2nd Democratic Party Debate

[TheSlamma]

Many of us, myself included, do not find it acceptable to have a "lesser of two evils" scenario. I cannot speak for everyone, but it is my firm belief that opinions like the one you have expressed are one of the most significant factors that we're all fucked no matter what we do - and it is this frustration that leads us to vote anti-establishment.

The bottom line; wouldn't it be nice to win for once, instead of losing less?

This is how I feel, I'm done with the lesser of 2 evils now, from now on my vote is for the best candidate and for me that is Sanders, if he doesn't get the nomination then I will just write-in.

With the GOP it's obvious, they are 110% wall street, Hillary is 100% wall street. I will only vote for a candidate that wants to reestablish the Glass-Steagall act or similar regulations, something the GOP(obvious) AND the Clintons undid.

 

[dank69]

This is how I feel, I'm done with the lesser of 2 evils now, from now on my vote is for the best candidate and for me that is Sanders, if he doesn't get the nomination then I will just write-in.

With the GOP it's obvious, they are 110% wall street, Hillary is 100% wall street. I will only vote for a candidate that wants to reestablish the Glass-Steagall act or similar regulations, something the GOP(obvious) AND the Clintons undid.

If you actually listen to Clinton's answer about Glass-Steagall her position is that it didn't go far enough and needed to be updated for modern times. Whether or not she has the willpower to act on this we will have to wait and see but I guarantee you that if Dems don't get 60+ in Senate and a majority in the House you will see zero change on that front. So go ahead and write in and help the GOP maintain an obstructionist position. :thumbsup:

 

[TheSlamma]

I COMPLETELY agree. But notice how "Obama was responsible for $5/gallon gas!!!1111one" turned into "Obama is responsible for lessening the price of gas to $2/gallon!111one!1!11!11stupidsauce1!!1!!1!"

It's both sides of the stupidity spectrum.

You can't get caught up in those people though.. it only takes one Chicken Little to make a statement like that and the media will make an exaggerated story about it. I personally have not met a single person who doesn't love gas prices right now.

 

[TheSlamma]

If you actually listen to Clinton's answer about Glass-Steagall her position is that it didn't go far enough and needed to be updated for modern times. Whether or not she has the willpower to act on this we will have to wait and see but I guarantee you that if Dems don't get 60+ in Senate and a majority in the House you will see zero change on that front. So go ahead and write in and help the GOP maintain an obstructionist position. :thumbsup:

I did listen to her and never did she make that statement in what I have read or heard.

Don't put it on me, it's up to you Dems to get a quality candidate into the general election so Indy's can vote on them. Hillary ain't it.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Can I just ask you liberals.... what the hell did Glass-Steagall do (and not do) that you were looking for? Things like disclosing how much the CEO is paid vs. the employee's is simply stupid. It accomplishes nothing. It changes nothing. What part of it makes you feel all warm and gooey inside?

 

[dank69]

I did listen to her and never did she make that statement in what I have read or heard.

Don't put it on me, it's up to you Dems to get a quality candidate into the general election so Indy's can vote on them. Hillary ain't it.

Quick google:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/politics/hillary-clinton-glass-steagall-act-martin-omalley/

Asked by a voter in Iowa about reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act, a law that separated commercial and investment banks until its repeal under President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton said that her Wall Street plan -- which will be unveiled next week -- would be "more comprehensive" than reinstating the law.

"The big banks are not the only thing we have to worry about," Clinton said at the RiverCenter here. "I've studied this real closely and what I am proposing is we go after the risk, and if they are too big to manage, that is a risk and they should not continue. If they are so big that they are causing disruptions on the marketplace, that's a risk."

O'Malley goes after Clinton by name in Wall Street attack

She added, "I have what I consider to be a more comprehensive approach to what we need to do to rein in these institutions, including the big banks."

She has said it multiple times. Maybe you weren't paying attention?

 

[TheSlamma]

Can I just ask you liberals.... what the hell did Glass-Steagall do (and not do) that you were looking for? Things like disclosing how much the CEO is paid vs. the employee's is simply stupid. It accomplishes nothing. It changes nothing. What part of it makes you feel all warm and gooey inside?

I'm not a liberal but can I try to answer a portion of the question? The part that is important to myself?

It prevented the type of investing that made the 2008 financial crisis possible. Commercial banks should not be allowed to engage in those high risk investments like that again as we will just be on the hook to bail them out again.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Holy crap, now the Democrats are complaining about how boring the debate was: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/democratic-debates-cbs-clinton-sanders-omalley-215909

“We can’t fool ourselves — the Republicans are eating our lunch in terms of attention and viewership because of the unprecedented, unilateral, and arbitrary way the DNC Chair determined this schedule,” said Lis Smith, deputy campaign manager for Martin O’Malley. “It’s clear we need to open up the process, have more debates, and engage more voters in this process."

OK, poop in your hands and smear it all over your face and chest next debate.

I do however agree with this:

“Look, there was a clear intent to bury these debates to the benefit of Clinton,” said another Democratic campaign official on Sunday afternoon. “And it is doing a disservice to the Democratic Party. The GOP is blowing out numbers — and we are protecting Hillary Clinton."

I don't like Hillary. And, it really comes off as Democrats being almost afraid to go up against her and yes, even protecting her. She is corporate sow, fry that pig.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

"climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism" - Sanders

Still waiting for Politifact to weigh in on this one.

 

[TheSlamma]

Quick google:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/06/politics/hillary-clinton-glass-steagall-act-martin-omalley/

She has said it multiple times. Maybe you weren't paying attention?

Let me put this in bias terms so you can understand it.

When Trump gets up there and makes a promise and people with any sanity laugh it off as not gonna happen due to his track record, well when Hillary talks about how she will regulate Wall Street, same thing, what year did the banking act get repealed? 1999 (Who was Pres?), after her constant contributions from Citi, Wells, Chase and Goldman for political and her personal gain. Sorry I have the same reaction to that lip service as I do Trumps.

Sanders has been consistent on his Wall Street stance for DECADES. Hillary is seeing Sanders surge and wants to get in on that action, that is the only reason she is now making the claims she is.

 

[TheSlamma]

"climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism" - Sanders

Still waiting for Politifact to weigh in on this one.

Article dated WAY back before Sanders made his statement

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought/

 

[fskimospy]

"climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism" - Sanders

Still waiting for Politifact to weigh in on this one.

I would say that one would be about half true. There's certainly a plausible link between climate change and increased terrorism but the evidence for it is far from conclusive. What would you say?

Also, I find it funny that now your complaint is that Politifact labeled a bunch of the things Sanders said to be misleading or false, but now it's not the RIGHT THINGS.

 

[Virge_]

If you actually listen to Clinton's answer about Glass-Steagall her position is that it didn't go far enough and needed to be updated for modern times. Whether or not she has the willpower to act on this we will have to wait and see but I guarantee you that if Dems don't get 60+ in Senate and a majority in the House you will see zero change on that front. So go ahead and write in and help the GOP maintain an obstructionist position. :thumbsup:

This is one of my problems with Hillary. Making an observation that something did not accomplish it's goal is not equivalent to stating you intend to do something about it. Politics as usual for her and all the other establishment candidates.

Hillary is very good at making observations. Almost as good as her ability to avoid answering questions directly. None of this instills confidence in me, and I know for certain I am not alone - I have met maybe one single Hillary voter in the past two months, and it was the usual "it's a woman's turn" pro-vagina voter, not a voter of substance. When asked why people vote for Hillary, the most common answers are her gender, her "experience" (which is hard to even type without an eyeroll given her history of quitting every job she's had), and how she's better than any republican candidate.

We need a leader, not a perceived lesser of some arbitrary "evils".

I will be voting for Sanders. Even if it's a write-in.

 

[TheSlamma]

This is one of my problems with Hillary. Making an observation that something did not accomplish it's goal is not equivalent to stating you intend to do something about it. Politics as usual for her and all the other establishment candidates.

Hillary is very good at making observations. Almost as good as her ability to not actually answer questions directly. None of this instills confidence in me, and I know for certain I am not alone - I have met maybe one single Hillary voter in the past two months, and it was the usual "it's a woman's turn" pro-vagina voter, not a voter of substance. When asked why people vote for Hillary, the most common answers are her gender, her "experience" (which is hard to even type without an eyeroll given her history of quitting every job she's had), and how she's better than any republican candidate.

We need a leader, not a perceived lesser of some arbitrary "evils".

I will be voting for Sanders. Even if it's a write-in.

Careful, just like hardcore religious fanatics, if you are not with him you are against him.

Brutally honest sarcasm aside, Good post :thumbsup:

 

[FerrelGeek]

I'm not sure what your point is. Who cares when it is on TV? People are going to watch it online on their own time like every other program.

From Steamer's post...

“Look, there was a clear intent to bury these debates to the benefit of Clinton,” said another Democratic campaign official on Sunday afternoon. “And it is doing a disservice to the Democratic Party. The GOP is blowing out numbers — and we are protecting Hillary Clinton."

I seriously doubt that many will go back and watch the debate on youtube, et al.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Article dated WAY back before Sanders made his statement

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/03/150302-syria-war-climate-change-drought/

Assad is very unpopular and the civil war would have most likely occurred without the drought. Arab Spring occurred in many countries that weren't undergoing drought conditions at the time. Drought was a factor in migration of farmers to cities...but to extrapolate this to be the root cause of the civil war, much less to attribute this to the rise in terrorism, is ludicrous. The lead author of the study acknowledges this point.

“We would not say and did not even attempt to say that the uprising was caused by climate change” - Colin Kelly (Lead Author)

 

[Subyman]

It kills me how people call debates "boring." It is our next president, not a UFC match. It isn't supposed to be entertaining, it is supposed to be a social duty.

 

[dank69]

Let me put this in bias terms so you can understand it.

When Trump gets up there and makes a promise and people with any sanity laugh it off as not gonna happen due to his track record, well when Hillary talks about how she will regulate Wall Street, same thing, what year did the banking act get repealed? 1999 (Who was Pres?), after her constant contributions from Citi, Wells, Chase and Goldman for political and her personal gain. Sorry I have the same reaction to that lip service as I do Trumps.

Sanders has been consistent on his Wall Street stance for DECADES. Hillary is seeing Sanders surge and wants to get in on that action, that is the only reason she is now making the claims she is.

You don't need to put it any terms for me to understand. I said she said it. You said you didn't hear or see her say it. I showed you she said it. I'm telling you she has said it multiple times. Whether or not you believe her is a dumb argument. It is purely speculative and completely moot unless we get full filibuster-proof Democrat control. Until we achieve that, the GOP will make sure nothing gets done anyway. People writing in or not voting at all just benefits the GOP whether you like it or not.

 

[dank69]

This is one of my problems with Hillary. Making an observation that something did not accomplish it's goal is not equivalent to stating you intend to do something about it. Politics as usual for her and all the other establishment candidates.

Hillary is very good at making observations. Almost as good as her ability to avoid answering questions directly. None of this instills confidence in me, and I know for certain I am not alone - I have met maybe one single Hillary voter in the past two months, and it was the usual "it's a woman's turn" pro-vagina voter, not a voter of substance. When asked why people vote for Hillary, the most common answers are her gender, her "experience" (which is hard to even type without an eyeroll given her history of quitting every job she's had), and how she's better than any republican candidate.

We need a leader, not a perceived lesser of some arbitrary "evils".

I will be voting for Sanders. Even if it's a write-in.

No, what we need is the GOP out on their asses so shit can get done. If shit doesn't get done, then you can start blaming the Dems.

 

[fskimospy]

Assad is very unpopular and the civil war would have most likely occurred without the drought. Arab Spring occurred in many countries that weren't undergoing drought conditions at the time. Drought was a factor in migration of farmers to cities...but to extrapolate this to be the root cause of the civil war, much less to attribute this to the rise in terrorism, is ludicrous. The lead author of the study acknowledges this point.

“We would not say and did not even attempt to say that the uprising was caused by climate change” - Colin Kelly (Lead Author)

You need to read that more closely. Sanders' statement was that climate change was RELATED to the rise in terrorism. He did not say it was the sole cause. Similarly, the people who made that paper said climate change played a role in the Syrian civil war, not that it was the sole cause.

So the thing you're labeling as 'ludicrous' is something that no one is arguing, and the paper presented directly supports what Sanders said. In the end my guess is that Sanders is right in saying that as climate change worsens social instability will increase (thus increasing terrorism), but he said it in more concrete terms than he should have given the evidence.

 

[LegendKiller]

I'm not a liberal but can I try to answer a portion of the question? The part that is important to myself?

It prevented the type of investing that made the 2008 financial crisis possible. Commercial banks should not be allowed to engage in those high risk investments like that again as we will just be on the hook to bail them out again.

Yeah, lehman, bear, goldman, morgan stanley, countrywide where huge commercial banks...

 

[sportage]

Had enough with these debates. On both sides.
I'm ready to vote. Lets do it and move on. PLEASE!

No conventions. No more ads.
Just put all of them on the ballot and the one with the highest over all vote count wins.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You need to read that more closely. Sanders' statement was that climate change was RELATED to the rise in terrorism. He did not say it was the sole cause. Similarly, the people who made that paper said climate change played a role in the Syrian civil war, not that it was the sole cause.

So the thing you're labeling as 'ludicrous' is something that no one is arguing, and the paper presented directly supports what Sanders said. In the end my guess is that Sanders is right in saying that as climate change worsens social instability will increase (thus increasing terrorism), but he said it in more concrete terms than he should have given the evidence.

Terrorism has been increasing for decades and to say that a 3-year drought in Syria is somehow significant in its rise is indeed ludicrous. Correlation is not causation the last time I checked.

 

[fskimospy]

Terrorism has been increasing for decades

Not really, it shows a fairly inconsistent rise and fall, depending on the year after 1980. (and before that it wasn't really measured the same way as far as I understand it)

and to say that a 3-year drought in Syria is somehow significant in its rise is indeed ludicrous. Correlation is not causation the last time I checked.

Why is it ludicrous? Are you saying that the author you previously quoted made a ludicrous paper? If so, why? Also, 'correlation is not causation' is a functionally meaningless statement. If someone says that smoking causes lung cancer you could respond 'correlation is not causation'. What they are, is evidence for a causal relationship, as in this case.

I'm baffled that conservatives decided to try and pick on Sanders for something he's probably more right about than they are. Not smart.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Not really, it shows a fairly inconsistent rise and fall, depending on the year after 1980. (and before that it wasn't really measured the same way as far as I understand it)

Hi - My name is a trend line. You don't know about me apparently (which is rather laughable), but I am in every statistical chart.