Friday, June 28, 2019

The Circus, Continued

     Last night was the second night of the first Democrat Presidential candidate's debate.  I'm still sorry it isn't being done in the style of "Celebrity Deathmatch," with one-on-one battles, but there was plenty of chaos nevertheless.

     Tamara paid much closer attention than I did, but here's what I took away:

     "There's going to be lots of free stuff and we're going to shake down The Rich to pay for it," remains a magic touchstone for the Dems.  Free or cheap healthcare?  Check.  Wipe out your student loans?  Check.  Bread riots by 2030?  Check.  "Guns are bad," is another chestnut -- and look how well that combination has worked out in Venezuela!

     Venezuela?  Oh, about that; the word "socialism" remains contentious, the concept nebulous even at the hands of the ones who embrace it.  I'm not seeing a dime's worth of difference in actual policy between the contenders who shy away in maidenly modesty and the ones who cozy up to it.   Eugene V. Debs is laughing hollowly in the wings; at least he knew what the word meant.

     Eric Swalwell's a know-it-all frat boy who does not, in fact, know it all.

     Congressman Swalwell and most of the other debaters waxed fairly incoherent at times, piling up Party platitudes in ways that didn't make a lot of sense.

     Joe Biden continues to impress me with his emotional intelligence...and his inability to think on his feet while talking.

     Kamala Harris has good speechwriters, strong ability to improvise and delivers lines extremely well.  She's worth worrying about, especially if you're Joe Biden.

     Peter Buttigieg does his homework and can talk sense on the fly.  I suspect he's running for Vice-President, even if he doesn't know it; I also suspect he doesn't stand a chance at it if the Dems run an old white guy for president.   Sure, he's a minority, but is he minority enough for his Party, especially on a billboard?  Doubtful; if all you've got is a photograph, he's Dan Quayle with shorter hair.

     Why is Bernie Sanders even up there?  Same old, same old, and it's become very old.  It's interesting and sad to see a man who is dug into the existing power structure like a tick up a bear's ear in January attempting to chide a group of debaters who are mostly much younger and generally farther from Washington about how nothing changes because the insiders are too unwilling to burn it all down and start over.  It's classic "Let's you and him fight" talk, from a man who confidently expects himself to be put in charge of the ashes because, after all, it must be his turn.  Last time I checked, he was still Not Actually A Democrat.*

     It was another fun time, with much yelling at the TV, though we did decide to pass up popcorn.  Same bad ideas, which some of them express much more clearly than their peers, a choice of Tweedledee, Tweedledum and Tweedledumber.  Or was it twaddle?
* "His party status became ambiguous once again in March 2019 when he signed a formal "loyalty pledge" to the Democratic Party stating that he is a member of the party and will serve as a Democrat if elected president. He signed the pledge the day after he signed paperwork to run as an independent for reelection to the Senate in 2024." So you tell me.


Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

The difference between Joe Biden and me — other than he’s a Democrat and I’m not — is that I acknowledge my inability to think on my feet when talking, and therefore eschew elected office.

markm said...

Biden isn't all that impressive giving a prepared speech either. Haven't you seen his shotgun video? If this was Pat Paulsen, the contrast between the grave tone and the utter lunacy spouting from his mouth would be hilarious. From someone who was one heart attack away from the Presidency, it was appalling.

markm said...

And with the current crop of candidates, my preferred format for debates would be from _Mad Max Beyond the Thunderdome_.

"Two candidates enter. One candidate leaves."

pigpen51 said...

I didn't pay much attention to the Democrat debates, since I feel it is much too early for anything serious until the field is thinned a bit. But I do have a few issues with the entire idea of their social progressive ideas.
What they never acknowledge is that raising taxes on the rich and on corporations to give free stuff to poor people, will never actually happen. Because taxes are not actually paid by corporations or rich people. First, corporations are nothing more than people, who each own a tiny piece of a company, or maybe they own many tiny pieces of a company. But if you have money in a 401k, you might have money invested in a large number of corporations, and not even realize which ones you own. But if the tax rate of those corporations go up, I guarantee you will realize it, because your money in your retirement fund will either drop in value or will not go up as fast.
As to the very rich, most of the time, they do not hold their wealth in actual cash, but rather in investments such as real estate, stocks and bonds, commodities, and such. And so until they sell something, they often do not realize a gain on the value of it, and so there is no income to tax.
Or they do what many people living in California or New York have done, and that is to simply move out of the state, to avoid the abusive tax rates of those states. Some manufacturing companies are doing the same thing, with the policies of the state of California, firearms companies have left the state for greener pastures.
You would think that the Democrats would understand this, and not try and fool the poor people by promising free stuff, but the people always line up with their hands out. Heck, I have even seen the proposal of free housing and a guaranteed income of 1000$ a month.
And so the fun and games begin.