Thoughts on the Second Democratic Debate

Posted 6/29/19

In Thursday night’s second Democratic debate, every candidate clawed for airtime. None of them paid attention to the quiet but persistent pleas of moderators to show consideration for the other …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Thoughts on the Second Democratic Debate

Posted

In Thursday night’s second Democratic debate, every candidate clawed for airtime. None of them paid attention to the quiet but persistent pleas of moderators to show consideration for the other candidates and the audience.

Candidates played fast and loose with facts that, as in the motion picture History Boys, don’t count to those grading the exam.

In the end, former Vice President Joe Biden came out most able to claim a solid record and appear the most stable.

Both Sen. Bernie Sanders and author/activist Marianne Williamson appeared shrill, beyond strident, and in-your-face. Sen. Kamala Harris came across tough, dogmatic, and vindictive, ready to prosecute President Donald Trump for crimes the special counsel was unable to find.

Rep. Eric Swallwell played the age card, demanding the oldsters bow out. Biden declined.

Former Gov. John Hickenlooper, bless his heart, told Sanders that if you want Trump to win, nominate a socialist.

Attorney/entrepreneur Andrew Yang, given only three minutes by the moderators to speak, still managed to say vote for me so the other losers go home and, besides, I’ll give you all $1,000/month for your vote.

Many, like Mayor Pete Buttigieg, want to buy American votes with programs financed with other people’s—your—money.

History was re-written on the fly, with virtually all of them accusing Trump of creating Obama’s policies on immigration, that it is the White House that divided us on immigration, not Pelosi’s House, and that 11 million people deserve instant citizenship.

Most believed in open borders. What they agreed was, if you make it in, you win the lottery. Breaking into a country should be decriminalized.

No one spoke of how to extend the country’s current economic success. Instead, they dismissed the checks and balances of federalism, encouraged globalism, wanted their thumbs on the scales of justice, and trusted no government but their own.

What a dangerous world they would impose on us!

Comments

1 comment on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
Dan Chmielewski

It's always interesting to see the perspective of those who think that Democrats and the Democratic Party would impose a dangerous world upon us, given the Trump Administration seems poised to go to war with Iran, while coddling despots from Russia, Saudi Arabia and North Korea.

Some fact checking for you on two fronts: Immigration policy and The Mueller Report.

Comparing the immigration policy of the Obama administration to Trump's is night and day:

Trump and then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions introduced a “zero tolerance” immigration policy in April 2018. Under this policy, those found crossing the border into United States illegally were subjected to proceedings by border agencies and immigration courts with instructions to arrest immigrants for violating U.S. immigration laws, place them on trial, prosecution and incarceration, before their eventual deportation. A consequence of this policy was that adults who crossed the border with their children would have their children taken away from them while they were detained, pending criminal trial, and during their period of incarceration. Sessions gave a speech in May 2018 saying this was a foreseen and intended part of the policy.

These people are refugees fleeing violence in Central America who followed laws in presenting themselves as border crossings in search of safe harbor. Children were taken away from parents and some young migrants were placed in homes where they were sexually assaulted, starved or forced to work for little or no pay according to the Associated Press. Criminal prosecution for improperly crossing into the United States was the exception under the Obama administration, whose policy largely limited that approach to known criminals and repeat offenders. Under the “zero tolerance” policy implemented by Trump and Sessions, criminal prosecution for any unauthorized border crossing is the rule rather than the exception.

Non Profit organizations and charities are trying to get soap, toothpaste and basic necessities to these "concentration camps" only to be refused.

In regards to "crimes the special counsel was unable to find," its obvious the writer did not read the Mueller Report. Its' against Justice Department guidelines to prosecute a sitting president, but there are 10 notable charges of obstruction of justice documented in the Mueller Report. Here's a link to a Forbes article that documents each one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/insider/2019/04/23/top-10-crimes-muellers-report-considers/#2101e86c37c5

And from the Mueller Report, this:

“The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the President’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.” The report also notes that immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President's term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment.

Wednesday, July 3