Anyone Else Sit Through The Debate This Evening?

[Kathianne]

Was I alone? LOL!

I think Marianne won, the crowd loved her! Dark underbellies and embracing all! She is one piece of work, but popular with the house crowd.

It wasn't about Bernie and Warren, it was about those two-mayor of South Bend, Marianne, and those that were trying to be moderate.

[Elessar]

Sorry. I did not pay attention to it.

[Kathianne]

Was I alone? LOL!

I think Marianne won, the crowd loved her! Dark underbellies and embracing all! She is one piece of work, but popular with the house crowd.

It wasn't about Bernie and Warren, it was about those two-mayor of South Bend, Marianne, and those that were trying to be moderate.

No surprise, I fell asleep after watching this, who wouldn't?

Of course, since it was early, here I am at 1am, wide awake. Skimming through the news, I find some agreement on last night's winner:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/07/30/marianne-williamson-is-way-out-there-but-she-won-tonights-debate-n2550938


...

Yet, that brings us to Marianne Williamson. She puts the “side” in the outsider. We’re in the era of the political outsider. And with Williamson, she’s way out there, but she also had the better moments of tonight’s debate, clinching some of the biggest applause lines, spikes in Google searches, and appeared to have what the others don’t: something new to offer.


Don’t get me wrong. There’s no way I’m voting for her, but her brand of politics shouldn’t be dismissed. She’s also feisty. And seemed to inject some energy into that CNN audience. Warren, Sanders, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Ryan, Bullock, Hickenlooper, and Delaney all had the same politician-packaged lines, which came off as rather stale. There’s no life with this crop. None. And once again, the field showed that they’re nuts.

...

Williamson spoke for less than 10 minutes, but the fact that she is unique. She is different. And she appears to see this election in a very, very different light, perhaps at the GOP’s peril, makes her stand out—and for the better. She will qualify for the fall slate of debates. And while she may be a bit…off, I think she actually did better in this debate than the previous one. Right now, I’m not so sure what’s going on. Is it that Williamson, who has peddled anti-vaxxer points, is genuine and has a certain quality that could make her a dark horse in the 2020 election or does she seem that way because the Democratic Party has devolved into outright insanity. Either way, the apparent anti-vaxxer is the one who spoke arguably more sense than most on the stage because liberal America has gone that far off the deep end. That’s a bit scary.

[Kathianne]

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/dan-gainor-marianne-williamson-debate-dark-psychic-forces-detroit-democrats


Dan Gainor: Debate drama -- Marianne Williamson scores with attacks on 'dark psychic forces,' Google goes nuts

It wasn’t the debate result many in the media wanted. Author Marianne Williamson was the surprise star of a debate where she had very little time compared to her opponents – less than half that of the big-name candidates.


Williamson’s debate strategy was to push for “radical truth-telling.” This included a call for up to $500 billion in reparations for African-Americans and some tough talk about the Flint, Michigan, water crisis that won her loud support in the Detroit audience.

New York Times reporter Katie Benner pointed out how Williamson used Flint “to tackle the issue of racism head on.”


Los Angeles Times National Correspondent Matt Pearce described Williamson as “often a much more skilled communicator than most of the other politicians on the stage.”


It showed.


Williamson scored big online as a result. She was only the top-searched candidate in two states before the debate, according to Google Trends. Afterward, she was the top Googled candidate in all but Montana. That’s about a 2,450 percent increase.


Williamson’s most memorable line of the night talked about the failure of “this wonkiness” to combat “this dark psychic force of the collectivized hatred that this president is bringing up in this country.” While the comment was mocked by some on Twitter, it also resonated.

...

[Kathianne]

https://nypost.com/2019/07/30/new-age-marianne-williamson-is-breakout-winner-of-democratic-debate/


New Age Marianne Williamson is breakout winner of Democratic debate
By John Podhoretz July 30, 2019 | 11:04pm | Updated

Used to be that Republicans running for president had the monopoly on unknowns, also-rans and non-politicians who would suddenly step up and deliver standout performances in debates.


It happened in 2008, when Mike Huckabee shot into the top tier with cracker barrel humor and cornpone wisdom and the libertarian crackpot Ron Paul ranted about foreign aid.


In 2012, various candidates from the far-right Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann to a restaurant executive named Herman Cain to the long-out-of-office Rick Santorum would electrify the party for a couple of weeks before fading back into the pack and leaving Mitt Romney the last man standing.


Well, Tuesday night in Detroit, the veteran New Age motivational speaker Marianne Williamson hit it out of the park and brought the Democratic Party into the Nutcase Era.


The key problem afflicting America, in Williamson’s view, is a “dark psychic force” that is weaving a racial divide. It is the cause of white nationalism. That racial divide is causing an “emotional imbalance” that is interfering with human thriving. And this betrays the purposes of the founding fathers, who brought America into being to allow us all to have “possibilities.”


To most of us elitists, this either sounds wacko on its own terms or is dismissible as a semi-pagan illiterate translation of classic Christian thinking about the devil’s role in ordinary life. But we dismiss the power of this approach at our peril. These are key themes not only through American history, but also ideas that have played a significant role in the Age of Oprah.

Williamson has been speaking in this way to gigantic audiences for close to 40 years, under the East Coast radar. And you know what? She’s really good at it. And she brought real feeling and passion to the most visceral issue for Democrats at the present moment. She essentially said that racism and white supremacy are nothing less than demonic and that saving America from their evil is a moral task.


Twitter really can't stand CNN's debate format
“I want a politics that goes much deeper,” Williamson concluded. “I want a politics that goes to the heart. . . . We need to override dog whistles . . . We need to love each other, love our democracy.”


Williamson won the debate going away, if only because her performance was so unexpectedly effective. But the enduring impact of the debate was really the way in which Elizabeth Warren may have finally curb-stomped her fellow leftist, Bernie Sanders.


Warren was as focused in her demagoguery as I’ve ever seen her. She did not bother to answer pointed questions about whether her spending plans would require raising taxes on the middle class (they would) but instead threw out more argle-bargle about how millionaires and billionaires would just do it. She said not wanting to do big things was “spineless.”


Alas for Sanders, he was unfortunately reminiscent of Austin Powers — not as an international man of mystery, but as someone coming out of a 30-year deep freeze and discovering that he was “having difficulty controlling THE SOUND OF MY VOICE!” Yell, yell, yell, yell.



...

[Kathianne]

Ok, I think this is the 5th one. FOX a couple of liberal ones and now a magazine. This was absolutely the weirdest 'debate' I've seen, evah!

When there was a break from this seer or whatever she is, the most important thing that seemed to replay was 'everyone else' against Warren and Bernie. Beto and the mayor from South Bend were sort of out of the picture. IMO there were two real moderates and the rest are seriously crazy, though Marianne takes the trophy.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/at-the-democratic-debate-marianne-williamson-battles-the-dark-psychic-force (https://www.newyorker.com/news/current/at-the-democratic-debate-marianne-williamson-battles-the-dark-psychic-force)


At the Democratic Debate, Marianne Williamson Battles the “Dark Psychic Force”


By Naomi Fry
11:55 P.M.

few minutes before 8 p.m. on Tuesday, I received a push notification on my phone from Apple News, teasing the night’s Democratic debate. “Want to see Sanders and Warren go head to head?” it asked. “Or just want to watch Marianne Williamson?” It struck me then that this summed up, pretty succinctly, what had so far been the appeal of Williamson as a candidate: she was eminently watchable. Williamson—a New Age author, who has written thirteen books; Oprah Winfrey’s spiritual adviser; and, as the CNN debate broadcast dubbed her tonight, a “Washington outsider”—announced her 2020 Presidential bid in January. But it was her participation in the first round of Democratic debates, in June, that established her as a fascinating oddity, confounding many but eliciting begrudging admiration from some. Speaking in the throaty tones of a nineteen-forties film-noir heroine and wearing a well-cut, sea-foam-green suit and an Armani shirt, Williamson not only referred to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Jacinda Ardern, as “girlfriend” but spoke directly to President Trump, invoking the power of love as a worthy foe to his fear-mongering. “I will meet you on that field, and, sir, love will win,” she said. She was the most-Googled candidate of the night, and her performance sparked countless memes, many of which the candidate hastened to share, cannily, on her Instagram account. Despite troubling suggestions—which she has disputed—that she was an anti-vaxxer, and a sense that a Presidential candidate should err on the side of political experience rather than on a years-long engagement with the mystical tome “A Course in Miracles,” Williamson seemed fun, and the Internet loves an eccentric. What might she do next?


During Tuesday’s debate, something seemed a bit different. Perhaps it was the fact that the shock of Williamson’s Laurel Canyon–heiress persona has worn off some, or perhaps it was the fact that some of what she said actually had the substance of not-unradical political statements. Williamson seemed less of a joke, less of a meme, which made her, perhaps, less curious but also arguably more affecting. Though she started out weakly—suggesting that, though she is usually aligned with Sanders and Warren politically, she is concerned that Medicare for All will make it “harder to win” against the Republicans—as the night wore on, her statements seemed to take on a strange, almost prophetic force. She continued to use the language of self-help—the loathsome word “thrive,” a favorite of twenty-tens corporate-speak, seems also to be a favorite of hers, and she invoked “toxicity,” “emotional turbulence,” and “healing” as some of her bywords—and yet the substance of her answers had the ring of often-goes-unsaid truth. The trouble with the water crisis in Flint, she argued, is not just the problem of Flint per se but the problem of racism and classism in America. Reparations are needed, she suggested, because “two hundred and fifty years of slavery and one hundred years of domestic terrorism” created a great injustice that must be rectified. In the context of the political realities that Williamson was invoking, referring to the President’s legacy as a “dark psychic force” suddenly seemed to make some sense.

[jimnyc]

This about sums it up from the very beginning, just try to bribe for votes! "Vote for me, free shit for everybody!" - "Oh, Trump is a racist"

---

Free Stuff!

Never before have presidential candidates offered voters so much "free" stuff.

Kamala Harris wants you to "collect up to $500 a month."

Elizabeth Warren says, "We need to go tenfold in our research and development in green energy."

No one has tracked the cost of all of the promises. So my video team did!

Who will spend the most?

Here are the new spending proposals from the five most popular (according to ElectionBettingOdds.com) candidates.

In my latest video, we break it down by category, education spending first:

Joe Biden wants to "triple the amount of money we spend for Title I schools" ($32 billion) create "universal pre-K" ($26 billion), provide "free community college" ($6 billion per year) and double the number of psychologists and social workers in schools ($14 billion) -- $78 billion total.

That's a lot, but much less than what Kamala Harris would spend.

She too wants to "make community college free" ($6 billion), but she'd add debt-free "four-year public college" ($80.1 billion), "increase government's investment in child care" dramatically ($60 billion) and "give the average public school teacher a $13,000 raise" ($31.5 billion) for a total of $177 billion.

Pete Buttigieg rarely says what his proposals would cost, but he at least seems to want to spend less than Harris.

He touts "free college for low- and middle-income students" and would give teachers more money. Assuming his plan is like Harris', that brings his education total to $87 billion.

Elizabeth Warren would spend much more.

"You'll be debt-free!" she tells students. Taxpayers, unfortunately, will be deeper in debt, since she would "forgive" most existing student debt and make public college tuition free ($125 billion).

She also wants a "Universal Child Care and Early Learning Act" ($70 billion).

These big-ticket items put her in first place so far.

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/free-stuff/

[jimnyc]

Oh brother. I honestly didn't watch every last minute. But all I've read gives low grades to all of them, but Williamson, who has no chance.

--

Scarborough: ‘Last Night Was a Really Good Night for the Democrats’

MSNBC “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough on Wednesday reacted to the previous night’s Democratic presidential debate, praising the performance of progressives like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and moderates such as former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.

Scarborough said the Tuesday debate made for “a really good night for the Democrats.”

“Boy, I think last night was a really good night for the Democrats. I really do,” he stated.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/07/31/scarborough-last-night-was-a-really-good-night-for-the-democrats/

[Kathianne]

Oh brother. I honestly didn't watch every last minute. But all I've read gives low grades to all of them, but Williamson, who has no chance.

--

Scarborough: ‘Last Night Was a Really Good Night for the Democrats’

MSNBC “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough on Wednesday reacted to the previous night’s Democratic presidential debate, praising the performance of progressives like Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and moderates such as former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper.

Scarborough said the Tuesday debate made for “a really good night for the Democrats.”

“Boy, I think last night was a really good night for the Democrats. I really do,” he stated.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019/07/31/scarborough-last-night-was-a-really-good-night-for-the-democrats/

I think the fact that Williamson is getting so much attention, speaks to the Dems problems. Even the 'moderates' are way left. Then again, I think that President Trump is pretty much on the left too. The one talking point both Bernie and Warren kept bringing up, 'Infrastructure.' Like the President, they are working on getting a spending spree going for elections!

[STTAB]

I think the fact that Williamson is getting so much attention, speaks to the Dems problems. Even the 'moderates' are way left. Then again, I think that President Trump is pretty much on the left too. The one talking point both Bernie and Warren kept bringing up, 'Infrastructure.' Like the President, they are working on getting a spending spree going for elections!

I have a sneaking suspicion that conservatives may be behind the Williamson love LOL

[Kathianne]

I have a sneaking suspicion that conservatives may be behind the Williamson love LOL

I said that right after the last debate, many were calling to send her $$ so she'd qualify for this debate. She's is mesmerizing, in a train wreck sort of way.