Democratic Debate Discussion Thread

[poweRob]

2016 Election
[h=2]The Media Is Overestimating Clinton’s Debate Performance[/h] By Nate Silver

Nate is right

 

[tres borrachos]

To be fair, women have a different viewpoint on things, and probably should have a shot at representation comparable to their population. Which is not to say it should be Hillary. But there is something to saying young vs old, black vs white, male vs female should be represented in our power structure.

I'm a woman myself. That's why I have that little pink thing in my user panel. Not all women are stupid. I vote for the right candidate for the job.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Confessing no time to read the whole thread or even a good sampling, I will say the debate bored me. I don't think there is a single sound bite anybody could take from it except Sanders' 'damn e-mails' line. The best I can say is that nobody hurt himself or herself or helped himself or herself so far as I could see. Based on nothing other than that debate, if I had to pick a presidential candidate from those five people and there were no other options, I would vote for Webb.

 

[tres borrachos]

Well it seems Hilary won both the Democratic debate and the Republican debate. yet there are many good discussions and thoughts among front runners of both parties.


I could sse Bernie and Hilary liked / respected each other yet they really just focused on important issues and I appreciated this. I hope they stay on important issues.

Biden would make the race more interesting ---the other three on stage were marginalized as they really do not stand out despite being good people in general.

I am not saying this is who I am supporting yet at this point in time I suspect it will be Bush v. Hilary in the general election. Does anyone else think this?

I don't think it will be Bush in the General. I don't see him getting the nomination. Honestly, I think it's going to be Rubio versus Clinton.

 

[JumpinJack]

You have GOT to be kidding.



And that's a good thing. You own it.

I'm not a Democrat. I'm neither Democrat nor Republican. So I speak from an objective point of view. You obviously can't see things objectively. The Democrats did in fact accept almost 200 amendments to the ACA, when they didn't have to accept any, in an effort of compromise. The return? No Republicans compromised at all. They stated for the record point blank that their main objective was to obstruct. That was very shocking. That our governmental leaders would not have the country or its citizens' well being as their main objective.

The Democrats have tried to compromise a number of times. That was mainly in the beginning, since they eventually learned that it would do no good in the face of total obstructionism.

The ACA is a mirror of the Republican Massachusetts plan. It was bad for MA, and it's bad for the country.

 

[JumpinJack]

Baretta!

The old TV show.

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

:mrgreen:

Yes!

I also like to say "Who loves ya, baby?" Remember what show that was from?

 

[sangha]

Nate is right

I agree. She performed well, but it wasn't stellar

 

[JumpinJack]

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.

I think I'm pretty objective. I clearly recall in teh beginning days, when it was not yet clear that the opposing side would be totally obstructionist, that there were efforts to compromise. The almost 200 amendments to the ACA was one of those efforts. No doubt it had an effect on the Democrats that after bending over backwards to form the ACA to include Republican concerns, not one of them voted for it. The Dems didn't have to accept any amendments from them, after all.

The Repubs seemed not to understand that the Dems were the winners in the election, so of course they'd be passing Democratic Party bills and pursuing their policies. The Repubs decided, after losing, that htey would obstruct, even if meant harming the country and us citizens. And it did indeed harm us. That was a real eye opener, to me. That a governmental leader would put his own interests above those of the country and its citizens. That was pretty shocking.

 

[Jack Hays]

I think I'm pretty objective. I clearly recall in teh beginning days, when it was not yet clear that the opposing side would be totally obstructionist, that there were efforts to compromise. The almost 200 amendments to the ACA was one of those efforts. No doubt it had an effect on the Democrats that after bending over backwards to form the ACA to include Republican concerns, not one of them voted for it. The Dems didn't have to accept any amendments from them, after all.

The Repubs seemed not to understand that the Dems were the winners in the election, so of course they'd be passing Democratic Party bills and pursuing their policies. The Repubs decided, after losing, that htey would obstruct, even if meant harming the country and us citizens. And it did indeed harm us. That was a real eye opener, to me. That a governmental leader would put his own interests above those of the country and its citizens. That was pretty shocking.

That's why they're called "the opposition." And they were as firmly convinced they were serving the country's interests as you are they were harming them.

 

[anatta]

I think I'm pretty objective. I clearly recall in teh beginning days, when it was not yet clear that the opposing side would be totally obstructionist, that there were efforts to compromise. The almost 200 amendments to the ACA was one of those efforts. No doubt it had an effect on the Democrats that after bending over backwards to form the ACA to include Republican concerns, not one of them voted for it. The Dems didn't have to accept any amendments from them, after all.

The Repubs seemed not to understand that the Dems were the winners in the election, so of course they'd be passing Democratic Party bills and pursuing their policies. The Repubs decided, after losing, that htey would obstruct, even if meant harming the country and us citizens. And it did indeed harm us. That was a real eye opener, to me. That a governmental leader would put his own interests above those of the country and its citizens. That was pretty shocking.

oh i'm really not going to go over the ACA yet again. I do agree with you that opposition is now pointless to the point of obstructionism, as SCOTUS has 2x saved it.

What i'm really concerned about is going forward Clinton is doubling down on the same scorched earth policy .
There is no reason for that -if she becomes president she owes it to the country to reach across the aisle

 

[MTAtech]

It's so horrible that so many are so easily taken in by bribes that are never delivered.
Bribes that breed a permanent dependance on government for the receivers, and a distinct disincentive to produce from those who's wealth is taken by the force of the government gun.

US politics has now disintegrated to 'a chicken in every pot' style of campaigning? How can that possible be any good?
That's little more than a race to bankruptcy and economic destruction (which party can promise more each campaign)

It's a historic example.

Recall the poverty rate at on set of the 'War on Poverty'. About 20% if I recall.

Some 50 years later, we still have a 20% poverty rate, the cost has skyrocketed, but now even in poverty everyone has cell phones, wide screens, etc. etc. etc. (as if that's poverty) rampant abuse and gaming of the system.

Those lazy seniors, disabled and working poor.

 

[US Conservative]

Those lazy seniors, disabled and working poor.

What factors went into that chart? If it includes medicare, of course the elderly cost more.

 

[poweRob]

What factors went into that chart? If it includes medicare, of course the elderly cost more.

Well Medicare is one of those "Free government handout stuff" that you cons always bitch about. Your boys just don't like calling it by it's name because it'd kill your party's chance of ever winning again. They just say "free stuff" then throw a wild number out there and refuse to acknowledge that they are talking about Medicare in their rant.

 

[US Conservative]

Well Medicare is one of those "Free government handout stuff" that you cons always bitch about. Your boys just don't like calling it by it's name because it'd kill your party's chance of ever winning again. They just say "free stuff" then throw a wild number out there and refuse to acknowledge that they are talking about Medicare in their rant.

Its a ponzi scheme, and needs to go-but thats besides the point-your chart obfuscates.

We know who is using these entitlements, healthcare or otherwise.

 

[godwarrior]

I'm tired of both parties.

I vote we start a new party called realism party.

1) We won't cut benefits for any citizens
2) Goverment cost cuts will be swift and deep to afford the above benefits.
3) We are done with wars in the Middle East.
4) If your a senator making over $80,000 a year. You better start looking for a new job
5) Goverment jobs are service jobs and the pay will reflect that for all federal jobs.
6) house and senate positions will have four year maximum with no chance for re-election
7) No new federal programs, until the budget is not only balanced but being paid down
8) We don't care about gay marriage it's legal, now shut up about it and we aren't going to change it.
9) Weed will be legal and we are taxing it.
10) Weed will be treated like alcohol Age limits, driving, and all other laws will apply.
11) Healthcare will be nationalized just like every other country. We should be able to raise taxes by about half of what everyone pays for healthcare now.
12) Gun control was already addressed by the second amendment, so it's not an agenda item
13) tax breaks are no more and percentage of income is fair. No more billionaires paying 10% or under on taxes.

At least it's a plan, so I'm one up on every politician.

 

[Chomsky]

Yes!

I also like to say "Who loves ya, baby?" Remember what show that was from?

Kojak!

Telly Savalas was the NYC detective who was into lollipops.

I really liked those old non PC shows from that era.

I know it sounds dated, but those old cop shows attempted to portray protagonists in an era when we expected "men to be men" - with all the good AND imperfection that entailed.

And they're a ton of fun. As corny as they get, and dated they look, I still love 'em!

FWIW, I recently watched some reruns of "Welcome Back Kotter". Wow! John Travolta is amazing as Vinny Barbarino. I was just getting out of H.S. when it aired, and having Italian blood (Calabrese) from my Mom, and living in a similar neighborhood to the Sweathogs, I so badly wanted (and tried) to be as cool as he was!

:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

 

[MTAtech]

Its a ponzi scheme, and needs to go-but thats besides the point-your chart obfuscates.

We know who is using these entitlements, healthcare or otherwise.

Social Secuity is a scheme that takes payments and funnels them to beneficiaries. It's called insurance.

Of course, some rich dude living off of inherited wealth wouldn't understand how seniors depend upon the system.

 

[MTAtech]

I'm tired of both parties.

I vote we start a new party called realism party.

1) We won't cut benefits for any citizens
2) Goverment cost cuts will be swift and deep to afford the above benefits.
3) We are done with wars in the Middle East.
4) If your a senator making over $80,000 a year. You better start looking for a new job
5) Goverment jobs are service jobs and the pay will reflect that for all federal jobs.
6) house and senate positions will have four year maximum with no chance for re-election
7) No new federal programs, until the budget is not only balanced but being paid down
8) We don't care about gay marriage it's legal, now shut up about it and we aren't going to change it.
9) Weed will be legal and we are taxing it.
10) Weed will be treated like alcohol Age limits, driving, and all other laws will apply.
11) Healthcare will be nationalized just like every other country. We should be able to raise taxes by about half of what everyone pays for healthcare now.
12) Gun control was already addressed by the second amendment, so it's not an agenda item
13) tax breaks are no more and percentage of income is fair. No more billionaires paying 10% or under on taxes.

At least it's a plan, so I'm one up on every politician.

Your first sentence presumes there is symmetry in party dysfunction. The Dems never had a problem picking a Speaker of the House. The Dems don't reject science or the progressive income tax.

The real crazy radical ideas are contained in the new GOP.

 

[jonny5]

I'm a woman myself. That's why I have that little pink thing in my user panel. Not all women are stupid. I vote for the right candidate for the job.

Based on ideology, of which women have different ones than men.

 

[MTAtech]

I'm tired of both parties.

I vote we start a new party called realism party.

1) We won't cut benefits for any citizens
2) Goverment cost cuts will be swift and deep to afford the above benefits.
3) We are done with wars in the Middle East.
4) If your a senator making over $80,000 a year. You better start looking for a new job
5) Goverment jobs are service jobs and the pay will reflect that for all federal jobs.
6) house and senate positions will have four year maximum with no chance for re-election
7) No new federal programs, until the budget is not only balanced but being paid down
8) We don't care about gay marriage it's legal, now shut up about it and we aren't going to change it.
9) Weed will be legal and we are taxing it.
10) Weed will be treated like alcohol Age limits, driving, and all other laws will apply.
11) Healthcare will be nationalized just like every other country. We should be able to raise taxes by about half of what everyone pays for healthcare now.
12) Gun control was already addressed by the second amendment, so it's not an agenda item
13) tax breaks are no more and percentage of income is fair. No more billionaires paying 10% or under on taxes.

At least it's a plan, so I'm one up on every politician.

Your imaginary party is loaded with inconsistencies and is simplistic. #1, "We won't cut benefits for any citizens" conflicts with #2, "Government cost cuts will be swift and deep to afford the above benefits." This ignores the fact that, as one economist calls it, the government is an insurance company with an army. Most federal spending is concentrated in the programs that you don't want to cut, while mandating deep cus in total spending. You can't have both.

$80,000 a year isn't much money to attract qualified Senators, unless you want them taking graft or only want independently wealthy Senators.
Mandating a 4-year term limit means that Senators will have little experience in the area they are assigned in committees. We already have term limits. They are called elections.
There is no need for a balanced budget. There are conditions that require deficits, such as wars and recessions, where spending helps right the economy.
Whether a drug is legal or not should be up to the States and not imposed upon by the federal government.
Saying that "Gun control was already addressed by the second amendment, so it's not an agenda item," says nothing. The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The widespread legal and judicial interpretation is that the Second Amendment guarantees a state's right to be armed, to form a militia. That has nothing to do with individual rights to own pistols.
I don't even know what, "tax breaks are no more and percentage of income is fair," means.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Additional post debate random thoughts on Hillary:

1. Regarding the TPP Hillary said that in the past she had hoped it would be the "gold standard for such agreements", but having reviewed it's details she now opposes it. How did she come to review the finalized details? They haven't been released, even to Congress. When asked by a reporter the White House as much as confirmed that Hillary had not seen the super secret details of the TPP.

A reporter asked White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest how Clinton could have reviewed the deal given that the text of the agreement has not yet been made public. “Yeah, I noticed that, too,” Earnest said. “It certainly is relevant for you and others to say the details matter in this instance. We would agree; that’s why we spent more than five years negotiating the agreement. And we look forward to, as soon as possible, being able to put forward the text of the agreement so that everybody can review it and make their own judgements.”

Read more at: Josh Earnest: Hillary Clinton Lied about Reading TPP | National Review Online

Is Hillary confused? Or as many suspect, is Hillary once again saying taking whatever position to get elected?


2. Hillary admitted bad judgment regarding the email fiasco. She admitted that. We do know also that Hillary shucked and jived, bobbed and weaved over fully committing to all emails and all information about the emails to investigators. The point is Hillary did not just hand them over. It took a lot of wrangling and inquiry and investigation to reach the point where servers could be found and erased emails could be recovered (ongoing) and analyzed.

Yet during the debate Hillary in part of her response concerning the emails stated, "Look, the investigation has already cost the American people $4.2 million." Well whose fault is that? Hillary's has already admitted that it's on her, a bad decision. Yet Hillary complains about $4.2 million of pubic money being spent to retrieve and analyze information that in essence belongs to the U.S. Government.


3. Wall Street. Concerning financial reform - Glass-Steagall, Too Big to Fall and the recession that began in 2008 - Hillary does not want to breakup big banks to prevent future financial disasters, she wants to regulate them. Her response concerning financial reform was, "As a senator from NY I represented Wall Street. In December of 2007 I went and met with Wall Street and told them to cut that out", whatever the heck that means in real terms. Obviously her "cut that out" plan for Wall Street fell on deaf ears. Time Warner owned CNN and Wolf Blitzer have gingerly avoided discussing Wall Street and Big Money love for Hillary Clinton. Time-Warner is a big Clinton financial contributor.

As Sanders said, "The government doesn't tell Wall Street what to do, Wall Street tells government what to do." No candidate on the stage disagreed with Sanders.


As I have said before, I do not and will not ever support the Clintons and that includes Hillary. Whenever and wherever the Clintons are involved there have always been scandals and murky "facts". All politicians are liars. Hillary is running on the belief that most votes will come from emotional voters, low information voters who can't be bothered looking beyond what they hear or rather what they want to hear. Hillary's debate followed that strategy from beginning to end. Time Warner is doing all it can to help make sure her "message" resonates.

Hillary and Bill are in bed with big money and always have been.

 

[eohrnberger]

Everyone loves Denmark, right? A model of Western European Social Democracy in action. All that is good and pure and holy, right?

Except that it's got an up to 60% income tax to pay for it all (50.7% of GDP if you can imagine)
TANSTAAFL

You're wanting to do that here in the US as well? Good luck with that.

Working harder, smarter, and longer just to be forced to give up 60% of it to the government? ****! Why bother.

 

[MTAtech]

Everyone loves Denmark, right? A model of Western European Social Democracy in action. All that is good and pure and holy, right?

Except that it's got an up to 60% income tax to pay for it all (50.7% of GDP if you can imagine)
TANSTAAFL

You're wanting to do that here in the US as well? Good luck with that.

Working harder, smarter, and longer just to be forced to give up 60% of it to the government? ****! Why bother.

A persistent meme on the right since the 2012 election has been the notion that Obama voters are "moochers" who voted for "free stuff' or handouts. Right-wingers are puzzling in their decision to insult the American people whose votes they need. Apparently you patriots who constantly shout how much you love America just do not care too much for the American people.

In addition to being an inaccurate stereotype of the nation's poor and working class voters, the overgeneralization about low-income uneducated slackers making up the Democratic base also overlooks the breadth of our coalition. Mr Obama won among college educated voters and he won overwhelmingly among voters who had advanced degrees. In other words, freeloaders like physicians, attorneys, research scientists, pharmacists, psychiatrists, professors, librarians and other professionals who have at least a Master's degree. These are the people supporting Sanders.

 

[sangha]

A persistent meme on the right since the 2012 election has been the notion that Obama voters are "moochers" who voted for "free stuff' or handouts. Right-wingers are puzzling in their decision to insult the American people whose votes they need. Apparently you patriots who constantly shout how much you love America just do not care too much for the American people.

In addition to being an inaccurate stereotype of the nation's poor and working class voters, the overgeneralization about low-income uneducated slackers making up the Democratic base also overlooks the breadth of our coalition. Mr Obama won among college educated voters and he won overwhelmingly among voters who had advanced degrees. In other words, freeloaders like physicians, attorneys, research scientists, pharmacists, psychiatrists, professors, librarians and other professionals who have at least a Master's degree. These are the people supporting Sanders.

Rightwingers think liberals want "free stuff". The truth is, rightwingers want free government

 

[poweRob]

Its a ponzi scheme, and needs to go-but thats besides the point-your chart obfuscates.

Do me a favor. Call all the republicans and tell them to go on TV and tell everyone that Medicare is a ponzi scheme and needs to go.

Thanks in advance.

We know who is using these entitlements, healthcare or otherwise.

Do tell the world who.