Democratic Debate Discussion Thread

[betuadollar]

very few truly require room and board, 13K is doable working a regular job if tuition is covered.

I paid 6,250 dollars for living in my own place this past year, you can find deals if you look .

But you know this still doesn't equate to the "free" education of his campaign rhetoric. It's a problem. I've talked to parents here with 500k in college loans, 200 is not uncommon. But of course, these aren't state schools. But a young person going forward with even just 100 in loans will never own a house. Which in turn impacts our housing market. What it all translates to is less going forward for future generations.

 

[JumpinJack]

hey look. I was a Democrat for most of my life, and Democrats are every bit as partisan as Republicans..
Please don't try to sell me on some noblesse oblige where by the Dems look for a leader and the Republicans do not.

Partisans are craven power junkies - every one of them

Wow. You seem angry for some reason.

I'm merely pointing out that the parties all have platforms. There is a party stance on the major issues: abortion, social security, etc. So if a voter is older and wants to protect Social Security, s/he will vote for the Dem. Party. If a voter cares most about abortion and is against it, s/he will vote for the Republican Party candidate, whoever it is.

And that's the name of that tune.

The difference in the person running is whether a voter cares enough about a particular issue OR a particular candidate to go to the trouble of voting at all. The candidates know this. This is no secret. Don't act like you didn't know this. Any political junkie knows these things.

We also know that it's often the independents who decide the elections. If I decide I care more about protecting Social Security (and I probably will...I guess), I'll vote Democratic. If I decide to vote to repeal the ACA, I'll vote Republican. I don't think either party will address illegal immigration, another top issue of mine. But if I decide to vote on that issue, it'll be Repubican.

 

[poweRob]

But you know this still doesn't equate to the "free" education of his campaign rhetoric. It's a problem. I've talked to parents here with 500k in college loans, 200 is not uncommon. But of course, these aren't state schools. But a young person going forward with even just 100 in loans will never own a house. Which in turn impacts our housing market. What it all translates to is less going forward for future generations.

No one is promising free education. Free tuition is what is proposed.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Are katanas covered by the 2nd amendment?

Yes, they are.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Did anyone else find it wierd that Hillary said she and Obama had to hunt the chinese delegation at the climate change summit in Copenhagen down in a crowded convention center?

like they're playing hide and seek?

 

[Fiddytree]

With all respect of the first debate sucking, this one was pretty damn good.

So why shouldn't the takeaway be positive?

If the next one sucks, this one will become inconsequential in memory.

The first debate did not need to become First Housewives of the GOP, but Tapper and CNN were gunning for it from the start.

Now they give Democrats their first debate and it's great, but now it's being used as a massive talking point within CNN and elsewhere that this shows how much more mature the Democrats were to the GOP. While I think the GOP has a massive number of problems, CNN poured gasoline on a fire and complained that the fire got big.

 

[anatta]

Wow. You seem angry for some reason.

I'm merely pointing out that the parties all have platforms. There is a party stance on the major issues: abortion, social security, etc. So if a voter is older and wants to protect Social Security, s/he will vote for the Dem. Party. If a voter cares most about abortion and is against it, s/he will vote for the Republican Party candidate, whoever it is.

And that's the name of that tune.

The difference in the person running is whether a voter cares enough about a particular issue OR a particular candidate to go to the trouble of voting at all. The candidates know this. This is no secret. Don't act like you didn't know this. Any political junkie knows these things.

I'm guessing you're a conservative. How do I know that? Because you're angry over nothing.

if I'm angry at anything it's stupid partisanship. Platforms are well and good, but voters rarely look at the person's competency
I usually mention to people that will listen that a POTUS is a 1 person branch of government,and unless they want more built in gridlock/obstructionism/blame game - it' useful to look at how a person would use their talents to govern. Not on a narrow partisan agenda -but as an ability to shepherd a legislative agenda thru without constant blaming the other side for their inabilities.

No i'm not angry over nothing, nor am I a conservative. I'm as much of a non-ideologist as it's possible to be.
If i'm "angry" at anything it's DC business as usual and the fact not one politician in the main stream partys has any desire
to attempt bipartisanship in any meaningful manner

 

[betuadollar]

No one is promising free education. Free tuition is what is proposed.

Well that's my point. If they're not promising it, then it's nothing more than hollow campaign rhetoric. You can label me as too pragmatic but people really do have financial concerns. And those concerns are very real.

 

[poweRob]

Well that's my point. If they're not promising it, then it's nothing more than hollow campaign rhetoric. You can label me as too pragmatic but people really do have financial concerns. And those concerns are very real.

You're moving the goal posts. First you complained that tuition shouldn't be tax payer funded cause it's too much, I tell you the numbers and now you are saying that it's not enough. I'm having a hard time following your gripe here.

 

[JumpinJack]

if I'm angry at anything it's stupid partisanship. Platforms are well and good, but voters rarely look at the person's competency
I usually mention to people that will listen that a POTUS is a 1 person branch of government,and unless they want more built in gridlock/obstructionism/blame game - it' useful to look at how a person would use their talents to govern. Not on a narrow partisan agenda -but as an ability to shepherd a legislative agenda thru without constant blaming the other side for their inabilities.

No i'm not angry over nothing, nor am I a conservative. I'm as much of a non-ideologist as it's possible to be.
If i'm "angry" at anything it's DC business as usual and the fact not one politician in the main stream partys has any desire
to attempt bipartisanship in any meaningful manner

As an outsider, I think the Democrats have bent over backwards trying to work with the Republicans. The Republicans have not been ashamed to state outright that their main mission was to block Obama. The ACA had almost 200 Republican amendments, in return for which not one Republican voted for it.

 

[Chomsky]

O'Malley was the strongest spark of the debate. I'd like to see him some more. And Webb if he can get better face time I think would do well.

He had moments, and a great close - but didn't do it for me.

 

[JumpinJack]

The consensus that already seems to be emerging is that Clinton accomplished everything she needed to in this debate. Does anyone honestly disagree?

Agreed. She did what she needed to do. I think I've seen all her debates. She's an experienced debater.

Sanders was the most passionate, as CNN broadcasters noted. It's always interesting to watch a passionate candidate, if he's not gully-dragging the other candidates.

 

[anatta]

As an outsider, I think the Democrats have bent over backwards trying to work with the Republicans. The Republicans have not been ashamed to state outright that their main mission was to block Obama. The ACA had almost 200 Republican amendments, in return for which not one Republican voted for it.

that's the common mantra, and there is no doubt Obstructionism is a real endeavor.
But then you have "I have a pen and a phone" disengagement by Obama. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Whoever laid this turkey , it needs to get slaughtered and not trot into the next administration..
And that is the main problem with Clinton whereas she embraces a unitary type POTUS.

 

[betuadollar]

You're moving the goal posts. First you complained that tuition shouldn't be tax payer funded cause it's too much, I tell you the numbers and now you are saying that it's not enough. I'm having a hard time following your gripe here.

Well, no. It was prefaced by the comment that I do not like rhetoric, particularity hollow campaign rhetoric. And for that reason, Bernie would probably not be a serious consideration. It's not that I disagree, it's that I'm more pragmatic. I will run the numbers. And I have to like those numbers.

 

[poweRob]

Well, no. It was prefaced by the comment that I do not like rhetoric, particularity hollow campaign rhetoric. And for that reason, Bernie would probably not be a serious consideration. It's not that I disagree, it's that I'm more pragmatic.

Gotcha. A small wall street speculation tax covering tuition and drastically reducing student debt isn't pragmatic to you?

 

[anatta]

Gotcha. A small wall street speculation tax covering tuition and drastically reducing student debt isn't pragmatic to you?

Clinton wants some kina weird "speculation" tax, whereby cap gains have to be held for a longer time period.
as they age they get less taxed.

sanders wants a transaction tax. Just on transactions ( to go after programmed trading)

 

[Chomsky]

And that's the name of that tune.

Baretta!

The old TV show.

I haven't heard that line since watching it (way back when).

:mrgreen:

 

[betuadollar]

Gotcha. A small wall street speculation tax covering tuition and drastically reducing student debt isn't pragmatic to you?

How about a slightly bigger Wall St tax? But, again, speaking pragmatically, I can also tell you that politicians have no idea what they're talking about when they speak of Wall St "speculation." Even this idea of taxing the rich, if you've ever followed it, in all cases it gets voted down. And it's voted down with bipartisan support, every time. So... The politician here is gambling that his appeal to young people will outperform. But I don't believe in this case that that is necessarily true.

 

[Chomsky]

The first debate did not need to become First Housewives of the GOP, but Tapper and CNN were gunning for it from the start.

Now they give Democrats their first debate and it's great, but now it's being used as a massive talking point within CNN and elsewhere that this shows how much more mature the Democrats were to the GOP. While I think the GOP has a massive number of problems, CNN poured gasoline on a fire and complained that the fire got big.

Well, the next two GOP debates are on CNBC & Fox, so we'll see how your theory goes.

 

[poweRob]

How about a slightly bigger Wall St tax? But, again, speaking pragmatically, I can also tell you that politicians have no idea what they're talking about when they speak of Wall St "speculation." Even this idea of taxing the rich, if you've ever followed it, in all cases it gets voted down. And it's voted down with bipartisan support, every time. So, I'm pragmatic.

Your definition of "pragmatism" is to lay down and give up. I see things a bit differently when looking for leadership.

 

[iguanaman]

if I'm angry at anything it's stupid partisanship. Platforms are well and good, but voters rarely look at the person's competency
I usually mention to people that will listen that a POTUS is a 1 person branch of government,and unless they want more built in gridlock/obstructionism/blame game - it' useful to look at how a person would use their talents to govern. Not on a narrow partisan agenda -but as an ability to shepherd a legislative agenda thru without constant blaming the other side for their inabilities.

No i'm not angry over nothing, nor am I a conservative. I'm as much of a non-ideologist as it's possible to be.
If i'm "angry" at anything it's DC business as usual and the fact not one politician in the main stream partys has any desire
to attempt bipartisanship in any meaningful manner

Maybe that seems true to you but none the less there is only ONE party who's members rail against making any bipartisan "deals". It seems to me that that should make your choice of parties quite easy. No party is perfect but it is easy to see which party is ready and willing to govern and it isn't the GOP.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Hillary continued, again and again, to:

1. Say she had been working hard all her life/all her career to make things better for Americans. For a while there every response included something about how long and how hard she had worked at whatever the topic was at that time. Wolfe Blitzer, of course, following her lead, couldn't wait to say how she was obviously the most qualified candidate.

2. Talk about Republicans. Most of her responses referred to what Republicans did or said or wouldn't do. Someone coaching Hillary was wise to advise her to do that as it took the debate away from Hillary vs. what other Democratic candidates. In essence it deflected focus on from her and onto the people who could not debate her - Republicans.

3. Talk about her plans. Hillary said has a plan for everything. In most instances she didn't go into her plans, but dammit Hillary has plans. Got it?

4. Talk about children and young people. Hillary pandered to women at every turn. My wife was actually insulted by it.

5. Talked about her mother. See No. 4.

6. Parroted a number of Sanders' ideas.

 

[betuadollar]

Your definition of "pragmatism" is to lay down and give up. I see things a bit differently when looking for leadership.

How could you possibly know what my definition of pragmatic is? Do you want to know what's going to happen to current student debt? It's going to be spun into infinity by Wall St speculation. Because if not, we'll see another crash. So my approach to education would be entirely different.

 

[radioman]

Baretta!

The old TV show.

I haven't heard that line since watching it (way back when).

:mrgreen:

That line was from Baretta?
I only remember...."Don't do the crime if you can't do the time".

 

[tech30528]

Bull****. You'll be voting for Sanders and you know it. You may not tell anyone but that's the way it's going down. You and I both know this.

He might be the best choice actually. The $18 trillion he is propsing to spend over 10 years offset by the $6.5 trillion he plans to raise in taxes over the same period makes the national debt over $30 trillion, well beyond the threshold for sustainability. In short he would crash the dollar and take the federal government down with it, since their influence is predicated by the ability to create money out of thin air. I'm under no illusions that anybody can somehow end the cronyism and corruption in our government. The best bet is to burn it to the ground, and this crazy ****er have a bottle of gas and a match. It seems an ever increasing number of people care only for what they can get for themselves, might as well look forward to looting what is left after the crash.