I watched half an hour—all about healthcare—and I give up. Harris won’t admit that she’s banning employer-sponsored healthcare, nor tell us where the money for her plan comes from. Biden is being overly polite. And Americans care about other stuff, too. It’s dispiriting. Something about an internecine squabble, necessary thought it may be, makes me think that Trump is sitting back, waiting to use some of this stuff when he finally is forced to debate.
Anyway, by all means discuss your impression below. I’m done, and am going to work on my lectures for Antarctica.
Uncle Joe just said “malarkey,” so people must be goin’ bottoms-up in a drinking game somewhere.
Nobody was horrible. I kind of like Michael Bennet But I think Cory Booker really good tonight. Unlike some here, I am heartened that we have so many Intelligent, seemingly ethical people willing to give it a try. Jay Inslee was more impressive than last time.
I, for one, welcome our Trump overlord. Not.
We have a soft spot for him.
The consistency of trumps brain…
It’s ugly. But Dems will eventually whittle down to their nominee, and that’s when the real fight can commence.
President Trump is indeed gleefully watching “confusion on my enemies” but he would be vulnerable if a way can be found to get young people to vote in the election .
Yes!
Homer’s look in the thumbnail is an exact reflection of how I feel.
Do any of the candidates know that nonprofit health insurance companies such as Tufts and Harvard-Pilgrim exist and are very highly rated?
Kaiser is well-liked in CA.
Again, I made it about 10 minutes.
The health care is a worry to me, for a number of reasons. I have 30 years invested in having health care that meets a certain standard when I retire. I pay WAY too much (my “portion”) as a public employee for my employer sponsored program; I could get the same coverage– EXACTLY the same– for less than my nominal 33%, through one of the professional societies I belong to.
I am torn. Deeply torn. I have friends with useless plans that are permitted due to a prior governor and current president selective enforcement of standards. As I write this, I am looking at my left forearm, swollen to the size of an american football due to an animal bite, and thinking that if I had the plan my neighbor has, I would have just tied a rope around at the elbow and pulled it as tight as possible, then waited for the inevitable, as he would not be able to get the care I did and will have. (No idea if the infection is treatable, but at least I won’t lose my house to find out)
I haven’t seen any VIABLE plan from any candidate, yet. I had hope 10 years ago, but that hope got nicked away as the bill progressed, and more was chipped off after, as the lawsuits, riders, and executive policy turned a system that could have been molded into something useful into…. what we have now.
Went back to my cat videos again.
I’m not sure if I misunderstood your comment, but, if you’ve been bitten by an animal and haven’t had it checked out yet, do so as soon as possible. I don’t know you, but nobody should lose an arm, or die of some disease, or be debilitated by some brain infection because they didn’t see the doctor soon enough. Even a bite from a stray (or domesticated, but outdoor) cat can cause a severe infection and/or disease if the bite goes deep enough.
If you haven’t had your arm checked, please make sure you do it ASAP.
(I have functional, if very overpriced, insurance. I am heavily medicated and the infection seems to be going down. My point was that I could get the medical attention. My neighbor can’t, and, and age early 50’s has paid the price for that more than once in untreated issues. I don’t see him making it to 60, maybe not even 55)
If I correctly understand enl s/he has had it checked and has had some treatment already and expects more (“…he would not be able to get the care I did and will have”). This is in contrast to what s/he believes his/her neighbour with an inferior health plan could expect.
Having said that I entirely agree that the bite and its symptoms that enl describes clearly need urgent, professional medical attention.
My magnificent black cat has put me in the hospital before with a forearm that looked like that and it was deep purple. It took two days in the hospital with intravenous amoxicillin, then two weeks to drain and heal the quarter sized abscess. You are right about having coverage. It saved me.
On a lighter note, Andrew Yang got in the best line of any of the debates so far: “I’m the exact opposite of Donald Trump: I’m an Asian who likes math!”
Yeah, loved that line of Yang’s (as a woman who loves math).
If immigration without proper permission is downgraded from a crime to a civil infraction, that doesn’t prevent the Border Patrol from deporting rule violators. I really don’t see the problem there. Of course I’m biased – my ancestors immigrated to the United States too. 😉
It would mean that, just like a traffic ticket, you’d be released on a promise to appear in court. With no real consequences for not showing up for your hearing.
And, since we’re already in places like California giving illegals drivers licenses, free health insurance and, in places like San Francisco, the right to vote in local elections, decriminalizing illegal border crossing is tantamount to open borders.
60 to 75 percent of non-detained migrants have attended their immigration court proceedings. That’s not so bad since the ones who don’t follow the law become undocumented workers which the country needs anyway. This is not the best of all possible worlds, but neither is it the end of the American Way.
Could you share a source for that?
Try this. http://immigrationimpact.com/2019/01/30/asylum-seekers-show-up-for-court/
Thanks for the link. That article relies on a DOJ report worth perusing, particularly Figure 1, Figure 9, & Table 4:
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_0918_DHS_Cohort_Outcomes_Report.pdf
It’s important to put that single, cherry-picked statistic in perspective.
1) We have no hard data on how many successfully enter the US illegally, but we may assume the vast majority never voluntarily present themselves for asylum hearings;
2) of the 828,000 apprehended at the border in 2016,
Summary Repatriation: 68%
– (Repeat offenders: 13%)
Referred to Immigration Court: 32%
– (Relief granted: 8%)
– (Ordered removed: 3%)
– (Pending: 20%)
If we extrapolate the relief/removed rate, 3/4 of those apprehended will be found to have no valid asylum claim;
3) Summary repatriations are steadily dropping as illegals have learned to exploit the loophole whereby adults accompanied by minors had, until recently, been released;
4) Released border crossers have one full year to formally apply for asylum;
5) The asylum claim process is drawn-out. Average resolution time is 2-4 years, depending on locale;
6) The asylum claim process is multi-staged. The initial Master Calendar Hearing (MCH) merely sets a date for the next step; attending involves no risk whatsoever. The attendance rates commonly cited are for the MCH. Because of horrendous backlogs, the individual Merits Hearing (IMH) may be scheduled a year or more out. Finally, an adverse ruling may be appealed. In short, an apprehended illegal crosser may enjoy up to 7 years of liberty before facing a final removal order;
7) Following an adverse asylum ruling, Homeland Security rarely initiates removal proceedings, and self-proclaimed “sanctuary cities” refuse to cooperate when they do. Just the other day, Nancy Pelosi shared tips on evading deportation. In short, crossing the border with a child in tow is a virtual guarantee of permanent residency in the US.
For “DOJ report” read: “DHS report”
“we may assume”?
Without footnotes or references?
Yearly caseloads ~= yearly apprehensions + a growing backlog:
https://www.justice.gov/eoir/statistical-year-book
Since only 11% of cases result in relief*, and the risk of being otherwise deported is virtually nil, no incentive exists to voluntarily open a case.
Granted, a considerable portion of illegals in the US did go through the Immigration Court — the 44% whose removal orders were issued in absentia*. But these individuals had been apprehended while crossing the border.
Between 11 and 20+ million illegal immigrants live in the US. If you want to pour through the reports to add up that many relief decrees, I will stand corrected.
* https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1161001/download
The only reason I can think of for ‘needing’ undocumented workers is for employers to exploit & underpay them, thus increasing profit while also suppressing wages of American citizens.
While true, it is also a fact that American companies have done all they can to suppress wages for citizens too. See the massive campaign against unions for example.
A fact, and a non sequitur.
Considering that Illegal entry and reentry are the most heavily prosecuted federal crimes today, decriminalizing it sounds like a good idea. In 2016, more than half of federal criminal prosecutions were for immigration violations, more than drugs, weapons, fraud, terrorism, and violations of the thousands of other federal criminal provisions combined. There are already civil penalties in place, starting with deportation, that have been used for decades, and criminal penalties in place for those who commit actual crimes. Even with Trump’s zero-tolerance policy less than a third of illegal entry apprehensions are prosecuted, but it makes a fine rally cry for Trump to stir up his masses, which is the main purpose.
What would happen if the DOJ were directed not to prosecute entry crimes? Mostly, federal courts would be unburdened and resources could be directed to serious priorities. That would be the largest effect. As for the deterrent effect that Trump heralds, there is little, if any, evidence that prosecution deters entry at all.
From your linked study: “The number of immigration prosecutions in FY 2016 was down 6.9 percent from levels in FY 2015 when such prosecutions totaled 74,791. It was also down 15.3 percent from the levels of five years ago when they totaled 82,250.”
First off, it seems we are prosecuting the crime less. Second, there are a ton of confonding factors not considered, like the lowering of possession prosecutions and many others.
Why would the DOJ be directed not to prosecute entry crimes? A country that ceases to enforce its border ceases to be a country. Also, it’s not like these criminals are put in prisons all over the country with all other criminals.
Just to be clear, are you honestly suggesting we should allow people to enter the country illegally and not prosecute them? Just let anyone who makes it in stay without any further repercussions? You don’t think this will have negative effects down the line?
Just to be clear, no one has ever suggested that “anyone who makes it” can stay with no repercussions. There are already civil penalties in place, beginning with deportation, that are enforced against immigration violations as they were for most of the last century. This changed in 2005 with Bush’s ill-fated “Operation Streamline,” which was resuscitated with Sessions’ “zero-tolerance” policy, which led to separating thousands of children from their families. Currently, prosecuting the less than one third of the border violations that occur is a waste government resources, allows for abusive use of prosecutorial power and does little to deter undocumented crossings.
Generally, being present in the United States without proper authorization is a civil, not a criminal, violation. Someone may overstay their visa by decades and not be subject to prosecution. Civil penalties are deemed sufficient for them, but not for the nasty Mexicans who cross the border.
“A country that ceases to enforce its border ceases to be a country.”
Man am I tired of this line. I don’t want to argue for a specific border policy here but no, border enforcement does not determine a country. Borders are defined by where one government’s jurisdiction ends and another begins. If a country wants open borders it is still a country! The borders define exactly which country’s rules apply, including rules about freedom of movement.
I think, under EU rules, countries are almost open boarder. No?
When we traveled from France to Spain on a train I think the simple passport check had already been done while boarding. The train didn’t stop, as I recall.
If current immigration trends continue, in a little over 20 short years, Hispanics are projected to be the outright majority in the US, and in about 20 years after that, whites are projected to be reduced to a mere 30% – and the reduction is expected to continue accelerating beyond that. (Given that it’s fashionable to blame so many things on whites, we may well become a hated minority.) This will probably occur within my lifetime.
Given the much higher rates of welfare use among Hispanics, lower educational level, and lower ability of those at the same educational level (e.g. in math and reading ability, Hispanic high school seniors are years behind white and Asian high school seniors, on average), who will pay for our social programs? Who will do the high-skill work of research, invention, and engineering that our economy increasingly depends upon? Our immigrants are primarily low-skill, and their descendants, so far at least, aren’t much better.
We’ll be caught between an increased need for social programs and a decreased ability to pay for them, among other problems. As our population becomes mostly Hispanic, we should expect our country to begin to resemble the other mostly Hispanic countries in the Americas, i.e. to become third-world. This seems to me like a slow-motion economic disaster, and I, for one, would favor steps to avoid it, for the sake of everyone living here. I don’t understand why people would want to make this demographic change even faster and more disruptive.
(I misremembered the year that Hispanics are projected to become the outright majority, but it’s not much further ahead.)
When Joe Biden and Kamala Harris met and shook hands at center stage before the debate started, they smiled, had a little laugh, and Joe said, “Go easy on me, kid.”
I don’t think ol’ Joe’s gonna go wire-to-wire all the way to the nomination, But, damn, how can ya not have a warm spot for a guy like that?
I do love the guy’s personality. I think he’s just a good man deep down inside. He’s not power-hungry like most people who want to be President (if he was, he wouldn’t let family tragedies and such things get in the way of his best chance at being President).
But that tweet thread made me feel ill. It was just a collection of sound bites and tons of people reacting to those sound bites as if they were summations of the candidates. Most of the sound bites didn’t even have anything to do with policy, but were just “sick burns.” It was sad to see. And the DNC Chairman’s little Old McDonald routine was just pathetic.
And then, finally, we have protesters disrupting their own Party’s debate. Are you kidding me? They can’t stop this? This makes the Democratic Party look even worse. As if it wasn’t already easy enough to paint too many of them with the brush of extremism. No, this is exactly what we need: protesters interrupting our debates. Perfect. Just perfect.
Sigh. I’m pouring another whiskey.
I couldn’t understand with the protesters were saying??
Nor could I. Sorry 🙁
Ah! Of course! People are saying Biden was being condescending to her! It all makes sense now. He couldn’t possibly be a good-natured fella who was making a joke they both understood.
Fuck. I clicked on your link because that moment was cute, and then everything went to shit. Even when something good happens, it’s bad. Everything is bad all the time.
To flip your comment from the other night on its head: hope shrivels in the human breast evermore, a dried husk barely perceptible to the naked eye. My hard, oiled pecs have no hope in them. Maybe if Biden, Klobuchar, or Yang win, that small husk will become a raisin that was left in the sun far too long, which would be an enormous improvement.
My magnificent black cat has put me in the hospital before with a forearm that looked like that and it was deep purple. It took two days in the hospital with intravenous amoxicillin, then two weeks to drain and heal the quarter sized abscess. You are right about having coverage. It saved me.
We should keep in mind that the goal of CNN (and all media) is to encourage people to watch or read their content – not to pick the best person to be president. Not faulting them for that, but that’s why we can safely ignore their attempts at creating drama and disproportionately going back to Biden and Harris because they assume that’s what viewers want to see. Picking the right candidate should be our goal, even if it’s not theirs.
Listen to Yang: he’s not sniping at the other candidates, he’s not interrupting, he’s giving his honest reasoning why his UBI proposal is a step in the right direction. He’s not getting much speaking time, because it’s less drama for CNN, but the rational among us should be listening to rational arguments, not to the onstage theatrics.
Castro seems pretty sharp, so does Gabbard, but I’ve seen nothing here to change my mind: Yang is the logical candidate for those of us who value intellectual integrity over efforts to land political jabs.
That probably is the full measure f his support. Voters don’t value intellectual integrity. Most of them don’t even value intelligence because they are “elites”. Besides how can Yang know more than my 30k Twitter followers do?
Unfortunately, so very true. Nobody has put more effort into actually crafting and clearly stating not only their policies, but the details of their policies as Yang. While I might not agree with him on everything, he’s intelligent, he’s not a political shill, he’s not beholden to special interests, and he truly seems like someone who wants to improve the country and cares far more about that than about having power and getting “sick burns” and sound bites.
But people today don’t like policy, intelligence, and professionalism. They want the sound bites and sick burns so they can fight over who had the sickest burn.
I think we were about 20 minutes away from Yo Mama jokes.
They can’t do those. There would be a million articles the next day about the misogyny of “yo mama” jokes.
Maybe one of the female candidates could get away with it, but they’d be playing a dangerous game, and only Jean-Claude Van Damme can get away with playing the most dangerous game because he is a Hard Target. And a Timecop. And…Sudden Death.
Kickboxer.
I’m not watching all of this one but from what I saw, the last debate, and Yang interviews I would pick him over most of the Dems.
Yang’s podcast appearances are also very impressive. He sounds like an intellectual with ideas he’s actually thought through over many months/years, rather than some politico basing his or her positions on polls and/or contrasting with other running politicians. He was very good on Joe Rogan’s podcast (though I’m not a big fan of Rogan, he does have many excellent guests).
CNN did a poor job on the second debate. The questions were too pointed, and framed as a Republican might ask them. The answer time was too short. They setup pairs to go head to head, hoping for a snappy moment and good “optics.” It was not very useful to the party, or the candidates, or the voters.
Hopefully the debates will get better in the fall. It would help to drop some of the candidates who have no chance of winning the nomination.
Let us comfort ourselves with a dream. The Democratic ticket, consisting of Senator Cory Booker and Governor Steve Bullock (in one combination or the other) wins by a landslide in 2020, and carries in a Democratic majority of 61 in the Senate and a retained Democratic majority in the House. President Booker or Bullock immediately rejoins the Paris environmental accord, and names Kamala Harris Attorney General, Elisabeth Warren Secretary of the Treasury, and Andrew Yang Secretary of Labor. Then the 117th Congress goes to work.
You haven’t solved the problem of the Supreme Court. The oldest justice, RBG, might be replaced with a liberal, but that still leaves a conservative majority.
Yeah, RBG is 86, and Stephen Breyer is 80. The oldest conservative is Clarence Thomas, who’s “only” 71 (despite having been on the high court for nearly 28 years now).
Doesn’t look promising for a majority-liberal Court anytime soon. And “Moscow” Mitch McConnell is busy ramming Trump’s hard-right nominees (some of them far-right indeed, and some of those, minimally qualified) through the senate onto the lower federal bench.
The federal judiciary is no source for optimism.
The 117th Congress will have to pass legislation (or a constitutional amendment?) to pack the Supreme Court, as FDR tried to do when it was last clearly necessary. I forgot a few more dream appointments. Joe Biden will be appointed official U.S. government Greeter; Kirsten Gillibrand will be named Class President, which she has obviously been campaigning for since 3rd grade; and Marianne Williamson will be named official White House Astrologer.
I’m thinking Ms. Williamson has diplomatic skills warranting a State Department appointement — maybe chargée d’affaires to Tralfamadore.
Hallelujah if you add Mayor Pete somewhere there.
HUD secretary would seem a good fit for the mayor of South Bend. Or, given his background in naval intelligence, maybe a top spot in the Pentagon or at Langley.
The presence of Booker, Harris, and Warren make that a nightmare for me.
I think we’re stuck with Biden at the top of the ticket, but I’d love to see Klobuchar as VP, with Tulsi Gabbard Secretary of Ass-Kicking.
I saw some of the debate but really saw little value. I believe this is a good demonstration of what television turned out to be instead of what it could have been. Many of the media questions are just bait to create confrontation and have no other value. Very poor example all the way round.
The more conversation concerning health care the less we know. I have not heard anyone give an explanation of medicare for all that makes sense or even sounds right. Medicare is already a real item, not a plan of fiction, but the idea that it can simply be slapped into action on everyone without a lot of explaining, I don’t get it.
They would be far better to say they are for a single payer system and forget about the medicare term. After all, that is what Obama was going for before the insurance companies and all the lobby joined in. Soon after Obama folded and they ended up with ACA. A system that was totally not single payer. It was still totally insurance company driven with uncle sam picking up some of the cost for low income. And still, the republicans were 100% against it.
President Barf will lose the popular-vote by millions more than in 2016 while again securing the Electoral College.
This Twilight Zone episode is eight years long, not four. (And maybe even beyond eight?)
The one thing Buttigieg said (several months back) about Trump’s tweets, which everyone should absorb and implement going forward, is “I don’t care.”
Whenever Trumpy criticizes a candidate, that candidate should bounce that criticism right back with specificity, on just how incompetent, imbecilic, and swampnacious that lumpy sack of decrepit potatoes really is.
Put Trumpy on defense, because he only knows empty offense.
But no. Instead: Food fight!
I think the audience in these debates is a biasing factor. They appear to skew pretty far left and react accordingly. On the one hand, I think it’s basic social psychology that people’s opinion of others varies based on how they are received by an audience (there a famous case where Reagan got a big lead because of audience reaction in a debate, I believe). So it would be harmful for a candidate to get a chilly audience reception, regardless of the reason why.
On the other hand, if the audience skews pretty far left, the statements that are guaranteed to get applause or derision in that particular environment do not translate well to the larger world outside the debate, putting candidates in a position where they have to make a choice between looking bad by having a lack of positive reaction; or making statements that play well in that environment but will be dissected unfavorably by a broader audience the next day.
I agree completely. There is zero reason to have an audience for political debates beyond propaganda purposes.
But I did like how CNN repurposed the old American Gladiators™ set for the debate.
I think indeed that Mr Inslee , Mr Yang and Ms Gabbard are the underestimated candidates. Mr Yang, however, has no governing experience, although he has a clear vision of the future, I guess a good candidate for 2028?
Ms Gabbard recovered from her inane answer to a question about equal pay in the first debate, that was scary, but now she’s back.
Mr Inslee is my favourite candidate, has government experience, understands the greatest threat, understands that the Senate is even more important than the presidency, etc, etc, and there is no ‘dirt’ on him (yet?).
If I could choose I would choose Mr Inslee over several other worthy candidates. I hope he’ll win the nomination, I consider him about the best bet to beat Mr Trump…