Search KoopaTV!


Wednesday, October 16, 2019

October 15 2019 Democrat Presidential Primary Debate 4 ANALYSIS!

By LUDWIG VON KOOPA - I'd like to ask Senator Warren what her experience and background is to serve as commander-in-chief.

Time for everyone's least favourite time of the month—the recap of last night's Democratic presidential primary debate! This time, we have two FAKE NEWS giants, CNN and the New York Times, with a whopping TWELVE presidential candidates! From left-to-right on the podiums, we have...
  1. Tulsi Gabbard
  2. Tom Steyer
  3. Cory Booker
  4. Kamala Harris
  5. Bernie Sanders
  6. Joe Biden
  7. Elizabeth Warren
  8. Pete Buttigieg
  9. Andrew Yang
  10. Beto O'Rourke
  11. Amy Klobuchar
  12. Julián Castro 

If that massive list of names scares you and you don't know who these people are, KoopaTV has been keeping track of them at our 2020 Presidential Debate Coverage Index, which also features links to all of the debate coverage for this season.

I'm definitely not going to go name-by-name in this article and tell you how everyone did with great detail. The debate lasted three hours and most of it isn't interesting to talk about since a lot of that time was retreading. I'll give you my top three topics and then some AWARDS. But first, NPR's talk-time count:

Replace the graphic's title of “Who Dominated This Debate?” with “Who Does The Mainstream Media Want To Win?”
(And for the first time EVER, Andrew Yang isn't dead last in talking time!)

The Media and Military-Industrial Complex Want Endless War

Tulsi Gabbard was pretty much the only candidate on the stage who made a stand about trying to remove American involvement in endless regime change Middle East wars. In response, Mayor Pete Buttigieg says there needs to be more and indefinite American presence in the Middle East, and it's a lack of it that's causing all of the problems in that region, rather than Americans being where they have no business being and doing things like providing weapons to literal terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda in Syria. Buttigieg then described Tulsi Gabbard's position as “total isolationism” (because bombing other countries is the only way America is able to interact with the rest of the world?) and claimed that he'd restore America's credibility by engaging in more conflict. Amy Klobuchar chimed in and asked the audience about how Israel must feel, as if that nation's concerns should matter in a debate for the president of the United States of America.

After the debate, the media has been talking about how “tough” and “strong” Buttigieg looked on Syria. That's not the kind of toughness we appreciate at KoopaTV. We favour this more:

Yes, it's our favourite game of attacking the moderators (who are always the corrupt media)! Usually only appearing in Republican debates, Tulsi did it to great effect. And it's absolutely true, as CNN demonstrated later in the debate by cutting off Tulsi's answer with a commercial break and then cutting off her microphone later in the debate (on the issue of big tech companies, which Tulsi has a unique perspective on since she's in a lawsuit against Google), because she was trying to expose Elizabeth Warren's total avoidance of foreign policy issues. Notice she's also not an ageist asshole like Julián Castro:

What's Causing Job Loss, And What To Do About It?

Andrew Yang's main policy position is that automation—while a great economic opportunity—is displacing (and will be displacing) millions of anxious American workers who don't have the skills or means to quickly transition to other jobs. If you listen to Elizabeth Warren, it's due to bad trade deals. There's no reason it can't be both, and they're both things that the country should address. Trade is, of course, being addressed constantly under the current President (and on KoopaTV too, as of this week), but before Andrew Yang, politicians weren't discussing automation. He legitimately did bring that topic to the greater public consciousness.

Andrew Yang's proposal to deal with the bumpiness caused by automation is a Universal Basic Income—dubbed the Freedom Dividend—of $1,000 every month to every American citizen above 18. It'd be unconditional. People can do whatever they want with the money. If you opt-in to it, you'd forfeit most other welfare benefits (not counting disability or Social Security retirement benefits).

A lot of the other candidates (not including Tulsi Gabbard, who thinks it's a good idea) aren't big into the Freedom Dividend... but their alternatives tend to miss the point of a Universal Basic Income entirely. 
  • Bernie Sanders wants a Federal Jobs Guarantee where the federal government hires people to do infrastructure projects like the Green New Deal
    • I'm pretty sure not everyone who gets displaced by robots will be physically able or wanting to physically build bridges or wastewater plants, and most people don't want to work for the government (though it's difficult for lifelong politicians to grasp that)
  • Elizabeth Warren's solution is to “strengthen unions” and pay more out in Social Security retirement
    • People who are displaced by automation without being at retirement age don't benefit from Social Security retirement payouts
  • Cory Booker wants to increase the minimum wage
    • Increasing the minimum wage is great (not really) if you already have a job, but not after you lose your job thanks to automation. Then a higher minimum wage actually makes it more difficult to find a job because it eliminates entry-level positions
  • Beto O'Rourke apparently wants Mexicans to join unions or something and I don't know what he was trying to say or how that is supposed to help Americans

What Taxes Will Go Up Under Democrats?

When you elect a member of the Democrat Party, it's not a matter of if your taxes will go up—it's a matter of which taxes, and by how much.

According to Elizabeth Warren, payroll taxes don't even exist. Just costs. She refuses to use the t-word to explain how she plans to play for Medicare for All, otherwise known as socialised medicine. Bernie Sanders, who supports the same plan, readily admits that taxes will go up for everyone, though this will be more than offset by not paying co-pays, deductibles, or premiums. Elizabeth Warren refuses to state that because she's a dishonest fraud, I suppose.

She is more-than-willing to state that she'll not only raise taxes on the wealthy, but tax their wealth directly for the purpose of eliminating billionaires. To explain, there's an income tax in the United States. That taxes any new income someone made that year. Any accumulated wealth—the sum of their accumulated income (and capital appreciation—they all want to raise the capital gains tax too) from the previous years of their life—aren't taxed just for existing, until they die. Then there's a death tax.

This wealth tax would apply every year and have you pay the government in cash for the value of whatever you own, which isn't necessarily in cash or investments or things you may be able to put a market value on. Of course, who decides how much is the value of what you own? The IRS. They can appraise it for whatever they want, and then take a percentage in cash. Every year. Of course, these same rich people will be spending their money to mask the value of their assets and finding ways out of it. Andrew Yang in the debate brought up that a lot of European countries have tried a wealth tax and have since gotten rid of it, after a lot of wealthy people left their countries and it raised much less than expected.

Andrew Yang CNN October 2019 Democrat debate math pin wealth tax
Andrew Yang bringing the Smart facts into the debate, and showing off how Cool he is by not wearing a tie and having a MATH pin.

Andrew Yang instead wants a European-style Value-Added Tax (VAT) to fund the Freedom Dividend. VATs are kind of evil and highly effective, which is why Europe loves them. They're basically invisible things that add to the cost of everything you buy by charging at every stage of production. Politicians like to stealthily raise them and make it look like inflation. I support a different kind of consumption tax, the FairTax, which charges only once at the point of purchase and is completely transparent. Still, at least the Freedom Dividend is giving the cash back... to most people. The purpose is to tax transactions made by the big technology companies (the ones with the automation solutions) that aren't being taxed right now due to research & development tax credits.


To summarise, here are the Super Contest winners for each category for this fourth debate:

  • Beauty: Tulsi Gabbard
  • Cool: Andrew Yang
  • Cute: Tom Steyer
  • Smart: Andrew Yang
  • Tough: Tulsi Gabbard
Tom Steyer is new to the debate stage here. He's a hedge-fund billionaire whose main issues are climate change and trying to impeach President Donald John Trump, being one of the first people to organise for his impeachment after he got inaugurated. Jerk. He won the Cute award for buying his way to the debate stage and then decrying rich people buying their way into government.

Tom Steyer CNN October 2019 Democrat primary debate cute
Tom Steyer lacks self-awareness.
Unfortunately, we'll see him again.

Ludwig wishes Tulsi Gabbard had more talking time and was able to successfully destroy Elizabeth Warren, but the moderators conspired against that. What a shame. Instead, this was Andrew Yang's best debate. Tulsi needs your help to be able to participate in any debates from now on, based on increased polling standards. Why not donate to her? Only if you're an American citizen and not, say, a Koopa Kingdom national.

The November debate had Tulsi in it. Yay! Read the results of it here.

No comments :

Post a Comment

We embrace your comments.
Expect a reply between 1 minute to 24 hours from your comment. We advise you to receive an e-mail notification for when we do reply.
Also, see our Disclaimers.

Spamming is bad, so don't spam. Spam includes random advertisements and obviously being a robot. Our vendor may subject you to CAPTCHAs.

If you comment on an article that is older than 60 days, you will have to wait for a staffer to approve your comment. It will get approved and replied to, don't worry. Unless you're a spambot.