Democrat debate on cnn 3/9

[BoberFett]

Why would it burn?

We're happy gas is under $2 a gallon unlike over $5 under you guys.
We're happy we have healthcare that covers pre-existing conditions unlike under you guys.
We're happy we have marriage equality unlike you guys.
We're happy we have jobs in America again unlike when over 8 years we lost jobs with you guys.
We're happy we aren't going to war in countries to get our boys killed unlike you guys.
We're happy we aren't deporting US citizens unlike you guys.
We're happy we're bombing ISIS everyday unlike you guys who just talk about it.

So what the fuck kind of twilight zone are you guys living in? We were doing terrible in 2008.. give me 2016 any day of the week under President Obama.

Just because you call someone a dipshit doesn't make them a dipshit and that is all your argument is.. talk shit and hope everyone believes you. Well I'm not falling for it.

LOL, Obama caused $2 gas and you're happy that he's bombing brown people.

Yeah, sure is a good thing we don't have a Republicans in the White House. What's the difference again?

 

[MongGrel]

Both are trying to hit each other on their record and unfortunately I feel it's pointless as both of their positions have a lot of nuance to them that will be lost on the American public.

I said this in another thread but I'll repeat it. We have a choice between an idealist and a pragmatist. Bernie has a vision but no realistic way of achieving that vision. Clinton has a path forward but where does that path lead? Bernie has been consistently on the right side of the issues but his record of enacting or precipitating actual change is non existent. Hillary on the other hand has been on the wrong side of issues many times but she has also been able to enact positive changes.

You can see this while watching clinton and sanders answer the question on deporting children. Hillary's answer was a realistic answer no matter how much we wish it wasn't true. Sanders on the other hand has no problem of taking a clear cut position on the issue despite it being a promise he cannot keep without breaking the law.

+1

Most people do but that's because they aren't aware of the complexity of the issues.

It's pretty easy to vote against things that would have a needed positive impact on real peoples lives because some other group of undeserving people might also get something when the bill will pass regardless. But what if that bill wasn't going to pass and people that needed help weren't going to get it? Is it ok to vote against that bill because some other undeserving group will get something as well? If you lack empathy then the answer is clear. When politicians disregard the feelings of groups of people with the laws they pass we all lose. (See anti abortion laws or anti gun laws).

Another +1

 

[MongGrel]

LOL, Obama caused $2 gas and you're happy that he's bombing brown people.

Yeah, sure is a good thing we don't have a Republicans in the White House. What's the difference again?

Waves at BoberFett trying to stand on the sidelines.

()

 

[MagickMan]

I really don't like Bernie's implication of clinton bought and paid for by Wall Street.

Truth hurts? Aww...

Bought and paid for, she's a pathetic corporate shill.

 

[MagickMan]

LOL, Obama caused $2 gas and you're happy that he's bombing brown people.

Yeah, sure is a good thing we don't have a Republicans in the White House. What's the difference again?

He apologizes after he slaughters them.

 

[umbrella39]

Waves at BoberFett trying to stand on the sidelines.

()

LOL. Still pretending to be an (I)...

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, precisely for the reason you just illustrated. Low information voters like yourself who listen to cherry picked data eat it up without questioning it. What's hillarys record on wall Street?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-says-she-called-wall-street-regula/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...y-clinton-barack-obama-set-new-wall-street-f/

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/just-how-cozy-hillary-clinton-wall-street

Sadly, most voters aren't interested in facts and instead prefer easy to digest sound bites. I had thought bernie was above this but apparently he's just another politician who isn't above giving the electorate low substance filler.

I had initially hoped bernie supporters were the left's version of Paul bots (they were usually more educated in the policies they support) but as time goes on they appear to be more similar to trump voters. Angry low information voters.

Truth hurts? Aww...

Bought and paid for, she's a pathetic corporate shill.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Those first two links are hardly the best examples for your point.

July 2007 was hardly "early" to start worrying about subprime mortgages; that's right when the crisis was reaching its climax and about to collapse. See this for a quickie.

The second link only says that she received less money than the apparent all-time record breaker of the time, Obama.

EDIT: Wait, it collapsed in 2007, hit a peak in 2006. So yeah, not early, but Politifact is incredibly biased so it's not a surprise that they would try to use those two things to make Hillary look good.

 

[ivwshane]

Those first two links are hardly the best examples for your point.

July 2007 was hardly "early" to start worrying about subprime mortgages; that's right when the crisis was reaching its climax and about to collapse. See this for a quickie.

The second link only says that she received less money than the apparent all-time record breaker of the time, Obama.

Let me help you understand the point.

She was one of the first politicians to speak about the issues with housing bubble before it popped. Not only that but she took her message to wall street, you know, the group she is supposedly in bed with.

The second link is to illustrate that getting donations from interest groups does not mean a politician is bought and paid for, unless you think dodd-frank was a give away to wall Street.

I take it that your silence on the third link is your acknowledgement that Hillary doesn't have a record of being in bed with wall Street?

 

[ivwshane]

Here is a good recap of the debate for those that missed it.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/politics/democratic-debate-analysis/

 

[michal1980]

Here is a good recap of the debate for those that missed it.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/politics/democratic-debate-analysis/

liberals all in on illegals.

Glad to know they are fully on record now.

 

[Blanky]

It was delightful seeing hillary's utter contempt for the moderator when he pressed her on whether she'll be indicted. Last few seconds of this clip:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-indicted-emails-m-not-going-answer-that.html

 

[Blanky]

liberals all in on illegals.

Glad to know they are fully on record now.

Yep. So as far as clinton is concerned if you break into the US you will NOT be deported and you will have a path to citizenship. This is exactly why we need to have the wall finished.

 

[1prophet]

liberals all in on illegals.

Glad to know they are fully on record now.

Useful idiots doing the job Reagan started with the amnesty in order to destroy the wages of the lower end middle class just like outsourcing and h1b's are used to hurt the rest of the middle class.

The unions warned them about this and the real reason behind the push for amnesty back in the 80's was a corporate ploy to reduce/destroy the economic might of the middle class, too bad liberals political correctness and being labeled a xenophobe or racist was more important than the actual facts behind the situation.

Liberal Politicians Launched the Idea of “Free Trade Agreements” In the 1960s to Strip Nations of Sovereignty and Hand Power Over to Global Corporations
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/liberal.html

“For the widespread development of the multinational corporation is one of our major accomplishments in the years since the war, though its meaning and importance have not been generally understood. For the first time in history man has at his command an instrument that enables him to employ resource flexibility to meet the needs of peopels all over the world.


Today a corporate management in Detroit or New York or London or Dusseldorf may decide that it can best serve the market of country Z by combining the resources of country X with labor and plan facilities in country Y – and it may alter that decision 6 months from now if changes occur in costs or price or transport. It is the ability to look out over the world and freely survey all possible sources of production… that is enabling man to employ the world’s finite stock of resources with a new degree of efficiency for the benefit of all mandkind.
But to fulfill its full potential the multinational corporation must be able to operate with little regard for national boundaries – or, in other words, for restrictions imposed by individual national governments.


To achieve such a free trading environment we must do far more than merely reduce or eliminate tariffs. We must move in the direction of common fiscal concepts, a common monetary policy, and common ideas of commercial responsibility.



Already the economically advanced nations have made some progress in all of these areas through such agencies as the OECD and the committees it has sponsored, the Group of Ten, and the IMF, but we still have a long way to go. In my view, we could steer a faster and more direct course… by agreeing that what we seek at the end of the voyage is the full realization of the benefits of a world economy.


Implied in this, of course, is a considerable erosion of the rigid concepts of national sovereignty, but that erosion is taking place every day as national economies grow increasingly interdependent, and I think it desirable that this process be consciously continued. What I am recommending is nothing so unreal and idealistic as a world government, since I have spent too many years in the guerrilla warfare of practical diplomacy to be bemused by utopian visions.


But it seems beyond question that modern business – sustained and reinforced by modern technology – has outgrown the constrictive limits of the antiquated political structures in which most of the world is organized, and that itself is a political fact which cannot be ignored. For the explosion of business beyond national borders will tend to create needs and pressures that can help alter political structures to fit the requirements of modern man far more adequately than the present crazy quilt of small national states. And meanwhile, commercial, monetary, and antitrust policies – and even the domiciliary supervision of earth-straddling corporations – will have to be increasingly entrusted to supranational institutions….

We will never be able to put the world’s resources to use with full efficiency so long as business decisions are frustrated by a multiplicity of different restrictions by relatively small nation states that are based on parochial considerations, reflect no common philosophy, and are keyed to no common goal.” ***​

 

[LegendKiller]

Everyone screaming about Glass-Steagall fails to realize that it wouldn't have stopped the collapse. Many of the largest institutions to fail would not have fallen under Glass-Steagall regulations.

Depends. A decent amount of blame still lies with Paulson letting non-depositories take leverage up way too high. However, without Glass-Steagall and the CFMA, it was far easier to take the leverage, whether directly (depositories) or indirectly through derivs.

 

[Exterous]

Truth hurts? Aww...

Bought and paid for, she's a pathetic corporate shill.

WTH is the University of California doing on that list? I'd be curious to know what pot of money that came out of

 

[Fanatical Meat]

LOL, Obama caused $2 gas and you're happy that he's bombing brown people.

Yeah, sure is a good thing we don't have a Republicans in the White House. What's the difference again?

Bobber honestly say that if the cost of gas was $5 per gallon you wouldn't blame Obama.

**gas will be more expensive next year gas is always cheap during elections

 

[michal1980]

Useful idiots doing the job Reagan started with the amnesty in order to destroy the wages of the lower end middle class just like outsourcing and h1b's are used to hurt the rest of the middle class.

The unions warned them about this and the real reason behind the push for amnesty back in the 80's was a corporate ploy to reduce/destroy the economic might of the middle class, too bad liberals political correctness and being labeled a xenophobe or racist was more important than the actual facts behind the situation.

Liberal Politicians Launched the Idea of “Free Trade Agreements” In the 1960s to Strip Nations of Sovereignty and Hand Power Over to Global Corporations
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/liberal.html

Yup

The right wants H1B visa's to kill the middle class jobs.
The left wants illegals to kill the lower class jobs.

 

[brycejones]

WTH is the University of California doing on that list? I'd be curious to know what pot of money that came out of

From people's personal money. Notice the far right column is $0 which means no University of California money was used.

 

[dank69]

He apologizes after he slaughters them.

What kind of hackery is this? Is Obama now too tough on terrorism? If you listen to the GOP debates, Obama is a secret Muslim who wants Sharia law here since he doesn't have the stones to glass Iran and Syria and Iraq and Russia and NK and China.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What kind of hackery is this? Is Obama now too tough on terrorism? If you listen to the GOP debates, Obama is a secret Muslim who wants Sharia law here since he doesn't have the stones to glass Iran and Syria and Iraq and Russia and NK and China.

Link?

 

[fskimospy]

WTH is the University of California doing on that list? I'd be curious to know what pot of money that came out of

Why would UC being on there matter? It's contributions from employees, not the organization itself in most cases.

 

[dank69]

Link?

No problem.

 

[LPCTech]

If whatever Shillary said in her secret speech would benefit her campaign she would release it. Therefore I can only assume it would hurt her campaign if it were released. So Im going to assume she said "fuck the average American, I will do whatever you guys at Goldman Sachs want." Until I know what was said.

There is only one Democrat candidate.

 

[Brainonska511]

If whatever Shillary said in her secret speech would benefit her campaign she would release it. Therefore I can only assume it would hurt her campaign if it were released. So Im going to assume she said "fuck the average American, I will do whatever you guys at Goldman Sachs want." Until I know what was said.

Nice innuendo. There is no benefit to releasing them, even if they are prefectly innocous. I'm sure lots of things can be taken completely out of context to beat her over the head with for low-information voters.

There is only one Democrat candidate.

You mean the one that wasn't a Democrat until he wanted to run for president? Or do you mean that the progressive wing of the Democrats should start behaving like the Tea Party and voting out people that aren't sufficiently liberal?