He said a few things in last night's column that got me going. He did say lot of things I liked and agreed with too. But this drives me nuts.
"And here’s the video of Donald Trump getting booed at the Values Voter Summit for calling Marco Rubio a “clown.” It’s good to see Republican voters are calling for a loftier debate as they continue to give more support to Donald Trump than to any other candidate."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/25/happy-hour-roundup-699/#
This is the Republican party-when have they last had a lofty debate? I left this comment for him:
"I have no idea why you keep expecting a lofty debate in the Republican party. By definition the party doesn't have lofty debates. You have bought into the Beltway narrative that this is just because of Trump."
"Waldman then brings up the issue of having more Democratic debates. I don't get as brilliant and true a progressive as the Bernie Maniacs say he is why one debate won't be enough for him to go on to a landslide in the primary. Yet we're to believe that six debates still isn't enough. Have I missed something?"
"The push for more Democratic debates (which this blog has urged) is spreading: Here’s Ryan Cooper picking up the mantle, arguing that more debates would be good for the Democratic Party and for Hillary Clinton."
There are all kinds of fallacies at work here. One is that debates are nearly so important to knowing what a candidate would do as President.
But to argue that this is for the party and Hillary is nonsense. It's good for Bernie as challengers always want as many debates as possible, it's not good for the party which should just take advantage of the luxury of settling on their nominee early for once.
I don't think more debates would hurt Hillary but I don't see the need for them and don't think the DNC should knuckle under. Bernie fans are so in love why does it take more than six to figure out his superiority?
I left Waldman this comment regarding the debate obsession:
"As for your demand for more Democratic debates you have bought into the Bernie Maniac talking points. It's par for the course that the challenger wants more debates and the incumbent or favorite wants less."
"Why you buy that what's good for Bernie is good for Hillary much less the Democratic party is beyond me."
"As for the worry that this is a coronation there are advantages to this as well. Why not for once let the GOP knock itself silly with its Trumpist clown car? "
"If having the party settled early on a candidate is a threat to our very democracy, please explain why this is not a problem when the President runs for a second term?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/25/happy-hour-roundup-699/#
"And here’s the video of Donald Trump getting booed at the Values Voter Summit for calling Marco Rubio a “clown.” It’s good to see Republican voters are calling for a loftier debate as they continue to give more support to Donald Trump than to any other candidate."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/25/happy-hour-roundup-699/#
This is the Republican party-when have they last had a lofty debate? I left this comment for him:
"I have no idea why you keep expecting a lofty debate in the Republican party. By definition the party doesn't have lofty debates. You have bought into the Beltway narrative that this is just because of Trump."
"Waldman then brings up the issue of having more Democratic debates. I don't get as brilliant and true a progressive as the Bernie Maniacs say he is why one debate won't be enough for him to go on to a landslide in the primary. Yet we're to believe that six debates still isn't enough. Have I missed something?"
"The push for more Democratic debates (which this blog has urged) is spreading: Here’s Ryan Cooper picking up the mantle, arguing that more debates would be good for the Democratic Party and for Hillary Clinton."
There are all kinds of fallacies at work here. One is that debates are nearly so important to knowing what a candidate would do as President.
But to argue that this is for the party and Hillary is nonsense. It's good for Bernie as challengers always want as many debates as possible, it's not good for the party which should just take advantage of the luxury of settling on their nominee early for once.
I don't think more debates would hurt Hillary but I don't see the need for them and don't think the DNC should knuckle under. Bernie fans are so in love why does it take more than six to figure out his superiority?
I left Waldman this comment regarding the debate obsession:
"As for your demand for more Democratic debates you have bought into the Bernie Maniac talking points. It's par for the course that the challenger wants more debates and the incumbent or favorite wants less."
"Why you buy that what's good for Bernie is good for Hillary much less the Democratic party is beyond me."
"As for the worry that this is a coronation there are advantages to this as well. Why not for once let the GOP knock itself silly with its Trumpist clown car? "
"If having the party settled early on a candidate is a threat to our very democracy, please explain why this is not a problem when the President runs for a second term?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/09/25/happy-hour-roundup-699/#
No comments:
Post a Comment