Democratic Candidates Debate (1 Viewer)

[Libre]

It was a refreshing change to listen to the Democratic candidates debating. It seemed to me that in comparison to the narrow minded, parochial, and blustering Republicans, who would evade every question and instead spout their vitriol, the Democratic candidates were like adults who were setting a wonderful (albeit, lost) example to those truculent Republican children.

Bernie made it interesting, and did a creditable job up there. But after watching the Dems debate, I'm firmly in Clinton's camp. Bernie seems like a well intentioned and intelligent man, but when he starts saying we should break up the banks, tear down the prisons, and give free medical care and free college educations to all because it works in Scandinavia, he sounds like a nut.

Hillary has the force, the energy, the disposition, the smarts, the know-how, the presentation, and the cajones to be the President of the United States.

I know the Brits might wonder who I'm speaking about (might, I said) and the right wing of AWF will say I'm a hopeless liberal (and proud of it), but tell me who you think would make a better POTUS than Hillary Clinton. I've already suggested Michael Bloomberg - and I'd love to see him run. But he has no national presence (other than being one of the wealthiest people on the planet) and nobody has seriously said he even MIGHT run.

So for now, I'm all in for HRC.
All in. HRC.

 

[ColinEssex]

More abbreviations- POTUS, HRC????

It's all foreign to me.

Actually, the correct grammatical way to use initials or abbreviations in text is to use the full words first, then the abbreviation in brackets immediately afterwards. If used again in the text you can then use the abbreviation safely. That way everyone knows what is meant and the text is comprehensible and not gibberish especially for non Americans. For example:-

"I am American and a staunch member and supporter of the National Rifle Association (NRA). I love killing living, breathing creatures for fun as many Americans do. I am also a supporter of the Klu Klux Klan (KKK), I am a devout Christian and thank my God for the animals and creatures I kill." Etc.etc.

Col

 

[Libre]

POTUS = President of the United States
HRC = Hillary Rodham Clinton

 

[James Deckert]

POTUS-President of the U.S.
HRC - Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Rodham is optional depending on if she is pandering to the left or the center.

I did watch the debate and can't believe how much excess money the Feds have to give away free stuff. Education, health care, etc. Apparently they are unaware we are 16 trillion in debt. There's not enough money to pay back what we owe, how will we get more? The one topic which made sense was to stay out of foreign wars.

Anyone who would vandalize the White House and steal furniture on their way out last time does not deserve to return.

Having said that, there is not a clear Republican person to vote for either. I'm looking for someone who believes the U.S. Constitution limits the powers of the President and they can't write executive orders to skate around its limitations. A person who will enforce laws regardless if they agree with them.

 

[Libre]

POTUS-President of the U.S.
HRC - Hillary Rodham Clinton. The Rodham is optional depending on if she is pandering to the left or the center.

I did watch the debate and can't believe how much excess money the Feds have to give away free stuff. Education, health care, etc. Apparently they are unaware we are 16 trillion in debt. There's not enough money to pay back what we owe, how will we get more? The one topic which made sense was to stay out of foreign wars.

Anyone who would vandalize the White House and steal furniture on their way out last time does not deserve to return.

Having said that, there is not a clear Republican person to vote for either. I'm looking for someone who believes the U.S. Constitution limits the powers of the President and they can't write executive orders to skate around its limitations. A person who will enforce laws regardless if they agree with them.

Hillary doesn't pander to the left or the center. It may seem that way to some on the far right because she's a moderate. As she said - she has a range of views.

Hillary did not present any grandiose schemes for free stuff. If you were watching carefully, you would have seen that was Bernie. Whatever costs her programs would incur she said she would increase taxes on the wealthy. You, Hillary, and I all know it would not be that easy - Obama tried that approach and was soundly trounced. But no, there is no free stuff and the only one saying so was Bernie.

I do recall that the White House was vandalized - I don't know about stealing furniture - and Hillary was not the President at the time. I seriously doubt that she would do so - but I wasn't there to observe and neither were you. Bill also pardoned a number of bums on the way out - for which he received much criticism, but again, they have the same last name but they're not the same person.

Details matter.

 

[Rx_]

I think Bloomberg News made a point that either party's debate overall were less than positive. Regarding this Democratic Candidates Debate, this Bloomberg story was interesting:

Bloomberg coverage of Democrats: By Stephen L. Carter
Most of the talk generated by Tuesday’s Democratic debate is about e-mails or enemies, but far more important were the efforts of the presidential candidates to explain what they would do about achieving another e-word: equality. More to the point, they talked about the problem of “inequality,” a word used eight times by the candidates and once by the moderator. And when they spoke of inequality, it was clear that their concern was the accumulation of wealth and power by the very wealthy.

In a special election segment on Bloomberg TV this Friday morning, they talked more about how the voters don't want a Clinton, Don't want a Bush, and basically don't feel any of these tired old Washington D.C. insiders represent the general voters. Bloomberg discussed how these debates (the two parties) will probably be cut down in time or even eliminated.

To the idea of "did Clinton win for Democratic party members?"
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/did-the-media-get-the-democratic-debate-wrong
I would respect this writer as being fair and open in his coverage. Sure, she was able to react to questions better than others and dodge questions that would not be good for her. So give Mrs. Clinton her due.

 

[Libre]

Bernie goes on and on about it.
I'd rather hear about inequality, though, than about why torture is just fine (Carson), putting nukes up Putin's behind (Carley Whatshername), or listen to that narcissistic ape (no citation needed).

 

[Frothingslosh]

About the pardons - it's sort of traditional for an outbound president to pardon quite a few people just before leaving office. I don't know when it started, but that's been going on for decades. Hell, Ford pardoned Nixon before Nixon was actually CHARGED with anything.

And while Bernie does talk a lot about the programs he'd like to put in place like national health care and post-secondary education, but he does have plans on how to pay for that: fewer subsidies to 'too-big-to-fail' banks, fewer porkbarrel projects to defense contractors, big coroporations actually having to start paying SOME income tax, things like that. There are nations in Europe (mainly Scandanavian nations) with all that AND a higher standard of living than the US, so it is eminently doable in theory. The reality, of course, is that even if he gets elected, Washington will NEVER allow him to do push any of that through.

And just something to think about: The cost of the illegal invasion of Iraq could, instead, have covered college tuition for every student in the US for the next 50 years.

Another interesting item: The GOP likes to bitch about how much money NASA uses up. Its budget accounts for 0.5% of the entire national budget, and the entire budget for NASA since the day it was founded comes to less than $500 billion. We spend more than that EACH YEAR on our military.

 

[Libre]

I know it's traditional for an outgoing president to pardon his cronies but Mark Rich was an especially bad guy. And trashing the WH was inexcusable.
All that aside - Hillary is our best choice right now - but there's a lot that could happen between now and Nov 2016.
Sorry, Bernie should go back to Vermont and put on some wee-juns and a fanny pack.

 

[James Deckert]

Here's the ABC story about the Clinton theft http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121856
It also mentions the bribes (er. registry) she set up after leaving the White House before her swearing in as a senator. The Clintons have so much baggage and scandals in their past, including suspicious deaths that it's hard to imagine the people are so forgetful.
Four years ago Herman Cain dropped out because a few women came forward and accused him of harassment while he was dying of stage 4 cancer. No other women at any other time. Hillary has taken an active role in stopping the bimbo eruptions around Bill for years. Whitewater billing records. Firing of the travel office and putting in relatives. Death of Jim McDougal. Tyson chicken gift to Hillary. I'm sure I'm forgetting 20 or so.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Even the New York Times was forced to admit "White House Vandalized In Transition" in this June, 12 2002 article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/12/us/white-house-vandalized-in-transition-gao-finds.html

On the subject of pardons (not really a pardon) this one has to be near the top.

'I mean, of course you help a friend.'

Judge Lloyd Connelly called Schwarzenegger's decision to reduce Esteban Nunez's sentence from 16 years to seven years distasteful and 'repugnant to the bulk of the citizenry of this state.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...anslaughter-sentence-political-allys-son.html

 

[Steve R.]

It was a refreshing change to listen to the Democratic candidates debating. It seemed to me that in comparison to the narrow minded, parochial, and blustering Republicans, who would evade every question and instead spout their vitriol, the Democratic candidates were like adults who were setting a wonderful (albeit, lost) example to those truculent Republican children.
All in. HRC.

That seems to be a bit superficial. One the debate formats were different. In the Republican debate, the journalists asking "got you" questions purposely pitting the Republican candidates against each other with adversarial questions. The Republicans should never have agreed to that debate format. That was dumb of the Republicans.

Next the Democrats tend to be of "one" mind, think of the Borg. The Democratic candidates were each attempting to outdo each other with proposing ever bigger government and ever more (free) social programs. Trying to outdo each other with virtually the same policies is not being "adult". Vote for me, I will give you more "goodies" than the other guy.

"Vitriol" is an incorrect choice of words, the Republicans were each offering future visions of what they are proposing. You may disagree with what the Republicans have for a future vision, but differences of opinion in an election should not be viewed negatively. The electorate can then make a decision based on those differing viewpoints. That is what a debate is supposed to be about.

Hillary has the force, the energy, the disposition, the smarts, the know-how, the presentation, and the cajones to be the President of the United States.

Hillary made several faux pas.

When asked if she would simply be an Obama third term, one of her replies was that she is a woman, a meaningless response for someone claiming to run on the issues. When pressed on this, her response was to read her book, which is another meaningless response.

When asked about the greatest threat; Hillary's incomprehensible softball response was the generic unoriginal "nuclear proliferation". Seems that Hillary, as the former Secretary of State, is sidestepping Russia and ISIS.

The US is supposed to be a free-market system. Hillary at the debate made the statement that workers need to share in the profits of their companies. That is a major shift towards increased government control over how business's operate and government control over the entire economy.

If you are a Socialist, that statement would be acceptable. But if you wish for the US to remain a capitalistic nation, that statement portends a bleak future.

In terms of the Keystone Pipeline and the TPP, Hillary's position seems to vacillate depending on what will generate the most votes for her. Another example of Hillary failing to really disclose her position until "forced" to do so. (in 2012 the Democrats and media were in a rage over Romney's vacillating on issues. Now Hillary's vacillations are ignored.)

 

[Libre]

Steve-
Some or even most of your points are correct.
I'm not a big Hillary fan.
I would most like to see Michael Bloomberg run for Pres - but that idea does not seem to have occurred to Mike.
When it comes to electing a candidate, it's not like you can pick anybody who ever lived - you have a menu and you have to select one and only one. Not the perfect one, not the one you want the most, but the best one of the available choices.

That seems to be a bit superficial. One the debate formats were different. In the Republican debate, the journalists asking "got you" questions purposely pitting the Republican candidates against each other with adversarial questions. The Republicans should never have agreed to that debate format. That was dumb of the Republicans.

True, true, and true.
I don't know who picked those so-called journalists for the Rep debate but they were as bad as the candidates and the questions were indeed loaded - kind of, -have you stopped beating your wife? -kind of questions.

"Vitriol" is an incorrect choice of words, the Republicans were each offering future visions of what they are proposing. You may disagree with what the Republicans have for a future vision, but differences of opinion in an election should not be viewed negatively. The electorate can then make a decision based on those differing viewpoints. That is what a debate is supposed to be about.

When the candidates are beating up on each other - when Trump says about Ron Paul - "I haven't criticized him for his appearance and there is a lot of subject matter there" and that's a response to some equally obnoxious comments, and there were obnoxious comments in abundance besides that and NOT in answer to any questions - just taking a dig - I call that vitriolic. Mostly by and against Trump, to be sure - but he's leading the polls so the republican electorate must really like what they are seeing there.

Hillary made several faux pas.

When asked if she would simply be an Obama third term, one of her replies was that she is a woman, a meaningless response for someone claiming to run on the issues. When pressed on this, her response was to read her book, which is another meaningless response.

When asked about the greatest threat; Hillary's incomprehensible softball response was the generic unoriginal "nuclear proliferation". Seems that Hillary, as the former Secretary of State, is sidestepping Russia and ISIS.

You're right about that and I was disappointed.
Webb had the best response to that question and some others too.
I just wish he had a better presentation - which is important. But he seems "brooding and intense" as one commentator said and I agree.

The US is supposed to be a free-market system. Hillary at the debate made the statement that workers need to share in the profits of their companies. That is a major shift towards increased government control over how business's operate and government control over the entire economy.

If you are a Socialist, that statement would be acceptable. But if you wish for the US to remain a capitalistic nation, that statement portends a bleak future.

In terms of the Keystone Pipeline and the TPP, Hillary's position seems to vacillate depending on what will generate the most votes for her. Another example of Hillary failing to really disclose her position until "forced" to do so. (in 2012 the Democrats and media were in a rage over Romney's vacillating on issues. Now Hillary's vacillations are ignored.)

Steve, you and I are rarely on the same page, but in this case I do agree with much of what you wrote.
Now, if you have any candidate picked out as the most qualified and most electable, who would that candidate be? Pick from one of the candidates - as we have to do when we vote - not our IDEAL candidate - so please don't name Ronald Reagan please.

 

[James Deckert]

Libre,
>> when Trump says about Ron Paul
I believe you were talking about Rand, not Ron.
Rand is the only candidate I remember who mentioned the Constitution in the second debate. Regardless of which side we're on, we should be able to agree that the President should be limited to the powers as set forth in the U.S. Constitution (same with Congress, and Supreme Court). I don't like Rand's flat tax proposal. It's better than what we have, but the Fair Tax is better, or abolishing the income tax would be the best. The Fair Tax is income tax neutral, but stops all income tax reporting, allows all the accountants who work for the IRS to go out and get jobs which benefit the economy, and taxes the wealthy higher than the poor. However, it takes power away from the government.

 

[Steve R.]

... so please don't name Ronald Reagan please.

I am not a Reagan fan.

Steve, you and I are rarely on the same page, but in this case I do agree with much of what you wrote.
Now, if you have any candidate picked out as the most qualified and most electable, who would that candidate be? Pick from one of the candidates - as we have to do when we vote - not our IDEAL candidate ...

I would have liked to see Rand Paul win. When having one-on-one interviews Paul has done very well. However, he has done poorly at the debates and I was extremely disappointed concerning his attack on Trump (despite what I said about vitriol). Paul has not gained any traction. Currently, I am favoring Carson as the most viable candidate.

I would most like to see Michael Bloomberg run for Pres - but that idea does not seem to have occurred to Mike.

Bloomberg gave the college graduation speech where one of my daughters graduated. It was a very good speech.

 

[Libre]

I believe you were talking about Rand, not Ron.

Yes - my mistake. Rand, not Ron.

Currently, I am favoring Carson as the most viable candidate.

As far as Carson, practically every comment I've heard him make is cringeworthy.
You might think that a neurosurgeon would have a better grasp of history, not to mention science - but he is terrifyingly ignorant of these subjects. Do you really think it's reasonable to deny evolution? To say that a man must have the right religion to be President? That mass shooting victims should simply rush the shooter? That the Holocaust wouldn't have happened if the Jews had more personal firearms (when the combined armies of Poland, Belgium, France, and Norway folded under the Third Reich? Carson has no grasp. He is a total embarrassment.

Michael Bloomberg would be my first choice if I could pick anyone. He is a good speech maker but his record as mayor of New York City is what I am really thinking about. Got to know him pretty well in his three terms (not personally, of course). Mayor is not President - for sure. But he is tough and seemingly honest, has great leadership talent and he knows how to make stuff work.
Hillary is my choice among the current candidates.

 

[Steve R.]

To say that a man must have the right religion to be President? That mass shooting victims should simply rush the shooter

I can only address the two comments above based on the Carson statements that I have heard. In both cases, Carson's sound bites are being twisted and re-characterized by the Democrats for political gain and by the media to generate controversy. The candidates should be evaluated on their stated policy positions. To me it is appalling how innocuous casual candidate statements, at times, are purposely massaged to promote vitriol

"Religion", Carson stated that that he would not object to a Muslim President assuming that that person would follow the Constitution rather than their religious mandates.

"Shooting", Carson stated that is what he would do, that he was not implying that everyone else follow his advice. The recent event where three (possibly 4) people tackled a possible Islamic extremist on a train in France is a positive example of why people need to take personal action to prevent a mass shooting situation.

 

[Libre]

Hillary isn't my favorite either, but in comparison with what the GOP has to offer I'd vote for a cardboard box labeled "Contains Democratic Presidential Candidate."

(can't take the credit - I just read this in a comment after a story about Hillary)

 

[Steve R.]

Hillary isn't my favorite either, but in comparison with what the GOP has to offer I'd vote for a cardboard box labeled "Contains Democratic Presidential Candidate."

Thanks. Up early too? I see that you responded while I was still editing. Depending on who is left running, I may be in the same position as you; except substitute the word "Democrat" with "Republican".

 

[James Deckert]

>>"Shooting", Carson stated that is what he would do, that he was not implying that everyone else follow his advice. The recent event where three (possibly 4) people tackled a possible Islamic extremist on a train in France is a positive example of why people need to take personal action to prevent a mass shooting situation.

Don't forget that this is what was speculated on 9/11 with flight United 93. It didn't save the passengers on board the plane, but saved the lives of others.