roosevelt initiated the Good Neighbor Policy as an alternative to our being a perceived threat to Latino sovereignty. Bernie's barking bluster seems strangely ignorant of historical reality. Hence, the farce of speaking in passionate tones; yet not realizing the reality or context in which one is speaking.

                    It is hilarious to hear 20 persons boasting "I am the best" when their tirades and self-aggrandizement lacks substance and evidence.

                    While laughing uproariously, we can reject them all.


                    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ate_farce.html





                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                      A good analysis of the democrat "debates"


                      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                      The first two Democrat debates were the height of farce. They featured hilarious, inconsequential, and pure bilge being passed off as serious political worldviews.

                      A farce is a literary piece that contains highly improbable situations, stereotyped characters, violent horseplay, extravagant exaggeration. "Collinsdictionary.com suggests that "If you describe a situation or event as a farce, you mean that it is so disorganized or ridiculous that you cannot take it seriously."

                      During the first night's debates on NBC among ten of the Democratic presidential contenders, Robert 'Beto' O'Rourke answered a straightforward question in Spanish, without even translating his answer. This was a startling and amateurish moment considering that no one knew what he was talking about, and he did not even bother to explain.

                      Cory Booker looked at him sidewise as did an obviously surprised Elizabeth Warren, though neither laughed although his sudden excursion into a foreign language was excruciatingly funny.

                      Putting forward an idea you consider vastly important in a language that only a few understand is the height of hilarity. Yet, only moments later, Booker, who had it seemed looked askance at O'Rourke, followed suit by also speaking in Spanish, but had the wisdom to translate his remarks. His finesse took away from the absurdity of answering in a foreign tongue.

                      Bernie did not take the same demagogic path as Booker or O'Rourke. Instead he took a more farcical path intended to leave us rolling in the aisles as we contemplated his 'vision for America.' He came out saying that the policies and laws in themselves were not at issue, but the country needs a president who comes out foursquare against the rich, the corporations, the banks, insurance companies, big oil, big pharma, private practice of medicine (hence, he's against the AMA), and the military-industrial complex. He basically was screaming in his best barking Brooklynese accents that his leadership is defined by what he is against, not what he is for.

                      Hearing him spew this nonsense, while laughing at the backwardness of his concepts, one can see clearly why he was in the shadows of American politics until our disintegrating system under President Barack Obama allowed him to seem a plausible national leader when he competed with Hillary for the 2016 nomination. He takes Obama's leftwing orientation to the next level of anti-Americanism.

                      Sanders wants to overthrow the United States of America and is asking the public for permission to do so.

                      His view is so vicious and pathetic, and at the same time is being given a credible platform by NBC. It is surreal, and the surreal is a farce making a claim on reality.

                      Bernie (again, the farcical boasting of Bernie) speaking of our border crisis, said that the real problems of migrants originate in their home countries - such as Honduras or Guatemala -- and should be dealt with hemispherically. Yet, non-interference in the internal affairs of our Latin American neighbors has been an essential policy since Franklin Delano Roosevelt initiated the Good Neighbor Policy as an alternative to our being a perceived threat to Latino sovereignty. Bernie's barking bluster seems strangely ignorant of historical reality. Hence, the farce of speaking in passionate tones; yet not realizing the reality or context in which one is speaking.

                      It is hilarious to hear 20 persons boasting "I am the best" when their tirades and self-aggrandizement lacks substance and evidence.

                      While laughing uproariously, we can reject them all.


                      https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ate_farce.html




                      It is hilarious to hear 20 persons boasting "I am the best" when their tirades and self-aggrandizement lacks substance and evidence". That sounds like a pretty good description of Donald J. Rapist. You probably don't recognize the similarities between these awful Democrats and your Messiah. I really don't understand under what formula Marianne Williamson qualifies for the debate. I'm looking for a candidate who will promise to make America great again. Not someone who can bring us forward into the twenty-first century. We need a candidate to drag us back to a bygone era

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by redrover View Post
                        It is hilarious to hear 20 persons boasting "I am the best" when their tirades and self-aggrandizement lacks substance and evidence".

                        Yes, and .... ?

                        Originally posted by redrover View Post
                        That sounds like a pretty good description of Donald J. Rapist.
                        How clever you are !!

                        Originally posted by redrover View Post
                        You probably don't recognize the similarities between these awful Democrats and your Messiah.


                        These lowlifes calling themselves "democrats" have no similarities to anyone decent.

                        Nothing messianic about them, or any other politician

                        Originally posted by redrover View Post
                        I really don't understand under what formula Marianne Williamson qualifies for the debate. I'm looking for a candidate who will promise to make America great again. Not someone who can bring us forward into the twenty-first century. We need a candidate to drag us back to a bygone era


                        Very sensible as always ; )

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                          Yes, and .... ?



                          How clever you are !!



                          These lowlifes calling themselves "democrats" have no similarities to anyone decent.

                          Nothing messianic about them, or any other politician



                          Very sensible as always ; )
                          I thought Biden and Sanders were flat last night. I hope that this is a signal that America may be getting ready for younger more energetic leadership. Let the Republicans have the geriatric vote The Demcrats are in trouble if Sanders continues to be the voice of younger voters. In the wake of the debates I think we will begin to see Joe and Bernie begin to slide.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by redrover View Post

                            Those are worthy goals, but when dealing with Trump all you have to do is send him a few letters and then you can go on doing whatever you've been doing, He's a push over.
                            If you see all the various parties and factions that were / are against Trump, and then see what he's accomplished, it's rather amazing, and blows holes into what you just asserted as being true.

                            <*shrug*>

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by redrover View Post

                              I thought Biden and Sanders were flat last night. I hope that this is a signal that America may be getting ready for younger more energetic leadership. Let the Republicans have the geriatric vote The Demcrats are in trouble if Sanders continues to be the voice of younger voters. In the wake of the debates I think we will begin to see Joe and Bernie begin to slide.
                              "energetic leadership"



                              Yeah, all that's gonna result in . . . .


                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X