• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[Live] The "All-White" 7th Democrat Primary Clown World Debate.

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
24,285
30,220
2,165
Steyer says he spent $100 million of his own money on campaign advertising. He's polling 3-4% in most of the current numbers. Doesn't go a long way to demonstrate competence.


Trump spent $66 million of his own money to win the presidency, and a significant portion of that went back into his own businesses:

https://fortune.com/2016/12/09/donald-trump-campaign-spending/
Fortune said:
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump pumped a total of $66 million of his own money into his campaign – far from the $100 million he frequently boasted he was going to spend, according to campaign finance disclosures filed on Thursday night.

Trump-related business industries – those bearing his own name, including his private jet and the Manhattan building that served as his campaign headquarters – received $11 million in payments from his campaign.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Singular7

Miku Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
2,817
4,874
605
Well if it's not Bernie (Tulsi and Yang have no chance), then I'm likely not even going to vote honestly. I don't think I can bring myself to vote Warren after this. I would honestly rather have Trump than another neoliberal like Biden.

This party is such a joke. Just attacking their most popular politician for 5 years straight.
 

Yoboman

Member
Sep 17, 2005
16,149
346
1,535
Warren is such a damn snake.

Steals and plagiarises Bernie’s platform (eg M4A)
Tries to pivot to centrist on the advice of Hilary and Obama advisors
Drops in the polls
Generates a lie about a private conversation 2 years back
Aligns with CNN for the judas backstab
Tries to use it and ride ID politics to get that woke vote

Nevermind her lies about being Native American, eloping, her kids going to public schools and being fired for being pregnant

She even managed to try call out trans rights not long after voting for legislation banning trans peeps from military

pathological liar of the highest order
 
Last edited:

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
14,694
1,910
1,515
So much for democratic voters being open minded and diverse.

All the remaining candidates who qualified with votes and donations are white people.
Correlation is not causation.

As far as the debate goes nobody stood out in a good way. I mean hell, Biden is getting credited primarily for not saying anything stupid. Steyer even being on that stage is a massive black-eye for Democrats and Democracy. None of these people are worth throwing your money away on, Bloomberg.

You know who wins when none of these candidates distinguish themselves in any significant way.
 
Last edited:

Krappadizzle

Member
Oct 4, 2011
12,677
1,279
955
If they change the voting rules, then at least change it so they make sense.
I propose vote-weight based on taxation.

Say, the value of your vote counts as the 10-logarithm on how much tax you paid last year, or 1 whichever is the highest number.

I.e. For person X the number of votes X has can be described by the following formula

Vote(X) = MAX(1, log10(tax(X))

Amount of tax paid / Number of votes
<10$ / 1
<100$ / 2
<1000$ / 3
<10k$ / 4
<100k$ / 5
...

You get representation based on how much you contribute. That sounds a lot more fair.
Yeah, 3/5 of Americans votes would count for shit I'd wager. But as a tolerant democracy we could do this. We'll call it the 3/5 compromise.
 
  • Triggered
Reactions: Bolivar687

ThePiddle

Member
May 6, 2019
239
352
275
Well if it's not Bernie (Tulsi and Yang have no chance), then I'm likely not even going to vote honestly. I don't think I can bring myself to vote Warren after this. I would honestly rather have Trump than another neoliberal like Biden.

This party is such a joke. Just attacking their most popular politician for 5 years straight.
If Bernie doesn't win, we deserve this crumbling country.

Hopefully, if he doesn't win, the democratic party collapses.
 
Mar 18, 2018
2,208
1,712
385
It’s as if they want Trump to win honestly. This is what happens when your party has no guiding principles to galvanize on and just plays flavor of the year.
 

JORMBO

Darkness no more
Mar 5, 2009
7,865
6,565
1,470

Imagine being so bothered by such a tame debate that you refuse to shake hands. Republican candidates that Trump butchered on the debate stages shook hands with him and went on to work alongside him. The DNC made a big mistake keeping the candidates from attacking each other.
This doesn't even make sense. She is fake as usual. So when Bernie said this to her in person (so they say) she didn't have a problem. They've been friendly ever since. Then once the media makes a story about it she is now hostile towards Bernie.

It sounds more like a poorly planted story to try and piss off Bernie supporters since they would be most likely to move to Warren based on policy ideas. Bernie supporters aren't having any of it though.
 

Super Mario

Mario Mario
Nov 12, 2016
1,702
2,047
545
Warren is such a damn snake.

Steals and plagiarises Bernie’s platform (eg M4A)
Tries to pivot to centrist on the advice of Hilary and Obama advisors
Drops in the polls
Generates a lie about a private conversation 2 years back
Aligns with CNN for the judas backstab
Tries to use it and ride ID politics to get that woke vote

Nevermind her lies about being Native American, eloping, her kids going to public schools and being fired for being pregnant

She even managed to try call out trans rights not long after voting for legislation banning trans peeps from military

pathological liar of the highest order
If Bernie is saying a woman can't be president, her and Hilary sure haven't done a good enough job of convincing us otherwise.

The most comical part of these debates is trying to watch it after. Sure you can really find it if you want. However, just like anything else out the left, what they want you to see is chosen for you. "Highlights" are what is largely available to the audience. Because we know few are really watching the full thing on TV.
 

Stouffers

Member
Oct 17, 2017
323
481
330
Well if it's not Bernie (Tulsi and Yang have no chance), then I'm likely not even going to vote honestly. I don't think I can bring myself to vote Warren after this. I would honestly rather have Trump than another neoliberal like Biden.

This party is such a joke. Just attacking their most popular politician for 5 years straight.
Biden’s mental faculties should have everyone on the left panicked. He’s not too far gone, but it normally only gets worse. Trumps going to look cogent/coherent in comparison. If Biden wins the nom, I see him only debating Trump if it’s on CNN or MSNBC.
 

#Phonepunk#

Gold Member
Sep 4, 2018
8,533
11,832
695
38

damn after seeing the moderator just straight up bait Warren and Bernie like that. fuck CNN forever.

really this whole thing just makes CNN look bad. i mean the audience, even Bernie, is laughing at the fucking balls on this question. "are you seriously going to pull this shit?"

what the fuck is wrong with the media? they act like brainless gossipy high school students.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2018
7,224
6,592
505
If they change the voting rules, then at least change it so they make sense.
I propose vote-weight based on taxation.

Say, the value of your vote counts as the 10-logarithm on how much tax you paid last year, or 1 whichever is the highest number.

I.e. For person X the number of votes X has can be described by the following formula

Vote(X) = MAX(1, log10(tax(X))

Amount of tax paid / Number of votes
<10$ / 1
<100$ / 2
<1000$ / 3
<10k$ / 4
<100k$ / 5
...

You get representation based on how much you contribute. That sounds a lot more fair.
I totally agree with some kind of scale for voting power.

If someone pays more taxes they should get more voting power. They are the ones contributing to the government pot the most per capita.

it should be on taxes paid so someone with a clever accountant doing tax deductions to get them to zero taxes paid gets a shit voting power of 1, while someone paying a normal share of income tax with a normal salary gets maybe 2.

like your scale you just need a maximum so bill gates paying a billion in tax doesn’t get 10 million voting power.

while some jobless broke loser still gets to vote? Forget it.

now if someone wants to claim a skewed voting system is not fair,the voting system and taxes aren’t even fair now anyway.

tax rates are progressive and electoral systems base elections on state (or Canadian provincial districts) than a fair system like the popular vote.

So right now a person in a 3pt state like Alaska technically has more voting power person than California.
 
Last edited:

Joe T.

Member
Oct 3, 2004
2,737
3,201
1,705
Montreal, Quebec

damn after seeing the moderator just straight up bait Warren and Bernie like that. fuck CNN forever.

really this whole thing just makes CNN look bad. i mean the audience, even Bernie, is laughing at the fucking balls on this question. "are you seriously going to pull this shit?"

what the fuck is wrong with the media? they act like brainless gossipy high school students.
MSNBC seems to have recently targeted CNN the same way it's targeted Fox News over the years. There's a curious war brewing and I'm sure there's a reason to it that goes beyond that ridiculous Bernie/Warren debate question. MSNBC is guilty of often pulling that kind of crap themselves, so not like they have much room to talk. A couple of days ago they slammed CNN for being "too fair to Trump," which is laughable. Could this be linked to Shepard Smith deciding where he wants to work next?

At least one network boss, CNN president Jeff Zucker, has already publicly expressed interest.
On Monday, The Daily Beast reported that Smith has talked to MSNBC president Phil Griffin about potentially joining the network.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Teletraan1

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
6,082
4,262
1,040
Well if it's not Bernie (Tulsi and Yang have no chance), then I'm likely not even going to vote honestly.
Don't post you're not voting on Resetera, they'll send someone to deal with you within 3-5 business days. ;)

Personally I don't see how anyone thins Bernie has a chance, he needed Warren to drop to single digits to win and she needed the same the other way around. But they have been barking at each other and making their bases "them or nothing" for months, and now with Warren throwing Bernie under the bus with the sexism stuff it's now impossible for either of them to take a portion of the others supporters.

Either people won't vote or they will go right to Biden.
 

ThePiddle

Member
May 6, 2019
239
352
275
Don't post you're not voting on Resetera, they'll send someone to deal with you within 3-5 business days. ;)

Personally I don't see how anyone thins Bernie has a chance, he needed Warren to drop to single digits to win and she needed the same the other way around. But they have been barking at each other and making their bases "them or nothing" for months, and now with Warren throwing Bernie under the bus with the sexism stuff it's now impossible for either of them to take a portion of the others supporters.

Either people won't vote or they will go right to Biden.
If you can't see how Bernie can win, then you're either not paying attention to crowd numbers, or you're foolishly underestimating them.

It's pretty clear this is a two man race, and either Biden wins thanks to the 50+ voters that only watch TV for the news (or read the paper), or Bernie wins because enough under 35 voters show up thanks to his huge army of zealous supporters.

No one else is in this race.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miku Miku

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
6,082
4,262
1,040
If you can't see how Bernie can win, then you're either not paying attention to crowd numbers, or you're foolishly underestimating them.
No I'm paying attention to reality, if He can't get Warrens voters he can't win. He hasn't expanded he doesn't have a demographics. You are similar to those thinking that the socialist arm of the party are the majority of the party and that's going to bite you hard.

Look at the pollsters who were correct in 2016 as well, there is no actual indication Bernie is a real contender as of yet. Crowd numbers don't mean anything, because not only are his crowds smaller on average than in 2016, but it's mostly the same base he had before, and not ever one of his rallies has high numbers regardless.

Stop looking at smoke and mirrors. He would lose Iowa, he may have a chance to win NH that's the only wild card, but it won't be by a large margin and people will take notice as he loses the next 3 states just based on demographics. It's just not possible unless Biden randomly drops out or something happens to him, and even then that still wouldn't guarantee Bernie the win because his voters would go to a wild card like AMY, Deval, Bloomberg, or a returning Hillary.
 

ThePiddle

Member
May 6, 2019
239
352
275
No I'm paying attention to reality, if He can't get Warrens voters he can't win. He hasn't expanded he doesn't have a demographics. You are similar to those thinking that the socialist arm of the party are the majority of the party and that's going to bite you hard.

Look at the pollsters who were correct in 2016 as well, there is no actual indication Bernie is a real contender as of yet. Crowd numbers don't mean anything, because not only are his crowds smaller on average than in 2016, but it's mostly the same base he had before, and not ever one of his rallies has high numbers regardless.

Stop looking at smoke and mirrors. He would lose Iowa, he may have a chance to win NH that's the only wild card, but it won't be by a large margin and people will take notice as he loses the next 3 states just based on demographics. It's just not possible unless Biden randomly drops out or something happens to him, and even then that still wouldn't guarantee Bernie the win because his voters would go to a wild card like AMY, Deval, Bloomberg, or a returning Hillary.
Crowds are smaller because there are more candidates, pretty obvious reason.

I am not a socialist nor do I believe the socialist branch is why he is getting support, red scaring is a cheap argument. Real wage growth has stagnated since Reagan, and doesn't take a genius to notice their healthcare premiums have doubled in 4 years while the benefits decreased, or that it is absurd to be forced to take their John Deere tractor to a John Deere licensed repair center. People are pissed off and would vote Bernie for the same reason others voted Trump, the guy who won it all last time.

And I've said it before to you, I'll say it again, Bernie performed +5% or more in these first few states when compared to his RCP polling average (edit- in 2016), and he is doing even better in the RCP average this time than last time. His supporters will almost certainly show up in high numbers compared to other supporters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Miku Miku

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
6,082
4,262
1,040
Crowds are smaller because there are more candidates, p
They are smaller among his Bernie or nothing hardcore base, you seem to have dismissed. that part.
People are pissed off and would vote Bernie for the same reason others voted Trump, the guy who won it all last time.

And I've said it before to you, I'll say it again, Bernie performed +5% or more in these first few states when compared to his RCP polling average (edit- in 2016), and he is doing even better in the RCP average this time than last time. His supporters will almost certainly show up in high numbers compared to other supporters.
No they wouldn't, if that was the case Bernie would have performed better last time he ran or before Biden jumped into the race, he didn't.

Stop using fake polls and use the resources that were right in 2016 and pay attention to how many supports are backing him, if he can't get Warren voters, at least a significant amount, he can't win. Just because he looks good compared to most of the candidates polling below him that have derailing campaigns that were poorly managed, doesn't mean he himself is in any well off place.

He has contracted and has not expanded his supporters from 2016, Biden is barely trying and is able to keep a good distance ahead, he'll try harder and will spend more money as the state voting continues on, Bernie can't possibly catch up unless he grabs some base from somewhere,, anywhere, and currently that doesn't seem possible.

In addition to the above problem you have one other issue, you have a ton of moderates that are running through a bunch of candidates that are closer tot he center and a hefty amount who don't like any of the candidates or have not picked a side because they haven't been able to decide yet. One poll that was mentioned on here had that increasing recently, so that means there are even less voters actively participating in the primaries to pull from.

Sorry but he's a done deal..
 

Miku Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
2,817
4,874
605
They are smaller among his Bernie or nothing hardcore base, you seem to have dismissed. that part.


No they wouldn't, if that was the case Bernie would have performed better last time he ran or before Biden jumped into the race, he didn't.

Stop using fake polls and use the resources that were right in 2016 and pay attention to how many supports are backing him, if he can't get Warren voters, at least a significant amount, he can't win. Just because he looks good compared to most of the candidates polling below him that have derailing campaigns that were poorly managed, doesn't mean he himself is in any well off place.

He has contracted and has not expanded his supporters from 2016, Biden is barely trying and is able to keep a good distance ahead, he'll try harder and will spend more money as the state voting continues on, Bernie can't possibly catch up unless he grabs some base from somewhere,, anywhere, and currently that doesn't seem possible.

In addition to the above problem you have one other issue, you have a ton of moderates that are running through a bunch of candidates that are closer tot he center and a hefty amount who don't like any of the candidates or have not picked a side because they haven't been able to decide yet. One poll that was mentioned on here had that increasing recently, so that means there are even less voters actively participating in the primaries to pull from.

Sorry but he's a done deal..
It's way too early to claim anyone is a done deal. Last election, no one even knew Sanders' name until after Iowa. Now he's literally one of the most popular politicians in the country, and has shifted most of the DNC who hates his guts into being forced to adopt many of his plans just to even stay competitive.

No one has even voted yet.
 

Afro Republican

GAF>INTERNET>GAF, BITCHES
Aug 24, 2016
6,082
4,262
1,040
It's way too early to claim anyone is a done deal. Last election, no one even knew Sanders' name until after Iowa.
Has had huge attention and rallies before Iowa, and the first debates were way before Iowa, and the first debate was clearly set-up to have almost all the candidates but O'malley drop out, but Bernie stayed on and had more support than people though and the media went crazy and he started gaining tons of attention, got large rallies and then started winning states.

Voting is a reflection of his support, he hasn't expanded his base, he'll get similar or less support that he did last time in his best states and that's the best he can do. He has had zero volatility compared to his competition and non os his supporters have been paying attention. You're just going to end up disappointing yourself if you think he has a chance outside some other candidates suddenly dropping our for no reason or some major scandal coming into view.
 

Miku Miku

Gold Member
Jan 13, 2018
2,817
4,874
605
Has had huge attention and rallies before Iowa, and the first debates were way before Iowa, and the first debate was clearly set-up to have almost all the candidates but O'malley drop out, but Bernie stayed on and had more support than people though and the media went crazy and he started gaining tons of attention, got large rallies and then started winning states.

Voting is a reflection of his support, he hasn't expanded his base, he'll get similar or less support that he did last time in his best states and that's the best he can do. He has had zero volatility compared to his competition and non os his supporters have been paying attention. You're just going to end up disappointing yourself if you think he has a chance outside some other candidates suddenly dropping our for no reason or some major scandal coming into view.
I'm not too fragile that I can't handle a loss if he loses. Might as well keep trying while it's a race though.

All I know is that his main weakness was the south, and a lot of the reporting at the time made it seem like significant portions of the public hadn't even really heard of him. They certainly hadn't heard about democratic socialism. And no one else was pushing his plans, which were always depicted as radical. And now lots of people have had to shift towards his policies.

He has as much chance as anyone in the race. He's one of the frontrunners.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThePiddle

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
5,315
6,803
460
I'm not too fragile that I can't handle a loss if he loses. Might as well keep trying while it's a race though.

All I know is that his main weakness was the south, and a lot of the reporting at the time made it seem like significant portions of the public hadn't even really heard of him. They certainly hadn't heard about democratic socialism. And no one else was pushing his plans, which were always depicted as radical. And now lots of people have had to shift towards his policies.

He has as much chance as anyone in the race. He's one of the frontrunners.
What makes you think the south are now into socialism? I always heard this from Bernie fans in 2016, this argument that "people didn't know Bernie, that's why he hit a cap."

Has it ever occured to you that maybe they did learn about him, and they decided they didn't like him?

ThePiddle ThePiddle if we are going to be talking about rally sizes, Trump Rally's were routinely larger than Bernie's in 2016, and they still are today.
 

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,663
1,234
455
What is this stupidity of 16 year olds voting? If anything the age should be bumped to 25 when the brain is "done" developing.

16 is absurd and stupid on every conceivable level. Just not enough life experience to make an informed decision.

Sorry, just saw that tweet and it riles me up everytime I see it.

From yang2020:


At 16, Americans don’t have hourly limits imposed on their work, and they pay taxes. Their livelihoods are directly impacted by legislation, and they should therefore be allowed to vote for their representatives.
Studies show that allowing younger people to vote has positive impacts on voting habits. Localities that have lowered the voting age have seen an increase in voter turnout across all age groups.
Should brain development be the pre-requisite to voting, or skin in the game? If you are able to work you should be able to vote.
 

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,663
1,234
455
By that logic you could lower the voting age to 7 or 8. Child actors and celebrities are “working”.
Yang doesn’t draw the line with my logic, but with the federal child labor law, so no, you couldn’t.
16 is not an absurd age to have the right to vote.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,780
3,380
1,500
From yang2020:






Should brain development be the pre-requisite to voting, or skin in the game? If you are able to work you should be able to vote.
Absolutely. At 16 your not an adult, and have very little life experience. I understand voting at 18 because of your old enough to be sent to a battlefield, your old enough to vote the person out of office that sent you there, but 16 is way to young.

0-16 is learning to become an adult. At 16 people are way to easily influenced, and critical thinking skills are just starting to develope, nevermind peer pressure at that age.

No argument is good enough for me to allow a 16 year old child to decide adult things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yakuzakazuya

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
5,315
6,803
460
Yang doesn’t draw the line with my logic, but with the federal child labor law, so no, you couldn’t.
16 is not an absurd age to have the right to vote.
It is, but luckily this country isn’t dumb enough to allow children to determine our economic policy.

I understand why Yang wouldn’t want that to be the case
 

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,663
1,234
455
Absolutely. At 16 your not an adult, and have very little life experience. I understand voting at 18 because of your old enough to be sent to a battlefield, your old enough to vote the person out of office that sent you there, but 16 is way to young.

0-16 is learning to become an adult. At 16 people are way to easily influenced, and critical thinking skills are just starting to develope, nevermind peer pressure at that age.

No argument is good enough for me to allow a 16 year old child to decide adult things.
My issue here is none these points (save the military age), carry the water. Representation has nothing to do with your critical thinking faculties, peer pressure, or even adulthood as a concept.

The military age is really the only thing worth talking about, but even still, if your 16 and it’s a voting year, your 18 for that term.
If we can really contain the argument to that sticking point, I think you can make a case for the workforce being as or more relevant than the battlefield.
 

KINGMOKU

Member
May 16, 2005
6,780
3,380
1,500
My issue here is none these points (save the military age), carry the water. Representation has nothing to do with your critical thinking faculties, peer pressure, or even adulthood as a concept.

The military age is really the only thing worth talking about, but even still, if your 16 and it’s a voting year, your 18 for that term.
If we can really contain the argument to that sticking point, I think you can make a case for the workforce being as or more relevant than the battlefield.
I started working at 14. Should it be whenever you start working? Why stop at 16? You can get an exemption to start working earlier then that age.

As for carry the water, you can't dismiss a point just because it blows a hole in your argument. Having the mental capacity to understand how important your vote is, and basic life experience is far more important then if your working at 16. Having the ability to have equal footing with your parents, who are still washing your underwear, in who becomes the next president is not something I'm willing to entertain, in any capacity.

This is a non-starter flat out. There has to be a limit, and 18 is that limit. I also wouldn't entertain allowing 16 year olds the ability to stop at the store and buy a 6-pack either. Why? Because 16 year olds are naive little dipshits that do stupid things on a consistent basis.

I won't even entertain the notion of it.
 

zenspider

Member
May 9, 2016
2,663
1,234
455
I started working at 14. Should it be whenever you start working? Why stop at 16? You can get an exemption to start working earlier then that age.

As for carry the water, you can't dismiss a point just because it blows a hole in your argument. Having the mental capacity to understand how important your vote is, and basic life experience is far more important then if your working at 16. Having the ability to have equal footing with your parents, who are still washing your underwear, in who becomes the next president is not something I'm willing to entertain, in any capacity.

This is a non-starter flat out. There has to be a limit, and 18 is that limit. I also wouldn't entertain allowing 16 year olds the ability to stop at the store and buy a 6-pack either. Why? Because 16 year olds are naive little dipshits that do stupid things on a consistent basis.

I won't even entertain the notion of it.
16 is the age that the federal law stops restricting the time you can work. That’s Yang’s rationale. It’s not arbitrary, and there is data on the net benefits where this has been implemented.

For me, if you’re working legally, you’re participating and should be represented - I’m open to the idea.

The rest doesn’t blow a hole in my argument - it’s not my argument.

In no situation that I know of other than Jim Crow laws is there a mental competency requirement to vote. “Life experience” also does not qualify you to vote - unquantifiable as that is. Certainly not who washes your underwear. Nothing but citizenship does, and coming of some age, which is up for discussion. Plain and simple.
 
Last edited:

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,980
4,212
520
Moore Park Beach
You become a citizen and get the privilege to vote once you have served.
Until then you are just a civilian and have no voting privilege.