• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Democratic Debate February 11th (tonight!)

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
according to this article, Sanders could fufill his prison-release promise, but it would require not only pardoning people in federal prisons on drug offenses, but also convincing Republican and Democrat governors around the country to pardon people in state prisons as well.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Why's that? I'm interested to see what you consider to be a better one covering the last debate. Got one?
Click to expand...

No, I don't have one. The one you linked doesn't provide any facts to dis-prove the claims made:

Example:
CLINTON: "We have more than 750,000 donors and the vast majority are giving small contributions. ... We both have a lot of small donors."
THE FACTS: Her presidential run is being supported by wealthy donors in ways that Sanders' is not.
Last year's fundraising reports show that Sanders raised fully 72 percent of his campaign money from people who gave $200 or less, while for Clinton those donors accounted for just 16 percent of her funds.
Clinton stretched when putting herself in Sanders' league when it comes to grassroots financing. She said they are both getting small donors and that "sets us apart" from Republican candidates. But her rate of small-dollar contributions isn't that much different than that of some of the GOP contenders.
She also minimized the impact of the super political action committee supporting her effort, saying the group was founded to help President Barack Obama and she has no say over its operations. But no candidate can control the super PACS that are devoted to helping their candidacies, yet they can be vital in White House efforts because they can raise unlimited money and spend heavily on advertising and other help.
Although Priorities USA may have formed to help Obama, it's now steered by her trusted advisers. In fact, Guy Cecil, a former Clinton staffer, was brought in to lead the group last year as a signal to her supporters that they could trust Priorities USA to serve her well.
Click to expand...

Where in their response does it "prove" Hillary's statement of having 750,000 donors and the majority of which are small donors as false?
 
Anyone notice how clinton shapeshifted over time once she saw Sanders as a threat. It is funny to see how it progressed over time. This last debate it was pretty obvious.
 
soundforbjt said:
Nope, Sanders is my first pick.
Click to expand...
I see your point if you take her statement literally in terms of number of donors. However, it's fairly clear that her statement was a premeditated and sleazy attempt to equate her support from small donors with that of Sanders. This is far from the truth since a vast majority of her money comes from big money...just like it does for many of the Republican candidates. Her "sets us apart" statement is the lie. Bernie stands alone on this one.
 
I'm not sure what to make of the different strategies. On the one hand, I appreciate Hillary being concrete and giving specifics. On the other hand, I think she definitely uses those to mislead at times. I'm curious which approach ends up working better, details and analysis or emotional appeal.
 
Hillary may spin the facts but at least they're facts. Her Repub rivals just spin the bullshit. Trump has a lot of small donors but that's more like televangelizing.

Figure it out.
 
Last edited:
Doc Savage Fan said:
Yep, Hillary is quite adept at spinning the "facts". 🙄

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/
Click to expand...

Why link only the ones ruled false? Wouldn't the better comparison be to look at false statements as a percentage of total statements checked? Surely, you're not trying to put a disingenuous argument forward.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/marco-rubio/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/jeb-bush/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/

At least those links show you the percentages instead of cherry picking one category.
 
Can anyone recap the rest of the debate? I got as far as this before I fell asleep:

Bernie-Meme.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top