- The most publicized statement during the debate that has been described as horrifying by conservative pundits was this one, by Joe Biden, after he was asked, “As president, would you be willing to sacrifice some of that growth, even knowing potentially that it could displace thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of blue-collar workers, in the interest of transitioning to that greener economy?'”
Biden answered immediately, “The answer is yes.”
“Displace,” of course, is a euphemism for “put out of work.” The relative nonchalance with which Biden, who is supposed to be the practical, sensible candidate, immediately said he was willing to disrupt hundreds of thousands of middle class lives in order to “transition” to “that greener economy,” whatever that means, reveals Biden as a first-rate panderer. He has also endorsed the ridiculous “Green New Deal,” which also means nothing.
- The climate chance section of the debate was an ethics trap for several of the candidates. Amy Klobuchar, who was generally praised for her performance, said,
“And the problem right now is that this climate change is an existential crisis. And you are seeing it here in California with the fires that you just had. You saw it in Northern California, as was mentioned with Paradise. And the most moving video from that to me was the 30-second video of that dad driving his little girl through the lapping fires with his neighborhood burning behind him and singing to her to calm her down.”
Every time one of the candidates uses doomsday rhetoric regarding climate change, he or she is laying the foundation for government control, and totalitarian measures. Rep. Octavio-Cortez’s political Svengali admitted as much, and had to be fired for his candor. A candidate who says climate change is an existential crisis and then follows that hysterical assessment with stating that the California wildfires are proof has told us that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about, but is pretending she does. Then she pivots to a single “moving” video, as if it proves anything at all. Message: I’m talking to emotion-driven ignoramuses now. I’m betting there’s enough of them.
Then Amy kow-towed to the Green New Deal too, endorsing draconian regulations, including the mind0blowingly expensive “upgrading” of existing buildings. I did like the transcript’s typo that quoted her as wanting to build a “fridge to the next century.” Now there’s a solution for global warming. But I’m pretty sure she said “bridge.”
Then Tom Steyer picked up on Amy’s “existential” scare-mongering and took it to the next step: he wants to “declare a state of emergency on day one” of his Presidency. That means giving the President wartime powers to circumvent individual rights and the Constitution, until “the emergency” is over.
Wouldn’t you think that someone, a moderator maybe, would ask for clarification of what “declaring an emergency” means in practical terms? Yet nobody did. Steyer also said, right after he explained that he would shut down fossil fuels, that this would the create literally millions of middle-class union jobs, well-paid, across the United States of America. Was he demented, deluded, or lying?
Pete Buttigeig also implied that government coercion is a big part of his climate change “solution.”:
And that is why I want to make sure that our vision for climate includes people from the autoworker down the block from me in South Bend to a farmer a few minutes away so that they understand that we are asking, recruiting them to be part of the solution, not beating them over the head and telling them they’re part of the problem.
Wait, Pete, what does “recruitment” mean in this context?
- As repetitious as it is, I have to mention that the candidates opening salvo about about how bad Orange Man is was a collective low. I did learn something: “corrupt” is apparently an official Democratic talking point, like seeking “dirt” on Biden. Here’s Bernie Sanders:
We have a president who is running the most corrupt administration in the modern history of this country,
How, Bernie? Corrupt means taking bribes, pay-offs, criminal activity, and basing decisions affecting the country on bias and conflicts of interest. Sounds like the Democrats to me. Go ahead, tell us about emoluments.
and we have a president who is a fraud, because during his campaign, he told working people one thing, and he ended up doing something else.
I could be wrong, and Trump said a lot of things, some of them contradictory, but what I most remember is that he said he would fix the economy, create jobs, and up employment and wages. he appears to have done that.
I believe, and I will personally be doing this in the coming weeks and months, is making the case that we have a president ho has sold out the working families of this country,
This is another theme of the debate: the Democrats apparently exist in an alternate universe, where there is a recession on. It is, of course, Big Lie #5: “Everything is Terrible. I’m going to be very interested in seeing how long the Democrats persist in this Jumbo of an campaign claim: “Good economy? What good economy?” It seems to insult the intelligence of the public, and is very risky if voters, you know, are pay9ing attention, because it should become obvious that they are being lied to, and I would think that they would eventually resent it.
It also seems risky to engage in a such a substantial lie while saying that Trump should be impeached because he lies.
…who wants to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid after he promised he would not do that, and who has documentedly lied thousands of times since he is president.
Wait, did I miss Trump cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? The President can’t do that without Congress: Bernie has to know that, right? Doesn’t he also know that wanting to do something can’t break a promise? And how does Bernie know what Trump “wants”?
…we cannot have a president with that temperament who is dishonoring the presidency of the United States.
You know, the Democrats insist that they have ground for impeachment, and then keep saying stuff like this (as do my friends in the Facebook Borg collective.) Temperament and “dishonoring” the Presidency are not impeachable offenses. The fact that they think Trump is unfit is irrelevant. The voters decide who’s fit.
BOY, I’m sick of writing that.
It looks like there’s going to have to be a Part III, but I can’t leave without commenting on this prime example of demagoguery from the Head Demagogue, Elizabeth Warren. Watch how she works the “magic word” (really, a duck should come down holding it like the “secret word” in Groucho’s “You Bet Your Life”)…
But the way I see this is we’ve now seen the impact of corruption, and that’s what’s clearly on the stage in 2020, is how we are going to run against the most corrupt president in living history. You know, this president has made corruption originally his argument that he would drain the swamp, and, yet, he came to Washington, broke that promise, and has done everything he can for the wealthy and the well-connected, from tax breaks to ambassadorships. We have to prosecute the case against him, and that means we need a candidate for president who can draw the sharpest distinction between the corruption of the Trump administration and a Democrat who is willing to get out and fight not for the wealthy and well-connected but to fight for everyone else. That’s why I’m in this race.
I’m still unclear on this corruption thing. Every President gives ambassadorships to wealthy donors. Warren also is saying that only the wealthy are doing well during the Trump Presidency. That’s untrue, yet Warren raises this in the context of justifying impeachment.
But that’s what demagogues do.
It’s strange, isn’t it? Trump has raised the curtain on Biden’s corruption, the intelligence agencies’ corruption; the Democratic Party’s corruption, and the news media’s corruption, and the best Warren can come up with other than “he’s corrupt because we say so” is that donors get ambassadorships, and the wealthy are doing well.