|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 26, 2019 22:19:05 GMT -5
In high school I was a debater. I'm still very close to a lot of my fellow debaters a half century later. We had a reunion in 2011 and another in 2016.
We went to Bellaire High School in Houston. Bellaire was a debate powerhouse. Each year we hosted a tournament. The Boston Globe recently referred to that tournament as the "Rose Bowl of high-octane high school debate." Pretty accurate. The Globe was discussing our tournament in an article about Elizabeth Warren. In 1965, she and her partner came down from Oklahoma and mowed through the unsuspecting competition, winning the debate event. My debate coach, who didn't tend to be lavish with praise, called her one of the very best he'd ever seen. Some of my old friends loathe her political views. We all get a kick out of seeing her still debating, though.
Tomorrow night we'll see Marianne Williamson, who was a year or two behind most of us at Bellaire. We all knew her and I think everyone liked her. She was an effervescent dynamo. No one in our group thinks she'll get anywhere in this race but I think we all wish her well. She was a sweetheart and I have no reason to doubt that she still is.
This evening's debate was very interesting but I don't feel like arguing so I'll stifle myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 26, 2019 22:19:38 GMT -5
I forgot. One of our group used to work with Kamala Harris and thinks very highly of her.
|
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Jun 26, 2019 22:46:44 GMT -5
I don’t agree with everything Warren stands for, but like her for one reason: On the issues page of her website, #1 is End Washington Corruption through lobbying reform, and I don’t think anything else (well, anything good, anyway, will get done until we get private money out of public policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jun 26, 2019 22:59:27 GMT -5
I saw no point in watching, this early in that game. But you’ve got some roots in this, Cornflake. I found your posts quite interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Jun 27, 2019 5:04:46 GMT -5
I saw a extended interview Joe Rogan had with Tulsi Gabbard. I really liked her a lot. I would love to try a decade or two of non-intervention where we just quit mucking around the whole damn world throwing our military weight and money at things. That is her big motivation to run: Stop the endless wars.
I probably wouldn't vote for her or any other Democrat for a variety of reasons but I liked her.
|
|
|
|
Post by lar on Jun 27, 2019 8:09:03 GMT -5
I intended to watch last night. Got busy with some stuff and totally forgot.
This morning the local conversation radio talk show host said that by and large the Dems proved to be an undistinguished lot last night. CNN was far more positive. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle of those two opinions.
I intend (yes, I know what the road to hell is paved with) to see if I can hold it together long enough to remember to watch tonight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 27, 2019 8:32:02 GMT -5
Alan, I also liked Gabbard. Of the "minor" candidates I think she helped herself the most, although I don't see any of those rising to the front rank.
|
|
|
|
Post by sidheguitarmichael on Jun 27, 2019 9:27:38 GMT -5
I saw a extended interview Joe Rogan had with Tulsi Gabbard. I really liked her a lot. I would love to try a decade or two of non-intervention where we just quit mucking around the whole damn world throwing our military weight and money at things. That is her big motivation to run: Stop the endless wars. I probably wouldn't vote for her or any other Democrat for a variety of reasons but I liked her. All of this. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 27, 2019 9:38:34 GMT -5
Vi una entrevista extendida que Joe Rogan tuvo con Tulsi Gabbard. Realmente me gustó mucho. Me encantaría probar una o dos décadas de no intervención, en las que simplemente dejamos de jugar por todo el maldito mundo lanzando nuestro peso militar y dinero a las cosas. Esa es su gran motivación para correr: Detener las guerras sin fin.
Probablemente no votaría por ella o por cualquier otro demócrata por una variedad de razones, pero me gustaba.
|
|
Dub
Administrator
I'm gettin' so the past is the only thing I can remember.
Posts: 19,958 
|
Post by Dub on Jun 27, 2019 9:41:35 GMT -5
Vi una entrevista extendida que Joe Rogan tuvo con Tulsi Gabbard. Realmente me gustó mucho. Me encantaría probar una o dos décadas de no intervención, en las que simplemente dejamos de jugar por todo el maldito mundo lanzando nuestro peso militar y dinero a las cosas. Esa es su gran motivación para correr: Detener las guerras sin fin. Probablemente no votaría por ella o por cualquier otro demócrata por una variedad de razones, pero me gustaba. Oh yeah? Well, if you do you’ll have to clean it up yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Jun 27, 2019 9:43:42 GMT -5
Vi una entrevista extendida que Joe Rogan tuvo con Tulsi Gabbard. Realmente me gustó mucho. Me encantaría probar una o dos décadas de no intervención, en las que simplemente dejamos de jugar por todo el maldito mundo lanzando nuestro peso militar y dinero a las cosas. Esa es su gran motivación para correr: Detener las guerras sin fin. Probablemente no votaría por ella o por cualquier otro demócrata por una variedad de razones, pero me gustaba. I would call you Alpho but it sounds too much like Alpo but either way it's a step up from Mr.Pathetic Pander. |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 27, 2019 9:53:08 GMT -5
... I don’t think anything else (well, anything good, anyway, will get done until we get private money out of public policy. I don't get this. What is public policy but the rules and regulations that govern private concerns? If private concerns are banned from informing public policy, how in the hell is public policy to be informed and shaped? If we are to have a sensible farm policy, how do we shape one without consulting farmers and those acquainted and involved in the business of agriculture? How do you form a sensible energy policy without input from those that are involved in energy production? How do you formulate sensible housing regulations without input from those that build houses? How do you formulate sensible genetic research without input from the researchers and businesses involved in genetic research? How do you formulate a sensible door policy without listening to the concerns and work experience of doormakers? While there are some well-informed people sent to congress each and every election, not all can be expected to be well-informed about the myriad of issues they will be asked to act upon. How are they to become informed if the very people, industries, and concerns they are asked to regulate are banned from commenting on whatever the hell it is they are about to do or not do? And, by many accounts, there are many sent to the halls of congress that aren't well-informed about much of anything as being well-informed is not a requirement for holding office. Where the hell are they supposed to get information on complex technical matters like energy production, ag production, genetic research, computer shit, health practices, and diesel engines (thank me later) Shit, when I was farming, I was grateful that the voice of my fellow farmers was considered along with the voice of some Swede working for Greenpeace that had never stepped foot on a farm when congress was forming regulations governing where I could locate my farm fuel tanks. (the Swede from Greenpeace wanted a central facility all farmers within a fifty-mile radius would need to travel to whenever they needed to fuel a truck or tractor, after first being scolded for still using fuel). Stifling the voice of the concern and industry you are about to regulate is more that autocratic idiocy. It is worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 27, 2019 10:03:40 GMT -5
I was watching with an eye towards how these candidates would fare in my state. My sense was that only Klobuchar or Gabbard might win Arizona. Anyone who advocates reducing penalties for illegal immigration--or reparations--would be toast here. (Actually I didn't hear what, if anything, Klobuchar said about these things.) I'm not interested in nominating someone who can't win the general election.
|
|
|
|
Post by timfarney on Jun 27, 2019 12:53:30 GMT -5
... I don’t think anything else (well, anything good, anyway, will get done until we get private money out of public policy. I don't get this. What is public policy but the rules and regulations that govern private concerns? If private concerns are banned from informing public policy, how in the hell is public policy to be informed and shaped? If we are to have a sensible farm policy, how do we shape one without consulting farmers and those acquainted and involved in the business of agriculture? How do you form a sensible energy policy without input from those that are involved in energy production? How do you formulate sensible housing regulations without input from those that build houses? How do you formulate sensible genetic research without input from the researchers and businesses involved in genetic research? How do you formulate a sensible door policy without listening to the concerns and work experience of doormakers? While there are some well-informed people sent to congress each and every election, not all can be expected to be well-informed about the myriad of issues they will be asked to act upon. How are they to become informed if the very people, industries, and concerns they are asked to regulate are banned from commenting on whatever the hell it is they are about to do or not do? And, by many accounts, there are many sent to the halls of congress that aren't well-informed about much of anything as being well-informed is not a requirement for holding office. Where the hell are they supposed to get information on complex technical matters like energy production, ag production, genetic research, computer shit, health practices, and diesel engines (thank me later) Shit, when I was farming, I was grateful that the voice of my fellow farmers was considered along with the voice of some Swede working for Greenpeace that had never stepped foot on a farm when congress was forming regulations governing where I could locate my farm fuel tanks. (the Swede from Greenpeace wanted a central facility all farmers within a fifty-mile radius would need to travel to whenever they needed to fuel a truck or tractor, after first being scolded for still using fuel). Stifling the voice of the concern and industry you are about to regulate is more that autocratic idiocy. It is worse. It’s not the advice and perspective of the private sector that concerns me. It is the wholesale legal bribery that is our election financing and lobbying system. |
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Jun 27, 2019 13:17:28 GMT -5
Oh, I'm all against bribery.
But lobbying is how the private industry, businesses and unions make themselves heard in congress. Their concerns matter and their expertise and experience is needed. And elections affect everybody, including businesses and unions. All who are impacted have a right to participate in the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jun 27, 2019 13:59:22 GMT -5
About Gabbard: It's a great applause line, bring our boys 'n' girls back home! Let the [insert name of unstable middle-eastern country] figure it out for themselves! I guess we should have pulled out of Europe and Japan after WWII, as well. Geopolitics hates a vacuum, my friends. If we leave, others will move in, and we might not like the way they do things, and they may reach out and bite us and our friends. Kind of like the way we bugged out of Afghanistan as soon as we helped kick the Russians out. Hello Taliban. Hello 9-11., It's happened over, and over, and over down through history, and it will happen again if we just abandon the Middle East again now.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 27, 2019 14:01:00 GMT -5
My cat hates the vacuum too. He runs to the other room any time I turn it on. It's a pretty good reason to never clean the house.
|
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 27, 2019 14:09:45 GMT -5
About Gabbard: It's a great applause line, bring our boys 'n' girls back home! Let the [insert name of unstable middle-eastern country] figure it out for themselves! I guess we should have pulled out of Europe and Japan after WWII, as well. Geopolitics hates a vacuum, my friends. If we leave, others will move in, and we might not like the way they do things, and they may reach out and bite us and our friends. Kind of like the way we bugged out of Afghanistan as soon as we helped kick the Russians out. Hello Taliban. Hello 9-11., It's happened over, and over, and over down through history, and it will happen again if we just abandon the Middle East again now. I tried that line of reasoning in another thread. Hope you have better luck with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Jun 27, 2019 17:43:30 GMT -5
Well, it seems to have shut down the thread, so everybody must be good with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Jun 27, 2019 17:49:16 GMT -5
I just liked it.
|
|
