Monday, October 19, 2015

Forum: What Did You Think Of The Democrat's Debate?

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question:What Did You Think Of The Democrat's Debate?

 The Noisy Room : Boring. Flat. Torturous. The Walking Dead. Apathetic. Pathetic. Need I go on? That is what that debate last night was. All the print media this morning are claiming that Clinton nailed it. Nailed what? Propagandic lies? What a bunch of horse manure. Both Clinton and Sanders are revising history as they go - just pure fabrication. Donald Trump got more attendance live-Tweeting the debate last night than the debate did. In fact, I can't find anywhere just how many attended. It must have been very, very bad. The attendance was the first thing you saw on the Republican debates. Not even the local press showed, much less national and international. They didn't want to die from sheer boredom. I lived in Vegas for over 20 years... drag queen shows had far better attendance. In fact, I'll bet that's where a lot of the Dems were. That and the Bunny Ranch. Bill Clinton was in Vegas, but didn't attend the debate. Any bets where he was? Unless the vote is entirely rigged, the Republicans are going to stomp all over the Democrats in this election. That is unless they deliberately hand it to Clinton.

From the Daily Mail:

This was the scene inside the press filing center at the first Democratic presidential primary debatejust an hour before the event began.

Empty seats. Lots of empty seats.

In all, 354 numbered seats were set aside for journalists at the Wynn Hotel and Casino – not in the debate hall, but in a separate ballroom lined with TV monitors and flanked by snack tables.

But two-and-a-half hours after the hard deadline for reporters to check in, 61 of those seats lay undisturbed, with the CNN- and Wynn-branded swag remaining neatly lined up where staff had placed it.

'They've managed to bring apathy to Las Vegas,' a reporter from a Washington, DC-based news outlet told on background. 'Who'd have thunk it?'

Journalists on the scene with three separate media organizations said, also on background, that they had been offered more seats in the filing center than the number of reporters they brought to Sin City.

None of them would allow their names, or the names of their news organizations, to be used in print.

'We don't want to tick off CNN, to be honest,' one reporter said. 'It's not their fault the energy is so low.'

After a pair of Republican debates that brought TV audiences of 23 and 24 million viewers, CNN has conceded that expectations for a repeat perfomance are low.

The elephant who's not in the room – Donald Trump – could explain the dramatic difference between the two vibes.

Trump himself plans to live-tweet throughout Tuesday night's debate.

'Should be interesting,' he wrote on Twitter just minutes before go-time, 'but too bad the three guys at《1% will be taking up so much time - but who knows, maybe a star will be born (unlikely).' was present at the first two Republican debates, in Cleveland, Ohio and Simi Valley, California.

Both events drew complaints on-scene from journalists who were denied entry because of overcrowding.

For those who don't know, Vegas is a Democrat town. The mayor is a Democrat - big time. The fact that there weren't thousands demanding entrance says something. Sanders drew 20,000 in LA... I wonder why he didn't have numbers in Vegas? Unless his rallies are somehow rigged by the Democratic Socialists of America. I wouldn't be surprised. Clinton can't fill a supply closet. Biden is in the mist somewhere and no one knows what gives with him. There are a lot of gays and feminists and liberals in Vegas... what happened? I'll tell you what... it's too boring even for them. Plus, the candidates just aren't radical enough I guess. They also didn't get the living dead and vampire vote in Vegas - bummer. Trump, Carson and Cruz are all beating Hillary hands down. The media is waxing poetic this morning on how wonderfully Clinton did, but I have one question... if a Marxist shrills into an empty forest of chairs in Vegas, does anyone hear them? Or give a crap?

Trump believes that Hillary won this snooze fest, but a Drudge poll tells another story. The geriatric, authentic socialist won. Bernie Sanders was perceived as the winner hands down. And if you really want to get grossed out, look no further than Joy Behar, who is hot for Sanders. He arouses her. May I just say, ewwww! I knew she was sick and twisted, but come on. It must not take much to turn a commie on.

The real winner of the debate was Donald Trump, who got more attention than any of the lame donkeys in Vegas. That guy gets more free air time than anyone I have ever seen. It's brilliant.

They've got the moron vote locked... and the slacker vote. Looks like it's up to the rest of America to make sure these Marxists don't somehow slither into the White House. They'll tax, regulate and bore us to death. That's if we don't get invaded or nuked first. Death or cake?

 The Independent Sentinel :The Democratic debate was a real snooze fest and there isn't much I can add to what people have said. Obviously they were all in competition for who could give away the most "free" stuff except for the one normal person, Jim Webb, who needs to rethink his shift to the Democratic party.

I don't know how people can say Hillary won when her competition was a stuffy military guy, two really unintelligent people including a failed Governor, and last but not least, a crazy old and angry commie. Oh, wait , I'm being unfair, she didn't fall flat on her face-that makes her a winner!

JoshuaPundit : I freely admit that being familiar with the specimens involved, my chief interest was threefold; how the actual event would play out as opposed to how the media would spin it, what it would signify in terms of the Clinton/Obama war and how Jim Webb would go over.

To put it briefly, here's what I gleaned from it:

Even though many after-debate polls showed the old commie winning, the media uniformly crowned it a Clinton triumph, often in what seemed like a co-ordinated collusive effort - ah, but we've been there before, haven't we?

It's obvious to me that the Clintons and the Obama's have come to a grudging rapprochement. The entire scandal surrounding the Clinton's 'charitable foundation', the e-mail servers scandal and people championing a Joe Biden candidacy without going into hysterical laughter were all attacks by President Obama and his creatures on Mrs. Clinton.

However, as I've mentioned previously.Mrs. Clinton has some potent weapons of her own. First of all, a simple call from her attorneys  to certain members of congress offering candid testimony on any number of issues she has intimate knowledge of in exchange for  immunity from prosecution could make Barack Obama's final months in office extremely complicated.

Second, even Barack Obama has to sometimes bend to reality. Ironically, the Democrats have a unique system where the party insiders choose the nominee via a vehicle called super delegates rather than basing it on the more democratic reliance on the results ofp[lo-0 votes in the primaries. That's why Mrs. Clinton was not the nominee in 2008.

Apparently, a number of these female super delegates who are in positions of power in the party have anointed Hillary based on her gender and have let it be known that any attempt to sideline her would have extreme consequences. So it's no surprise to me that the usual suspects would trumpet a Clinton 'triumph' in the media, that the noise about a Biden candidacy would be muted and subside into silence or that President Obama would take steps to curtail the FBI investigation into the Clinton e-mail scandal and the almost certain breaches of national security involved.  Remember, they work for him.

In view of that, the response to Jim Webb was almost an  anti-climax. I'm amazed he was allowed to speak at all.

The Democratic Party used to combine economic populism with love of country and  the backing of a strong national defense. What they've morphed into is an American version of the British Labour Party - philosophically Marxist, anti-freedom, rabidly isolationist, anti-military,  hysterically vitriolic towards those with different views. The party's leadership and yes, much of the rank and file have  hyper criticism of America combined with appeasement of the country's enemies as their default stance. And I'd also add that like the British Labour Party,  a good chunk of the Democratic party is now firmly anti-semitic, oh pardon me , 'anti-Zionist,' something a lot of American Jews are now struggling to come to terms with if they haven't already chosen sides.

As such, Jim Webb is a courageous dinosaur of what the Democrats once were, and yet another symbol of our dysfunctional politics - a man who might make a superb president, but whom hasn't a remote chance of obtaining the office.  Not as a member today's Democrat Party.

Maggie's Notebook : The Lincoln Chaffee –– Hillary Clinton exchange on the Iraq War caught my attention:

Lincoln Chaffee:

"If you're looking at someone who made that poor decision in 2002 to go into Iraq when there was no real evidence of weapons of mass destruction, which I knew because I did my homework, that's an indication of how someone will perform in the future. And that's what's important."

Hillary Clinton response:

"I recall very well being on a debate stage about 25 time with then-Senator Obama debating this issue. After the election, he asked me to be Secretary of State. He valued my judgment. I spent a lot of time with him in the situation room going over some very difficult issues."

I remember, well, when Obama announced he would put Hillary in charge of the State Department. I figured Bill Clinton had made it clear to Obama that Hillary would tell Obama's life story better than he could ever tell it, if he didn't appoint her to State.

I thought the questions were useless. They gave us nothing we didn't already know. They all agree on almost everything, including what has since been estimated to be $18 Trillion in giveaways. I say "almost," as I excuse Jim Webb from this sorry lot.

When Bernie Sanders made himself proud by saying "enough of the "emails," the commentators failed to scale the remark down to facts. Why is everyone but Democrats concerned about the emails Bernie Sanders has had enough of?

 1) March 2013, Hacker Guccifer released emails from Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary regarding the attack on our Special Mission in Benghazi. Various committees both in the House and the Senate were trying to get answers about the deaths of four Americans, and the life-threatening, and forever changing wounds of others. It's my opinion that Congressman Trey Gowdy pushed long enough and hard enough that Speaker Boehner had to give in and allow a Select Committee to investigate.

 There was more than sufficient reason to investigate, and Guccifer releasing correspondence with Sidney Blumenthal made it necessary. So, no we haven't had "enough of the emails" because we, the peons out here following every smidgen of information about Benghazi, know some of what she did and didn't do, and we are not amused that she has not been held responsible, at any point for sheer negligence and for trying to cover-up yet another America weapons smuggling operation out of Libya. We know one other thing for certain. She blamed an anti-Islam video for the attacks, and through her own videos, she spread her testimony of that clear lie around the Middle East, at taxpayer expense.

Martin O'Malley called illegals "new American immigrants." He also said no one on the Democrat stage had spoken "ill" of another's religion That was the only time religion was brought up, I think, and it was for the sole reason of protecting Islam. Damn the facts.

Late term abortions and the dismembering and selling of human tissue and baby parts was not mentioned on the stage. Neither was Planned Parenthood mentioned, along with the fact that taxpayers are forced to fund it annually. They have no shame, as Democrat Congressman Zell Miller once said.

Climate Change (not global warming) was the star of the evening. for one reason, and one reason only: Democrats rake in big bucks from their bogus Climate Change claims, and it binds us tighter and tighter to the United Nations.

While Syria and Russia were mentioned, I don't think "ISIS" was uttered.

Nothing about our hideous debt or the seemingly insurmountable problems our Veterans face every day. The commentators were not alarmed at the surfeit of skunks in the room.

Laura Rambeau Lee,Right Reason : If I were one of the low information voters Rush Limbaugh speaks about who does not follow politics, I would believe Hillary Clinton won the debate and will most certainly be the Democrat nominee. According to CNN, “Hillary Clinton delivered a poised, polished performance”, while AP reported “Hillary Rodham Clinton's polished performance in the first Democratic debate…” and US News and World Report wrote “The former secretary of state was feisty and polished…” One might think the media had collaborated with one another in their reporting, but that might sound conspiratorial, huh?

At several points during the debate I couldn’t help thinking about Oprah Winfrey years ago when she gave away cars to everyone in her studio audience. It seemed like a competition on who could give away more free stuff. Free college tuition… free health care as a right… you get a new Obama phone … you get a new car. Of course, I believe Oprah used her own money to give away those cars. The only ones mentioned who would be paying for the “free” stuff were the evil one-percent. It doesn’t take a numbers cruncher to know that does not compute. Who could out-socialist Bernie Sanders? Apparently Hillary Clinton is up to the task, although she prefers calling herself a “progressive.”

Several other candidates mentioned our need to combat climate change and take America off of fossil fuels and completely transition to cleaner, greener energy in less than a couple of decades. Again, there was no discussion about the skyrocketing costs of alternative clean energy nor the billions of tax dollars wasted on failed clean energy companies.

Americans must be made to realize all of these utopian promises cannot and will not ever be kept. The sad fact, however, is there are an overwhelming number of low information voters too eager to drink the Koolaid and depend on the government taking care of their every need.

The Glittering Eye :Didn't watch it. Don't much care. I said what I have to say about it in my post on the subject:

I did not watch the Democratic candidates’ “debate”. I won’t watch it and you can’t make me. However, based on John Cassidy’s remarks I have a question. Did Hillary Clinton convince anyone not already predisposed to vote for her to do so?
 Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

No comments: