January 8, 2020

The Democrats set their criteria for qualifying for their debates, so it's absurd to criticize Mike Bloomberg for not participating.

I'm reading "Democrats attack Bloomberg for running imperial campaign/The billionaire businessman says he's sticking to his principle of not accepting donations, and therefore not participating in debates" (Politico).

I am getting the feeling that Politico is pro-Bloomberg, so I'm a bit skeptical about who, actually, is criticizing Bloomberg. But there are names attached to the criticism:
“He is skipping the democracy part of this,” Elizabeth Warren told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Monday night.

Steyer, who raised small-dollar contributions to qualify for the debate but risks missing the January stage because of his low polling numbers, agreed.

"Any person who wants to be president should be willing to debate their ideas in front of the American people and participate in the grassroots work of meeting and listening to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina,” Steyer spokesman Benjamin Gerdes said....
Why doesn't Elizabeth Warren invite Bloomberg to debate her face-to-face? Is there some Democratic Party rule that blocks candidates from doing this? Put the 2 of them at a table with no moderator for 2 hours and stream it on YouTube (or wherever).

131 comments:

Michael K said...

Surely you jest.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

That’s a great idea and much valuable to the the voter than the po’ faced theater of the usual purse snatcher line-up they call a primary debate. Gosh, someone who actually believed in the shit they were peddling could dominate the news just by challenging their rivals to these one-on-ones. It’s also a great way to lessen the power of the party establishment.

Curious George said...

"Why doesn't Elizabeth Warren invite Bloomberg to debate her face-to-face?"

Pocahontas refuses to get on her knees and Bloomie refuses to stand on a box.

Phidippus said...

Debates? Who needs debates? I am The Adult In The Room, Who Knows Best For You, Michael Bloomberg.

If I make myself available to them, the grateful voters will come. Just you watch.

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

After that catches on, it’ll be just a short step to Wogdon debates.

stevew said...

My first reaction is, this is what many Democrats do: set the rules and then complain about the outcome of those rules. Where's the 'democracy' in these debates? They don't debate anything. They show up and spout their campaign slogans and pitches, and deploy their carefully crafted zingers when the opportunity arises.

Great to hear Steyer is polling so poorly, hopefully his ads will slow or cease soon.

Nancy said...

HAHAHAHA! You made me look up Wogdon.

MBunge said...

I think the DNC says if you participate in a debate they don’t run, you will be banned from the ones they do.

Mike

Lucid-Ideas said...

Why not the Octagon? Left corner: Elizabeth "Princess Spreading Bull" Warren. Right corner: Michael "Real Bear Arms" Bloomberg. Pay-per-view. Would watch.

tcrosse said...

Great to hear Steyer is polling so poorly, hopefully his ads will slow or cease soon.

Steyer is running an experiment to test the limits of the public's tolerance for over-exposure. His methodology is to load up TV with so many ads that it becomes unwatchable. For his contribution to Science the President should award him with the Ambassadorship to the Far Side of Neptune.

rhhardin said...

Bloomberg can out-serious Warren.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Democratic Party

DemoCRAT. Not Democratic.

The party is the Democrat party. Democratic is a process. A verb or actually an adverb. DemoCRAT is a noun. You can't be a Democratic. You are a DemoCRAT

This Orwellian twisting of language is a clever way to twist our thoughts. The DemoCRATs are not Democratic.

Pedantic rant over :-)

mccullough said...

Debates are a 19th Century thing.

It’s very easy to find out where these candidates stand on most big issues. And most will change their positions with the wind.

Bloomberg seems to be enjoying himself. He’s found a hobby he likes.

Bloomberg is lolling so low only a second tier candidate would attack him over this.

The Dems are the party of billionaires. In 2024, all of them will be billionaires running.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Meghan McCain Has To Ask Warren Three Times To Admit Soleimani Was A Terrorist

LOL.

The a-hole left find commonality with terrorists, now. Poor poor terrorists.

rehajm said...

Warren is dumb. She needs fifteen candidates to help run out the clock so she only has to recite her talking points.

narciso said...

don't call me Shirley,

rehajm said...

I don’t get why we still have the debates. Beauty contests are passe and the modern way to trade barbs is called a rap off.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

I Faced Soleimani's Forces; Dems Are Mourning a War Criminal

Sebastian said...

"it's absurd to criticize Mike Bloomberg for not participating."

Hey, Althouse, is Mayor Mike replacing Mayor Pete in your affections? Legalizing illegals and taking California as a model in all things is sufficiently "boring" for you? Or is Mayor Mike more "pragmatic," like O back in the day?

Nonapod said...

As far as Bloomberg not accepting donations, it's cool and all I guess. But maybe instead of rejecting all donations, he should have stipulated that he'd only accept individual donations of less than $100 and all that money would go to charity. That way he could 1) he still participate in the actual debates (therefore he could avoid being accussed of ducking questions or whatever) and 2) it would look virtuous. He could demonstrate that "Yeah, I'm a billionaire, but I'm still a real good guy, not some greedy money grubbing plutocrat who's just trying to buy the election" (looks at Steyer balefully)

As far as the debates themselves, I agree that they're a circus in their current form and sort of useless and I would certainly prefer one-on-one debates where the two candidates also ask each other questions too. But whatever.

Howard said...

Bloomberg doesn't want to be one of a hundred colors in a box.

john said...

I think the debates themselves skip "the democracy part of this". The debates are engineered to try to force those who are not pre-ordained with false poll numbers out of the race BEFORE the democracy part, the primaries, begin. No doubt Bloomberg had decided he was going to get in long before the debates, and just waited for the right moment to announce it in time for Iowa.

traditionalguy said...

Query:How are the Jew Haters and Sharia Law freaks in the Dems coalition going to get along with the richest Manhattan Jew ever seen on earth. I want to see Bloomie to get the nomination just to watch that.

J Severs said...

Phidippus is exactly right.

Seeing Red said...

Bloomberg be ame mayo because the DemocRAT field was too crowded so he ran as a Republican.

Bob Boyd said...

Impeach Bloomberg!

SeanF said...

Dust Bunny Queen: Democratic Party

DemoCRAT. Not Democratic.

The party is the Democrat party. Democratic is a process. A verb or actually an adverb. DemoCRAT is a noun. You can't be a Democratic. You are a DemoCRAT

This Orwellian twisting of language is a clever way to twist our thoughts. The DemoCRATs are not Democratic.

Pedantic rant over :-)


"Democratic" is an adjective, not an adverb. The adverb is "democratically".

"Democratic Party" is not grammatically incorrect.

But the idea that the Party has, in recent years, been less than democratic is not one I'll argue against. :)

Drago said...

"“He is skipping the democracy part of this,” Elizabeth Warren told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Monday night.

Steyer, who raised small-dollar contributions to qualify for the debate but risks missing the January stage because of his low polling numbers, agreed.

"Any person who wants to be president should be willing to debate their ideas in front of the American people and participate in the grassroots work of meeting and listening to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina,” Steyer spokesman Benjamin Gerdes said...."


Filed Under: More things that will be taken back after Michelle becomes the nominee

One caveat: If Barr and Durham are for real and they really do lay out what obama did with the intel and law enforcement and executive agencies, that would prove to be the one real barrier to Michelle's entry into the race

walter said...

Think she wants the burden of appearing presidential vs socialite?

Bob Boyd said...

Pretty much everything the Democrats say these days is absurd.

Drago said...

walter: "Think she wants the burden of appearing presidential vs socialite?"

With this media?

She would never have to lose a moments sleep over that.

Limited blogger said...

What Ann suggests would be actual democracy

Gojuplyr831@gmail.com said...

"“He is skipping the democracy part of this,"

Is that the part where the nominee is pre-selected, the primaries are rigged and the debate questions are provided to the anointed nominee?

narayanan said...

stevew said...

Great to hear Steyer is polling so poorly, hopefully his ads will slow or cease soon.
______________+++++++++++++++++&&&&&&&&&&&&
I would prefer that he waste a $$billion$$ at least before quitting.

eric said...

He won't debate because he's tiny. For a man. He's only 5'8 and the optics of that on the debate stage aren't good. I mean, he's shorter than Andrew Yang.

If he wins the Democrat nomination he won't debate Trump. Those optics would be terrible and Trump would be calling him, "Little Michael" throughout the campaign.

Todd said...

Instead, just have a "last one standing" cage match and host it on pay-per-view. Anyone that wants to be the Dem candidate for Pres just signs up. If you want to keep it exciting, say that the last 3 standing get to proceed with the normal primary session.

I would pay to see that.

Yancey Ward said...

"Why doesn't Elizabeth Warren invite Bloomberg to debate her face-to-face?"

Exactly.

madAsHell said...

Put the 2 of them at a table with no moderator for 2 hours and stream it on YouTube.

I'd rather stick needles in my eyes!!

All kidding aside, that would sink Warren. She has no depth to any of her thinking, and she just can't spew talking points for two hours. Warren is not very bright.

Yancey Ward said...

MBunge wrote:

"I think the DNC says if you participate in a debate they don’t run, you will be banned from the ones they do."

Which makes the challenge even more politically effective.

I don't think that Bloomberg is much of an actual threat to the other Democrats for the nomination- he just clicks far too many bad SJW no-nos- white, old, Jewish, and rich- but a direct challenge to a one on one debate would be a good political spectacle, and might reenergize the Warren campaign which looks to be faltering. I also suspect that Bloomberg would decline such a challenge.

However, if Bloomberg is polling above 10% after New Hampshire, the DNC should invite him to the debate despite the rules.

Spiros said...

This is the metoo primary. Qualified heterosexual men in their forties and fifties are staying away. The Democrats are stuck with a couple of old men and two or three homosexuals.

Think about. Bernie Sanders had to apologize (!!!) for "not doing enough to address allegations" by women who said they were harassed by fellow campaign members in 2016. Mr. Sanders was supposed to police the behavior of thousands of college age boys and girls. How is this even possible or even desirable?

Yancey Ward said...

Nonapod has a great suggestion for Bloomberg to get into the debates. I am going to e-mail the suggestion directly to Bloomberg' campaign and see if I get response.

tcrosse said...

It would be fun to watch Bloomberg while Warren tells him the plans she has for his money.

Wince said...

"The Democrats set their criteria for qualifying for their debates, so it's absurd to criticize Mike Bloomberg for not participating."

The media have been helping the Democrats get away with this on Trump so long that they now think they can do it to each other.

Kevin said...

Shorter article: Party upset debate participants not diverse enough wants to add another old white guy.

Mark said...

"“He is skipping the democracy part of this,” Elizabeth Warren told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Monday night.

Meanwhile, Warren was/is complicit in shutting most of her competitors out of the democracy part of this by hogging up so much answer time and allowing the "bottom tier" candidates only table scraps.

MayBee said...

There is nothing more absurd to me than asking regular people to put their good money toward billion dollar political campaigns. It's borderline shameful.

tim maguire said...

Nancy said...
HAHAHAHA! You made me look up Wogdon.


Ok, fine, I'll look up Wogdon...

tim maguire said...

Wince said...The media have been helping the Democrats get away with this on Trump so long that they now think they can do it to each other.

You know what would be funny? If Trump set up a second podium at his rallies and made it available to any Democratic candidate who wants it.

Bay Area Guy said...

Bloomberg arguably is the most sensible of the Dem candidates. He's not a socialist. He's not a leftist. But he is still a "Nanny-state" New Yorker, detached from the working men and women of America, outside the Big Neurotic Apple.

However, to the extent, he causes Democrat disruption in the primaries, I'm for it.

FullMoon said...

He must be shorter than that. Average American man is 5'9".


He won't debate because he's tiny. For a man. He's only 5'8 and the optics of that on the debate stage aren't good. I mean, he's shorter than Andrew Yang.

Greg the class traitor said...

I am getting the feeling that Politico is pro-Bloomberg

Well, of course! he publicly ordered Bloomberg news not to attack any Democrats. All the other "reporters" are jealous.

I'm waiting for someone to ask Bloomberg whether or not he'll order Bloomberg news not to attack President Trump during the General Election campaign, if Bloomberg wins the nomination.

Infinite Monkeys said...

After that catches on, it’ll be just a short step to Wogdon debates.

Don't raise my hopes.

FullMoon said...

Bloomberg may be aware of the optics of the participants looking foolish. Especially when they raise, and wave, their hands like school children trying to get attention from the moderators.


FullMoon said...

I want Michelle to run. Trump will be nice to her and destroy Obama's record. Pop that bubble.

Francisco D said...

There is nothing more absurd to me than asking regular people to put their good money toward billion dollar political campaigns. It's borderline shameful.

Maybee,

I doubt if my recent and continuing contributions to the Trump campaign matter, but it feels better to do something about the shamelessness of the Democrats and their propaganda media.

In the same way, my individual vote in Iowa (decided at the last minute) for Trump in 2016 probably didn't matter, but I had to take a stand against the corrupt Clintons. Maybe it will matter now that I am in AZ.

Qwinn said...

What I find entertaining is that, among our regular commenters, all the ones that should be most interested in this thread (because they would actually vote in a Democrat primary) are apparently completely uninterested in it.

Does anyone who has posted in this thread so far actually intend to vote Democrat?

Calypso Facto said...

"He must be shorter than that. Average American man is 5'9"."

I see him listed online variously as 5'8", 5'7", and 5'6", depending on where you look. Judging from photos, I'm going to guess the last is closest, and maybe even that was before he started shrinking with age.

Iman said...

Heh!

Fox News captioning reads Trump ended his speech with "ready to accept a speedy doughnut piece."

Mmmmmmm... jelly doughnut...

Bay Area Guy said...

"Does anyone who has posted in this thread so far actually intend to vote Democrat?"

I intend to vote for socialist Bernie in the primaries -- for purely tactical reasons.

Qwinn said...

Okay, okay - does anyone who has posted intend to vote in the Democrat Primaries AND would also vote for that person in November if they won?

NYC JournoList said...

#Eric

I am 5’7”. I have met Bloomberg. he is not 5’8” cause I was looking down. My guess is 5’5”.

AllenS said...

Michelle Obama will not run for anything. She's a nobody with no policy ideas whatsoever. Same with The Oprah.

bagoh20 said...

Small debates one on one would be a great improvement. It would eliminate most of what's wrong with the debates as they are now. Candidates who think they really have the right stuff could challenge whoever they want and the people could decide what their refusal means as well. It would result in much more thoughtful debate instead of the grandstanding and hand-raising bullshit, although that has been very revealing about the Dems' priorities as a group.

Bay Area Guy said...

Okay, okay - does anyone who has posted intend to vote in the Democrat Primaries AND would also vote for that person in November if they won?

Short answer: HELL NO.

bagoh20 said...

Imagine Bloomberg and Trump on the stage together. That visual would be unfair, but small-man syndrome is a real thing and it's dangerous.

Drago said...

AllenS: "Michelle Obama will not run for anything."

Correct. It would be handed to her.

AllenS: "She's a nobody with no policy ideas whatsoever."

She is literally EVERYTHING the dems want in a candidate and her policy ideas are utterly irrelevant.

Total cult of personality and identity politics campaign.

Allen, don't make the mistake of applying logic to this line of thinking. Apply the emotional filter that the dems/LLR-lefties have completed adopted.

bagoh20 said...

"Okay, okay - does anyone who has posted intend to vote in the Democrat Primaries AND would also vote for that person in November if they won?"

Yea, maybe. I might be tired of all the winning by then. It is a lot of winning, and I probably look stupid walking around with this big smile all the time. I might be in the mood for a recession and layoffs and it would be nice to see all the Democrats smile for a week or so, until of course the sugar rush is gone, and they return naturally to telling us about the impending crisis of the day that the government must solve at my expense.

bagoh20 said...

"She's a nobody with no policy ideas whatsoever."

That actually makes her the best of the bunch. Good ideas and policy are too much to ask, but no ideas at all? That sounds like a huge improvement in the Dem field.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

whoa, whoa whoa!!

...how come no one's talking about Lincoln Chafee???

Achilles said...

AllenS said...
Michelle Obama will not run for anything. She's a nobody with no policy ideas whatsoever. Same with The Oprah.

You are thinking about this from the pov of what could be described as male thinking.

This would not be the first Obama to run for president with a thin policy record.

Michelle is the only hope the democrat party has right now. But I don't think she would win and the people that make these decision will probably come to the same conclusion.

Especially after today.

Everything is falling apart for the left right now.

etbass said...

Agree w Drago. I think Michelle would be a powerful candidate against Trump. She would sweep the women, the blacks, the demos and maybe even the GOPe. Her ability, policy knowledge would be totally beside the point. It's hers for the asking.

Yancey Ward said...

I have also met Bloomberg before, and he isn't 5'8"- closer to 5'6", and maybe not even that.

walter said...

I don't think she wants it..even if "it's high time" etc.
I think she would have kept a higher profile.
Would be interesting to see how the "independents" react, however.

Steven said...

Bloomberg should host a debate, inviting all thirteen other Wikipedia-listed declared candidates.

And have no questions, just a timekeeper, and three rounds. In each round, each candidate gets one time slot to speak as they choose; the only difference between rounds is what order they get to speak in. If they want to address each other's points or not, that's their business.

Qwinn said...

I don't think the country is ready for its first Trans president yet.

Freeman Hunt said...

Why criticize him for that when everyone should be criticizing him for being an authoritarian?

Drago said...

walter: "I don't think she wants it..even if "it's high time" etc.
I think she would have kept a higher profile."

She has maintained a massively high profile....but not where you would be looking.

Her profile maintenance has been centered around appearances on daytime TV, Award shows, non-stop womens magazine covers, book tours with relatively large crowds, appearances in commercials (you'd be amazed how many little quick shots of Michelle appear in Comcast/Netflix/HBO/other media ads.

All of this is no accident and is a well thought out strategy of keeping the target audiences engaged.

If Michelle were to be handed the nomination (and no doubt immediately after a Nobel and Grammy (for the Spoken Word) and about a half dozen other high profile awards as well), I don't think getting broad exposure on her "ideas"(snort) and "policies" (double snort) would be a problem with this media, do you?

Two-eyed Jack said...

Listening to a televised debate in hope of finding out how candidates would run the country is as stupid as listening to the State of the Union address to discover the state of the Union.

J. Farmer said...

In electoral politics, policies and ideas count for very little. It mostly comes down to personality, instincts, and how the electorate view the direction their lives/family/community have been heading. People, on average, tend to be much more pragmatic than ideological.

FullMoon said...

bagoh20 said...

Imagine Bloomberg and Trump on the stage together. That visual would be unfair, but small-man syndrome is a real thing and it's dangerous.


Camera magic used to make Trump shorter than Bloomberg

bagoh20 said...

"President Trump is declaring victory — at least for now — in the scuffle between the United States and Iran that began last week when a U.S. strike killed Iranian terrorist military leader Qassem Soleimani.

"Iran appears to be standing down," Trump said in an address to the nation following Iran's retaliatory missile strikes on U.S. facilities in Iraq Tuesday.

The president confirmed the news that Tuesday's attacks resulted in minimal damage to U.S. assets and no casualties among U.S. or Iraqi military personnel."
~ Phil Shriver

Who predicted this outcome? Absolutely nobody.

If you are honest, you have to admit that the overriding characteristic of Trump is that the effect of his actions are never predicted accurately, and they are overwhelmingly positive in the end. That's what happens when everything you do is characterized as a mistake, yet you actually do pretty damn well.

bagoh20 said...

You know who else was short and liked to tell everyone what to do?

Qwinn said...

"The president confirmed the news that Tuesday's attacks resulted in minimal damage to U.S. assets and no casualties among U.S. or Iraqi military personnel." "

Wait, what?

Chuck said this on the cafe thread just last night, at 11:42pm:

"Significant casualties among our allied Iraqi forces. That probably will mean nothing to much of Trump World. Shame on them for that."

I thought it odd at the time, since I hadn't heard *anyone* claim casualties of any kind, even at that point.

What gives, Chuck? You weren't lying so you could "shame" "Trump World", were you? Nah. That would be unprecedented.

Iman said...

Michael K is correct: Bloomberg has much Samsonite vis-a-vis China. A total apologist for the regime. Google his fairly recent (a couple months or so ago) interview with Margaret Hoover. Very revealing.

stevew said...

I think Michelle could do very well but have to agree she is unlikely to want that job. She has seen first hand what it demands in terms of effort, engagement with others, travel, and criticism (directed at her). Based on her career before being FLOTUS and activity while in that position, I haven't seen any indication the job is of interest to her.

tcrosse said...

What's in it for Michelle? She already has fame, adoration, and wealth beyond the dreams of avarice. Unless the role of the President becomes that of a spokesmodel, it wouldn't be her cup of tea.

narciso said...

back of the book section,


https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/08/elise-stefanik-fundraising-schiff/

FullMoon said...

What's in it for Michelle? She already has fame, adoration, and wealth beyond the dreams of avarice.

Social justice. Reparations. Revenge for hundreds of years of oppression and suffering and Trumps insults.

She would get slaughtered. I hope she goes for it.

Bruce Hayden said...

“"Iran appears to be standing down," Trump said in an address to the nation following Iran's retaliatory missile strikes on U.S. facilities in Iraq Tuesday.”

Could be that the Iranians accidentally shot down the Ukrainian 737. It is very suspicious. It was a very new version of one of the safest planes in the air, that suddenly crashed minutes from takeoff - and the Iranians are refusing to turn over the Black Box to Boeing to determine the cause of the crash. And the Ukrainian airline has cancelled all of its flights to Iran. Very suspicious.

Qwinn said...

Yes, I expect Democrats to demand reparations from Iran to Ukraine shortly. Checks to be made payable to the Ukrainian Government c/o Burisma Energy Co, Hunter Biden Legal Defense Fund Division.

narciso said...

possibly but I blame the terrible avionics first, how did it get past the design phase, with practically no back up, unlike iran air or kal 007, it didn't cross disputed space,

Drago said...

Qwinn: "I thought it odd at the time, since I hadn't heard *anyone* claim casualties of any kind, even at that point.

What gives, Chuck? You weren't lying so you could "shame" "Trump World", were you? Nah. That would be unprecedented."

What happened last night is LLR-lefty Chuck's favorite lefty network, MSNBC, acted precisely as we knew they would: as a propaganda feed for America's enemies in Tehran.

MSNBC simply acted as the megaphone for Islamic Supremacist propaganda because of course they did.

Not only was this FakeNews Iraqi casualty count bandied about but the idiots at MSNBC actually fed the FakeNews lie of 30 US casualties directly into the American media bloodstream.

These idiots actually did that, no doubt to LLR-lefty Chuck's great satisfaction.

Imagine the disappointment LLR-lefty Chuck must have felt this morning when his gin-soaked hangover receded and he realized for the first time that no American's had been killed and the "attack" was nothing more than window dressing for Chuck's islamic supremacist anti-Trump allies?

I'll bet he wanted to crawl right back into that bottle.

rehajm said...

You know who else was short and liked to tell everyone what to do?

Robert Reich?

rehajm said...

That Greta girl?

Francisco D said...

Could be that the Iranians accidentally shot down the Ukrainian 737. It is very suspicious. It was a very new version of one of the safest planes in the air, that suddenly crashed minutes from takeoff - and the Iranians are refusing to turn over the Black Box to Boeing to determine the cause of the crash. And the Ukrainian airline has cancelled all of its flights to Iran. Very suspicious.

Gee. I am confused. The media Democrats told me that Trump was the bungler who had no idea what he was doing.

New line: Innocent people died because of Trump provoking the Iranians.

Nonapod said...

Social justice. Reparations. Revenge for hundreds of years of oppression and suffering and Trumps insults.

I guess you'd have to ask are "social justice" and some idea of "revenge" worth making herself uncomfortable, risking her giving up all the wonderous cushy fringe benifts, the adoration of the media and Hollywood she currently recieves? After all, a presidential campaign is actually a lot of work for a candidate. It's stressful and taxing. She'd actually have to do real work. She'd have to do countless interviews. She'd be subjected to actual hard and uncomfortable questions and everything, her past, her husband. She'd have to travel all over the country to meet and gladhand all sorts of seedy lumpenprole. She'd also have to face that great orange ogre on a debate stage. She'd no longer be shielded and protected from such a viscious beast by a fawning media.

Do you believe that she has actual hard principles? That she really cares about all she claims to care about enough that she'd actually be willing to turn her current cushy, personal life upside down for them? I'm not so sure.

gilbar said...

s&p 500 at all time high; Capitol Gains tax payments SKYROCKET!! WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!

Jo Biden promises, that if He is President "No One will pay capital gains taxes during My Presidency!"

etbass said...

Boney

walter said...

He lives!

Robert Reich
‏Verified account @RBReich
1h1 hour ago

“Destroying 100% of ISIS.”

”Great and unmatched wisdom."

"I am the chosen one."

"What you are seeing and what you are reading is not what's happening."

"I alone can fix it."

"The press is the enemy of the people."

This is the language of an authoritarian.

gilbar said...

Francisco D said...
Could be that the Iranians accidentally shot down the Ukrainian 737. It is very suspicious - and the Iranians are refusing to turn over the Black Box to Boeing to determine the cause of the crash.


but Wait! it gets even Better!
The Iranians say: it appeared the pilot couldn't communicate with air-traffic controllers in Tehran in the last moments of the flight, added Hassan Razaeifar, the head of Iran's air crash investigation committee.

now, WHY couldn't the pilot communicate with air traffic controllers
A) an engine caught fire, and that burnt up the radio?
B) ATC turned off their radio, and watched; as air defense tore the plane to shreds?
pick one! or postulate your own scenario

walter said...

Bonus:

Robert Reich
‏Verified account @RBReich
20h20 hours ago

While we're distracted by Trump's lawless attempt to drag us into war with Iran, his administration is quietly trying to strip disability benefits from tens of thousands of Americans.

gilbar said...

or, i guess;
C) the tower ATC was TOLD, AFTERWORDS; that they " couldn't communicate with plane"

Qwinn said...

Nonapod: "She'd be subjected to actual hard and uncomfortable questions and everything, her past, her husband."

Why would you think this? Can you link me to any such "hard and uncomfortable questions" ever being directed at Hillary Clinton by anyone in the media? Ever?

If the limit of her exposure to "hard and uncomfortable questions" would be the total 2 or 3 hours she might be on a debate stage with Trump, with MSM debate moderators there to call fouls on Trump for each and every one of them, I doubt that'd be much of a disincentive.

walter said...

FWIW, civilian plane crash not mentioned by Trump..even as rote condolence.
That is curious.

AllenS said...

If offered the nomination, Michelle will not accept it. Now, stop and think about this -- what would all of the other candidates (and their supporters) who've spent millions upon millions of dollars have to say about that offer to Michelle that it's hers for the taking without one minute of her campaigning. Do you really think that the Bernie Fan Club would accept it?

Nonapod said...

Why would you think this? Can you link me to any such "hard and uncomfortable questions" ever being directed at Hillary Clinton by anyone in the media? Ever?

I agree that you probably wouldn't get uncomfortable questions from most in the mainstream media (or at least only if she was stupid enough to do a one-on-one interview with someone like Tucker Carson). But she'd certainly get them from Trump via Tweets and rallies. And of course from conservative personalities. And, possibly, if questioners aren't carefully curated in campaign appearences, some hard question may actually slip through. She could choose to ignore them of course, but just like with Hillary's emails and Hunter Bidens Burisma stuff, these things have a habbit of not going away and becoming a permanent drag if you don't sufficiently address them.

But my point stands, why risk any of it? What does she gain versus what does she give up?

Todd said...

AllenS said...

Do you really think that the Bernie Fan Club would accept it?

1/8/20, 1:34 PM


The flip side of "Anyone but Hillary!" is "OrangeManBad". The BernieBros either get in line or they don't. The DNC power-brokers care not one iota for what they [BernieBros] do or don't think...

FullMoon said...

Nonapod: "She'd be subjected to actual hard and uncomfortable questions and everything, her past, her husband."

MSM would run interference but she can't hide from Trump. One of Trumps obvious and easiest "Obama's have been paid over six hundred million dollars from foreign governments"

MSM rushes out with fact check "Trump lies, Obama's only been paid 550 million from foreign govts."

She does not have the courage to do it.

Beasts of England said...

’She does not have the courage to do it.’

Her skin is even thinner than her husband’s - a true feat. She would be shattered.

Drago said...

AllenS: "If offered the nomination, Michelle will not accept it. Now, stop and think about this -- what would all of the other candidates (and their supporters) who've spent millions upon millions of dollars have to say about that offer to Michelle that it's hers for the taking without one minute of her campaigning. Do you really think that the Bernie Fan Club would accept it?"

Are you kidding me?

Have you been paying attention.

Michelle obama is a black woman with the obama team and entire political/cultural media behind her.Period.

No older white democrat candidate would dare challenge that. Especially that backbone-less Bernie who allowed Hillary to go full Jedi-mindtrick on him in a live debate re: emails.

walter said...

..being forced again to look at that damn flag...

tcrosse said...

Michelle Obama holds the promise of doing as much for the community-of-color as her husband did. Think of all hubby's racial healing yet to be accomplished.

Beasts of England said...

Where is Brave Sir Chuck today? I’m worried about him...

Bay Area Guy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bay Area Guy said...

The hypothesis -- Michelle Obama reluctantly comes to rescue the Dems in disarray -- only works if one factors in Barack's role, preference and exercise in authority.

In other words, if Michelle wants it, it means Barack wants it.

Y'all think that when Lurleen Wallace was governor of Alabama in 67', that ole George wasn't callin' the shots?

Barack Obama may be publicly quiet (much to Joe Biden's chagrin), but he remains a very powerful King in absentia and King-Maker. He makes his millions and operates behind the scenes. And he's relatively young (58).

So, the Michelle rescue plan only works as a facade, if it is truly the Obama rescue plan.

Hopefully, he's content on making his millions and not making such a power play to further vex us with smooth-talking leftism.

etbass said...

Someone mentioned earlier, the election of Lurleen Wallace, George's wife, as governor of Alabama. George actually acted for her as governor in 1967.

Are you all saying Barak couldn't/wouldn't do the same for Michelle (if she let him)?

Nichevo said...


Howard said...
Bloomberg doesn't want to be one of a hundred colors in a box.


Ah, but does he want to be impregnated by a married account executive?

Nonapod said...

@BAG, Yeah, I don't buy it. I have no idea about how things are in their marriage, but I think Barack asking Michelle to go through the unpleasantness of a presidential campaign just to ultimately act as the power behind the throne seems pretty unlikely. I mean, I don't doubt Barack's ambitions, just Michelle's. I believe that though there are some similarities, the Obamas aren't the Clintons. Michelle's not a politician and (IMO, naturally) has never demonstrated the desire to really be one. She's strikes me as the sort of person who doesn't like to ask people for votes or to pander . She strikes me as the sort of person who only likes telling people what to do. She's imperious and not the right temporment for it. What was that infamous quote of hers... something about being proud of America for the first time after they voted for her husband?

Again, all my opinion

Rabel said...

"Put the 2 of them at a table with no moderator for 2 hours and stream it on YouTube"

That sounds like a plot device in a RITA award winning romance novel.

Beasts of England said...

I was on Lurleen B. Wallace Drive earlier today - right along the lakeshore. Do I win a prize? ;)

Bay Area Guy said...

The RCP Betting Odds suggest that the Dem race will come down to Biden (age 77) v. Bernie (age 78). . Two really, really, really old and doddering white guys. If Bloomberg (age 78) spends his millions to get in, you'll have 3 old doddering white guys.

If the Dems are fixated on a old doddering white guy, they might as well just nominate our friend, Howard:)

(just kidding, Marine!)

walter said...

Scarecrow, Tinman and Lion.

tcrosse said...

Steyer is the guy who looks like the Scarecrow.

narciso said...

https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/08/lara-logan-americans-defending-iran/

wildswan said...

Put the 2 of them at a table with no moderator for 2 hours and stream it on YouTube.

You could have "breakfast club" debates between rejects in a diner - Tulsi vs. Michael Bennett, Castro vs. Booker. And billionaires club: Bloomberg vs. Steyer in a wine cave.

Far as Michele goes, I'm with those who think the Bernie Bros wouldn't accept it and they'd ask some hard questions, like where the money came from to buy an $11 million dollar house. And why it's close to the water if she really thinks sea levels are rising. And somebody would add up her travel costs since they left the White House - way beyond their income. Quid pro quo?

MadTownGuy said...

From the post:

"Why doesn't Elizabeth Warren invite Bloomberg to debate her face-to-face? Is there some Democratic Party rule that blocks candidates from doing this? Put the 2 of them at a table with no moderator for 2 hours and stream it on YouTube (or wherever)."

How can she cheat when there's no moderator?

John henry said...

If I say that a machine or a person is "robotic" I am saying that they are not actually a robot. They only have some of the features of a robot. The -ic suffix means "not". Or at least not exactly but only somewhat similar.

If I say that a party is democratic, am I not saying the same thing? That they have some of the features of a democracy but are not the real thing?

John Henry

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

for Democrats, file this under "Feature, Not Bug"

Three candidates running for a Michigan state House seat have criminal records.

https://dailycaller.com/2020/01/07/black-journalists-flint-paper-state-house-assault-charges/

walter said...

Racist!
Besides, 3 out of 10..(counting fingers) less than half!
This dude redefined Bible thumping:
"A National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) chapter said a local newspaper was being unethical after it reported that a candidate for political office had a criminal record for climbing in a window, beating a man with a Bible, and choking him with a bike chain."
Incidently, one of the local papers is Flint Beat.

Bunkypotatohead said...

Michelle's kinda small for a wookie.

Nichevo said...


Bruce Hayden said...
“"Iran appears to be standing down," Trump said in an address to the nation following Iran's retaliatory missile strikes on U.S. facilities in Iraq Tuesday.”

Could be that the Iranians accidentally shot down the Ukrainian 737. It is very suspicious.

Of course Iran shut down the Ukrainian airliner. Unless you think that a foreign country had the ability to operate a Tor M1 missile launcher in a suburb of Tehran. The only question is why.

I'd like to know if they declared Victory on their retaliation for Soleimani before or after that shoot down. Remember they had invoked Pan Am flight 109 as a potential revenge.

I don't know why they would want to shoot down a Ukrainian airliner, but they did, and perhaps it was an accident, perhaps they just wanted to get their gun off and kill something, anything, or perhaps there was a target in mind.