Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Haha. Yeah. The I thought you were high when you said it was funny as shit. Btw, did he force Biden’s hand on decriminalization or was that always his stand? Seemed a bit contrived by Biden but I wasn’t sure.
I thought the same thing but he didn't say legalize after I skipped back. He's not for legalizing it nationally. Says states can make their minds up on that, but he is for decriminalization and expunging records, etc. So I don't think he really backtracked or anything.
So he has no real long-term plan on it and no way of keeping the industry from turning into another big tobacco where all small chains are gobbled up.
This is a correction. NBC misattributed this headline to Mayor H. Hopes and called it "a slam" against Tulsi. But when they corrected it they decided it wasn't a slam anymore. They were wrong both times. The true headline should have been "these two suck".
Post by Jake Jortles on Nov 21, 2019 7:23:10 GMT -5
Worst debate so far from my perspective. So many terrible questions that just resulted in people saying a portion of their stump speech then moving on to the next topic.
Thought Bernie and Pete did the best and I expect Pete to continue to rise. He’s very, very smooth, and unfortunately his speaking ability will sell a lot of people.
Post by Jake Jortles on Nov 21, 2019 8:58:18 GMT -5
I think a Dem Debate hosted by Fox News may have provided more of value than the debate last night. They actually spent time on a question about "lock him up" chants. They set up 0 points of contrast between candidates throughout the night. But I also have to put some blame on the candidates. Not sure if half of them realize these are actually debates as opposed to campaign rallies.
I think a Dem Debate hosted by Fox News may have provided more of value than the debate last night. They actually spent time on a question about "lock him up" chants. They set up 0 points of contrast between candidates throughout the night. But I also have to put some blame on the candidates. Not sure if half of them realize these are actually debates as opposed to campaign rallies.
its sad that chris wallace is actually one of the better interviewers in the media right now
I think a Dem Debate hosted by Fox News may have provided more of value than the debate last night. They actually spent time on a question about "lock him up" chants. They set up 0 points of contrast between candidates throughout the night. But I also have to put some blame on the candidates. Not sure if half of them realize these are actually debates as opposed to campaign rallies.
I think the biggest issue is just the number of candidates. I felt like the shit questions were greatly outnumbered by better ones, and we got to hear about Climate Change, Abortion, Immigration, foreign policy, putting Trump in jail after the election, Citizens United, criminal and racial justice and other important and somewhat important topics that matter to people who are interested in Democratic politics and candidates. Here's where I'd add due strictly to observation. I only watched the entire first debate and this one and caught pieces parts of some of the others.
Senator Warren - Full of ideas and doesn't mind telling you how to pay for them. She made a valid point about what you could do with a 2% tax on the top 1/10 of 1%. I thought she was engaged and likable though she still seems like an aunt or mother sometimes. She isn't afraid to outline social priorities and how to pay for them. A-
Bernie - I've been following him since he was the Mayor of Burlington and have always been a fan of his honesty. He does well in almost any format due to his dry charm and honesty/udder lack of bullshit. Everything he said was pretty good. A
Booker - Usually is kind of goofy, but I felt like he was engaged and got his points across. He's clearly a long shot, but if you were on the fence about him, I think he came off pretty well. Emphasis on justice issues stood out. A-
Andrew Yang - Yang is tough to grade because he's an alternative candidate. I think a position of technology and AI Czar would be a place to put him to generate some interest from his supporters. He made good points as he always does, and I actually find his dry humor pretty slick even though the national media doesn't seem to be a fan. He's tapped into some angst about the future that is full of unknowns and consternation. B+
Joe Biden - Biden made some good points, but he seems old. He stumbles mid sentence like he forgot what he was saying and has to stress to try to remember. He gets caught up in what he's saying and hesitates or fucks shit up to the point that he literally forgot Senator Harris was a couple people away from him when he said the only African American woman to have ever been elected to the US Senate endorsed him (Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois). He then says "I said 'first' African American woman..." No. No you didn't. You said 'only'. You fucked that up and should have owned up to it and apologized. He means well and might could be an okay president, but you know he's always about to put his foot in his mouth. Gaffes and fuck-ups in public speaking have been his trademark for decades. C-
Tulsi Gabbard - I admire her tenacity and that she doesn't give a fuck what she says or who she goes after. I love her nearly universal anti-war stance. But she has a cold and cocky air about her that doesn't translate that well in an argumentative format like a debate. She generated some of the more controversial moments in her attacks. C
Mayor Pete - I thought Mayor Pete did a good job. I expected sharper knives to come at him due to his front-runner status in IA and possibly NH. The other folks took it easy on him, and maybe that's because they don't view him as a real threat or maybe he's seen as a potential VP for some of the other candidates. I don't know. He's quick on his feet and comes off as relatively serious. Regardless of how this board thinks about him (too centrist/middle), credit his campaign for its relatively brilliant play in moving to the center where he can take on (and possibly out) a clearly vulnerable Joe Biden. I don't think Pete is as centrist as his candidacy, but it would be recoverable if he ran from the middle back to the middle-left. I hate 503c, PAC and dark money as well as the donor class (personally think every cent should come out of politics and have since the 1980's), but money is part of our current system. He's bought himself some time and capital and even if he doesn't end up being a credible candidate in 2020, he'll have met the people and organizers he can work with should he decide to try to run again in the future. Sometimes smart politics can lead you places. A/A-
Kamala Harris - I thought Senator Harris was probably the best. She made clear points and continued to bring up race as an integral part of a winning democratic coalition. I don't think she will get a lot of movement, but you could see her easily as Attorney General, VP or in some type of cabinet position as a compromise with whoever wins the primaries. Some of her previous debate performances had ill-timed 'zingers' and cringe-ily forced dis attacks, and she often seemed pretty smug. But when she opens her heart like she did in this debate, you can see she's fairly genuine and certainly credible. She is able to connect with different people (genders, races, etc.) which is a plus for her. A
Senator Klobuchar - This is another tough one. She almost looked like she had parkinsons up there. Maybe she does, I don't know, and I don't mean disrespect. But she kept visibly shaking answering questions that she clearly had a grip on content. She made a couple of interesting points. I know the conventional wisdom on Inforoo has been that electing a wishy-washy center left moderate candidate would lead to maybe a backlash worse than Trump. I'm not sure I ever bought that because even though there are constant reactions concerning the next wave in politics, each election is more or less on its own terms (under a larger common umbrella). Her idea that you fight in and from all red/purple/blue districts and create the kind of down-ballot success you will need to destroy the Senate, increase the house and maybe propel some local candidates to victory may or may not have some merit. It would be interesting to test that in a vacuum, but I don't think we'll ever find out. She always comes off a little smug, but she's smart and has figured out to win in Michigan. B
Tom Steyer - I had a net negative opinion of him coming into the debate. But as someone who was there for the early rise of the European green parties in the late mid-1980's, I'm always in tune with bottom up and local-as-possible decision making in government. I always felt like people who were most affected by a vote should have that power (obviously subject to federal and state protections where applicable such as civil rights and non-discriminating housing policies). I do appreciate what he did in 2018, and I hope he will continue to organize on behalf of the left. He emphasized corruption quite a bit, and I certainly agree with him. But he's also a billionaire. That doesn't make him bad per se', but you never can be sure who is selfless and who is working off of ego. He didn't get that much debate time, but I like I said, I hope he continues to organize people to knock on doors and get out voters. B-
I think a Dem Debate hosted by Fox News may have provided more of value than the debate last night. They actually spent time on a question about "lock him up" chants. They set up 0 points of contrast between candidates throughout the night. But I also have to put some blame on the candidates. Not sure if half of them realize these are actually debates as opposed to campaign rallies.
I think the biggest issue is just the number of candidates. I felt like the shit questions were greatly outnumbered by better ones, and we got to hear about Climate Change, Abortion, Immigration, foreign policy, putting Trump in jail after the election, Citizens United, criminal and racial justice and other important and somewhat important topics that matter to people who are interested in Democratic politics and candidates. Here's where I'd add due strictly to observation. I only watched the entire first debate and this one and caught pieces parts of some of the others.
I think the last debate was much better despite having the same number of candidates. I like it when they set up contrasts and get into the weeds on policy positions. CNN has done a much better job of that. Just a personal preference. I know some people want them all to play nice and what not.
I randomly enjoyed a few things Tom Steyer brought to the debate last night.
^^ Steyer was a bit of a surprise in that I was wanting to listen to and consider what he had to say.
It's not that I wanted everyone to play nice, but I enjoyed the fact that there weren't candidates constantly going out of bounds and attacking each other with cheesy content hits, constantly talking over one another and such that have been some of the hallmarks of what I've seen in the earlier debates and in the past. I tuned in to listen, and I felt like most of the candidates did a fairly good job of speaking to me and outlining the positions they got called on to discuss. It wasn't the greatest debate of all time, but I enjoyed the relatively civil an non-condescending approach of most of the candidates.
I think you'll have more specific policy contrasts drawn when the debates get down to 3-6 participants and they can get back into those weeds and give the issues more time.
5.5/four tet, daphni b2b floating points, avalon emerson 5.12/neil young 5.19/mannequin pussy 5.21/serpentwithfeet 5.25/hozier 6.12-16/bonnaroo 6.28/goose 6.29/goose 9.17/the national + the war on drugs 9.23/sigur ros 9.27-29/making time 10.17/air
Anyone think Sanders/Warren would pick Booker for VP? I thought he came off really well last night and besides his iffy pharma past I don't see any reason to dislike him.
I'm just worried if Sanders gets the nom he'll pick a nutjob like Nina Turner or Kucinich instead of someone that'll actually help him win.
Anyone think Sanders/Warren would pick Booker for VP? I thought he came off really well last night and besides his iffy pharma past I don't see any reason to dislike him.
I'm just worried if Sanders gets the nom he'll pick a nutjob like Nina Turner or Kucinich instead of someone that'll actually help him win.
Castro is probably a better fit than Booker for both of their platforms.
Pretty sure Sanders will pick a woman if he gets it. I love Nina and don't find her nutty at all but i'm unsure she's a big enough draw.
I mean, i'm bias but picking Abrams is not the worst strategy. It's a longshot but you up your chances for 2 senate seats with someone from Georgia as VP. Plus, she's got national appeal across the coalition. Which he needs for the moderates.
Y'all are weird (nttawwt). How does he give you the heebie jeebies? He's like a completely straight laced guy, except he's not.
/haha
The problem is that he doesn't have much of substance to say, but still uses, the dictation talk, that Obama used on the national stage. It's really off putting, and it's un-earned with zero policy proposals as well. Plus he literally looks so uncomfortable every time someone says rich people are not paying enough -- he's a shiny new John Edwards
Ok. So I now that open hearings have concluded, what happens now? Republicans are still saying that it was improper but not impeachable. I am not feeling very optimistic right now.
Ok. So I now that open hearings have concluded, what happens now? Republicans are still saying that it was improper but not impeachable. I am not feeling very optimistic right now.
What happens now? Absofuckinglutely nothing. Where’s the Jessica Chastain gif?
Ok. So I now that open hearings have concluded, what happens now? Republicans are still saying that it was improper but not impeachable. I am not feeling very optimistic right now.
What happens now? Absofuckinglutely nothing. Where’s the Jessica Chastain gif?
Post by abefroman1 on Nov 21, 2019 18:48:17 GMT -5
Nothing is going to happen. In any other time in this country, yes this president would be impeached and convicted. But in a time when dozens of GOP scum are just as compromised as the criminal president...nothing will happen.
Only thing this week did was give guidance to a post-Trump DOJ. Maybe in 2-3 years we might see the Nunes of the world getting charged.
Nothing is going to happen. In any other time in this country, yes this president would be impeached and convicted. But in a time when dozens of GOP scum are just as compromised as the criminal president...nothing will happen.
Only thing this week did was give guidance to a post-Trump DOJ. Maybe in 2-3 years we might see the Nunes of the world getting charged.
You look at these guys like Jordan, Nunes and Scalise always on bogus messaging or advancing what are usually clearly bullshit deflections or conspiracies and you wonder who the fuck they actually work for. GOP has been party over country for decades, but they don’t even try to mask it anymore. They’ve sold themselves out and they have sold out America.
Y'all are weird (nttawwt). How does he give you the heebie jeebies? He's like a completely straight laced guy, except he's not.
/haha
The problem is that he doesn't have much of substance to say, but still uses, the dictation talk, that Obama used on the national stage. It's really off putting, and it's un-earned with zero policy proposals as well. Plus he literally looks so uncomfortable every time someone says rich people are not paying enough -- he's a shiny new John Edwards
I don’t really see him as Edwards who was a good talker and charming in a way that he knew how to connect with ordinary people from those years in the courtroom where you have to be able to. But as far as taking a big step from what he was before running, I could see that. I haven’t researched him to know whether he has zero policies or not because it’s too early for me to dig that deep since I’m not a democratic primary voter. But I trust you and will take your word on that.
The problem is that he doesn't have much of substance to say, but still uses, the dictation talk, that Obama used on the national stage. It's really off putting, and it's un-earned with zero policy proposals as well. Plus he literally looks so uncomfortable every time someone says rich people are not paying enough -- he's a shiny new John Edwards
Not only does he have little of substance to say, when he does talk it's all consultant bullshit. While I don't think he'd take us back in time his worldview and work history is shaped by the neoliberal consensus. If he were coming up in the 80s/90s he'd be willing to bust unions. He'd be willing to sign austerity measures. He would have deregulated the banks. He would have supported the war on drugs. How do I know this? His work at McKinsey...
Again, I'll point out that he met with high level Democrats in a planned meetings to deal with Sanders and his wing of the party. That's now been widened and he attacks Warren as well. Why the fuck would I trust him at all? I don't think anyone needs to read another of my rants on why we need change....
That's why folks think he's a creep. Do I think he'd be some evil person? Not really. I just think he's an absolute tool of the establishment and nothing at all would really change under his leadership. Plus, he's a condescending asshat and he's 100% a liability already because of his relationship with African Americans.
Whoopsie, just another tiny little mistake! I'm so clumsy
Harris was talking about what's going on in the UK but I thought this really summed up a lot about how our media is trying to shape this race. Although it obviously has broader applications.