Not necessarily saying they wouldn't. Just saying that pointing out he won't be able to work with Congress is 100% pointless. Any Democrat will be dealing with that. I agree they won't be cooperative. The goal is to vote them out.
-
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.
The 2nd Democratic National Primary Debate
- Thread starter kingkitty
- Start date
- Status
Not necessarily saying they wouldn't. Just saying that pointing out he won't be able to work with Congress is 100% pointless. Any Democrat will be dealing with that. I agree they won't be cooperative. The goal is to vote them out.
Oh, they'll hate the FUCK out of him. Not only is he a socialist, he's a Jew that "isn't particularly religious".
I think they'd hate Hitler less.
shinra-bansho
Member
I mean this is a valid critique of the general nature of politics, particularly in the US, but not limited to it. So I can certainly see the appeal of someone who wants to rid himself of any association with it. But I don't actually see that as necessarily fruitful towards any particular change, given it's so entrenched. I'm not entirely sure what one would necessarily do about it, but losing by not engaging the current system doesn't seem like it would be particularly effective.
Her espoused plans to tackle financial regulation have generally been met well wrt its approach that goes beyond just banking. The one liberal bugbear seems to be the lack of attempt to reinstate the separation of commercial and investment banking I guess. And while the latter may have some merit theoretically, it doesn't really have any practical grounding, and she's correct in that it wouldn't address what caused the last financial crisis.
Interesting. Although, I was actually generally looking for more specifics, such as nominated appointments, executive orders, vetoes and whatnot.
Right. My initial comment was saying that to someone that said that he could work with congress better because Clinton was hated and he wasn't.
crisdecuba
Member
Made a summary of the debate - 2 hours edited down to about 28 minutes: https://youtu.be/qdqw_BJpC2I
Heh. And i think what compounds Hillary's problems is exactly the sentiment that gets people like Bern Carson and Trump out on the stage.
She's an establishment candidate with tons of backing and donations with handouts and favors from every major industry, and all the politicians on her side including the DNC itself are falling all over themselves to prop up her campaign, even at the cost of literally anyone else in the race, regardless of their stances on viewpoints the Democrats claim to support.
It just feels like Bernie is fighting against the entire system itself, which is entrenched in an obsession with power.
The fact that its the democrats side he's fighting against just makes it more abundantly clear how wrong all of this is. They were supposed to be the 'good guys' against the GOP who were fighting against change.
But when it comes to money in politics the party lines blur quite fast. Its not about which party wins, but how politics in America is being handled in general.
You Are Viewtiful
Member
I'd say Clinton won. She was centre stage, Sanders and O'Malley attacking her from both sides and the moderators going after her because she's the frontrunner, and despite all that, she held her ground. She's one tough cookie.
And despite her foreign policy blunders, I think she more than anyone else understands what it means to be in that position. In a way, her blunders make her look better, because you don't become good at this job or any job without first making a few mistakes. Sanders/O'Malley tried to make it sound like they can make the Middle East all sunshine and rainbows, Clinton was the only one who understands the complexity of the situation.
And despite her foreign policy blunders, I think she more than anyone else understands what it means to be in that position. In a way, her blunders make her look better, because you don't become good at this job or any job without first making a few mistakes. Sanders/O'Malley tried to make it sound like they can make the Middle East all sunshine and rainbows, Clinton was the only one who understands the complexity of the situation.
Cool cool cool. If there's one thing we know about Republicans, it's that they never hesitate to find something to hate.
If you say so. Considering such as reform has never been tried on a large scale, I don't know that anyone can claim they would know exactly what would happen. I just can't shake the notion, though, that the impetus behind pushing this as a solution to the "problem" of excessive extremism is misguided. I don't think liberal voters in urban areas would be happy with a candidate that was "moderate" on abortion, immigration, or gun control. Likewise, I doubt conservative rural voters would be happy with a candidate who is moderate on those issues. I don't think you are giving enough consideration to the agency of the voters who actually choose show up and vote in elections.
Edit: I'm not saying its a bad idea. I more object to the notion that the problem with U.S. politics is the lack of appeals to moderates. As far as I can tell, most of U.S. politics is designed to appeal to such voters.
Truth.
titiklabingapat
Member
Minorities, immigrants, women and blue collar workers are groups who usually have the most to lose if they sacrifice the good waiting for the perfect person and/or policy.
What you call a free pass is simply hedging their bets on a known and proven quantity since it will literally turn for the worse for these groups if they choose wrongly.
This is not being talked enough on here or in the media but this bad optic of two men attacking a competent and powerful woman from both sides, I suspect, will have a sizeable impact on the perception of tonight's debate. Especially for Democratic women voters who seem to be the most engaged in the primary process.
If they aren't happy with the candidate who is moderating him/herself on some issues, then the people in the district can vote for the candidate who is not moderating him/herself. There is only an incentive for one of the candidates to moderate. It will create an election between a right and center-right or left and center-left candidate that better reflects the views of the district.
As for your examples, I am sorry, but those are just rather ridiculous. The moderating candidate is not going to choose to moderate himself on those issues because it would completely alienate support that he/she desperately needs. Remember, he/she still needs to carry a good portion of the his/her own party to win. What he/she will moderate on is less ideological passionate things like the economy and professing a willingness to compromise with the other side instead of touting his/her unwillingness to do so as a badge of honor.
As for your edit, I strongly disagree. Candidates i safe districts, and there are a lot of safe districts, need to appeal to their primary base to remain in office because once they get nominated their election is guaranteed. There is no moderation when you have to appeal to your primary base.
I mean, just look at the presidential primary. The Republican candidates look fucking nuts because they are trying to appeal to their primary base, or are the candidates that their primary base wants. The winning candidate will likely moderate and move to the center somewhat to appeal to more voters in the general election, because he/she needs to do that. The problem with safe districts or safe states is that the candidate has no reason to do that. It is actually against his/her interest to do so because then he/she would open him/herself to a primary nomination threat.
But don't you understand? He just needs to stand up and *explain* everything to them (and apparently to the stupid Clinton supporters who are just too naive to feel the Bern) and they'll magically become supporters of democratic socialism and renounce their religions en masse. /s
Declaring himself to be a socialist and being non-religious has already sunk his campaign, regardless of what Bernie supporters think. Plus, I hate being told I'm stupid for not supporting Bernie, the 'obviously superior' candidate. All of the anti-'everyone but Bernie' mudslinging doesn't do much to convince me of why I should put my support behind him.
Hint: when a pro-union candidate can only get one union (and a couple individual chapters of smaller unions) to support him, then it's obvious that his campaign is DOA. The only question is whether the Bernie supporters will pull the lever for the Democratic nominee when the time comes, or take their ball and go home (and if it's the latter, are they really Democrats anyway?)
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/665739096694870017
Can't believe Sanders is doing this. Unbelievably fucking stupid for general election prospects. Just feeding and credifying the narrative that the economic numbers we've been using since WW2 are now suddenly all wrong. How does that get swing voters to vote for a Democrat after 8 years of a Dem President?
This is the same dumbass strategy all those Democrats that lost in the midterms did. Run away from your accomplishments and ignore EVERY positive development.
We were promised gas under 3 dollars by Newt and 6% unemployment by Mitt. Both are lower now, you think we wouldn't be getting daily reminders about it right now if they had won?
Can't believe Sanders is doing this. Unbelievably fucking stupid for general election prospects. Just feeding and credifying the narrative that the economic numbers we've been using since WW2 are now suddenly all wrong. How does that get swing voters to vote for a Democrat after 8 years of a Dem President?
This is the same dumbass strategy all those Democrats that lost in the midterms did. Run away from your accomplishments and ignore EVERY positive development.
We were promised gas under 3 dollars by Newt and 6% unemployment by Mitt. Both are lower now, you think we wouldn't be getting daily reminders about it right now if they had won?
You seem to have a problem with hearing only what you want to hear. The man praised the President multiple times in this debate alone. He's not running on a "fuck Obama and the rest of the Democrats" platform.
And look, the bit about Bernie supporters being obnoxious assholes for pimping their candidate during an election... I mean, who the hell does that?! And they probably won't even show up to vote if Hillary wins the nomination!!! Grrrrr... This makes me angry. I should parrot this incessantly until the primary is over!
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I heard everything just fine. He also said Obama should get primaried in 2012, another losing strategy. Elaborate in which specific ways he praised him because I listened pretty closely.
The obamacare situation was another area where it looked terrible. What kind of optics are you sending when you're already talking about repealing obamacare and doing it all over again? Might as well admit the GOP is right and it's the worst thing ever.
He said Obamacare was a step in the right direction. He said it was great progress. He also said he doesn't think our work is done regarding healthcare. He wants more progress in the same freaking direction. How in the hell you equate that to the GOP's stance on the ACA is beyond me.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
All I know is that I heard enough to be upset over. Seeing that Trump tweet is just an example of the kind of thing we would be seeing in the general election and it's incredibly reckless.
Where does Trump get 20%?
I'm more concerned with why we give half a shit about a Trump tweet.
Trump's going to be in the general.
Wouldn't it be close to catastrophic if it were 20%? That's edging depression numbers.
I'm curious to know if that's the general GAF sentiment. If so, it's a pretty abrupt 180.
No, because we have to compare the same kinds of data. Lots of people like to come up with alternative unemployment metrics and then compare them to standard unemployment metrics.
U3
Now - 5%
Then - 25%
U6 - 10%
Then - 40%
Those are estimates because U3 and U6 didn't exists then. But if Trump thinks there's a more accurate unemployment metric that is double U6, we can expect the corresponding Then measure to be 60-80%. U6 is as underemploymenty as it gets so I don't know what the heck you'd have to put in to get to 20% - underutilized child labor?
Trump is straight-up dominating. If Bush were on top for this long, the media would have called it two months ago.
But wait! The establishment vote is just being split up being multiple candidates. Surely they'll coalesce against Trump after the field narrows...
Oh. :J
finowns
Member
Bernie Sanders attacked Hillary? I haven't watched the debate yet but is this accurate? I'm surprised Sanders is being characterized this way.
The centrist candidate was McCain. Bush was definitely the conservative candidate. And Like I mentioned previously, he moderated himself slightly going into general election because that is what the presidential election forces candidates to do.
And the definition of a political moderate is someone who shares views with both parties. It isnt some milquetoast person with no strong opinions. I really don't understand why you think this is some sort of problem in regards to legislation. The views that the candidate has moderated on are issues that can be the basis of legislation on that particular topic because the other party also agrees on that issue. There will be no legislation on topics that the other parties disagree on.
This is the problem with our current system because there is essentially zero overlap and no incentive to work together, at least for the republicans. Adopting electoral reforms will start to change that because it will create overlap and it will begin to erode that incentive.
It's like you weren't listening. Are you a billionaire? Because that's who's going to pay for it.
And still, who gives a fuck if the 1% gets some help too? You would straight up sacrifice the 99% because you don't want the rich to have any benefit? What a shitty attitude.
Corpse Soldier
Banned
Hillary has been preparing a second run for president for 8 years, has had two debates and a forum, and STILL can't come up with an answer about Wall Street that isn't terrible, cringe worthy, and laughable is extremely disappointing and troubling.
It's like JEB with the Iraq War. You KNOW this is going to come up. You KNOW this is going to be an issue. You should be prepared for it. And she's failed badly at it every single time. It's routinely been the worse answer every single debate, except for Chaffee's "My dog ate my homework" answer. It makes look Hillary is so compromised by big money interests that she can't even pretend not to be.
Her answer on Glass Stegal was terrible "Economists say that Glass-Steagall isn't a magic bullet for the economy." And they aren't saying that, but it's a big piece of the puzzle including breaking up the big banks (Which she has also gone on record saying she doesn't think they're too big to break up). Her claim that Paul Krugman doesn't think Glass-Steagall should be reinstated was also a lie.
The economy is currently a ticking time bomb. None of the problems that lead to the 2008 financial crash have been solved. It's only a matter of time until the big banks implode again because of their risky speculation, taking the whole economy with them again. And if that happens under a Democratic president, you will see the biggest Republican wave election since Reagan. Hillary has already set out to do nothing about this. You can make all the arguments about Hillary's electability or Sanders being unable to push through an agenda once elected, but at least Sanders is going to fight to prevent this from happening.
If the economy implodes again under Hillary we're going to see the biggest Republican wave since Reagan. And since Hillary is so determined to make this an inevitable outcome, I don't see any point in supporting her if Sanders doesn't get the nomination.
All three of the candidates were much more aggressive towards each other. Hillary hit Sanders hard on gun control. Sanders hit Hillary hard on Wall Street. It felt pretty brutal.
It's like JEB with the Iraq War. You KNOW this is going to come up. You KNOW this is going to be an issue. You should be prepared for it. And she's failed badly at it every single time. It's routinely been the worse answer every single debate, except for Chaffee's "My dog ate my homework" answer. It makes look Hillary is so compromised by big money interests that she can't even pretend not to be.
Her answer on Glass Stegal was terrible "Economists say that Glass-Steagall isn't a magic bullet for the economy." And they aren't saying that, but it's a big piece of the puzzle including breaking up the big banks (Which she has also gone on record saying she doesn't think they're too big to break up). Her claim that Paul Krugman doesn't think Glass-Steagall should be reinstated was also a lie.
The economy is currently a ticking time bomb. None of the problems that lead to the 2008 financial crash have been solved. It's only a matter of time until the big banks implode again because of their risky speculation, taking the whole economy with them again. And if that happens under a Democratic president, you will see the biggest Republican wave election since Reagan. Hillary has already set out to do nothing about this. You can make all the arguments about Hillary's electability or Sanders being unable to push through an agenda once elected, but at least Sanders is going to fight to prevent this from happening.
If the economy implodes again under Hillary we're going to see the biggest Republican wave since Reagan. And since Hillary is so determined to make this an inevitable outcome, I don't see any point in supporting her if Sanders doesn't get the nomination.
All three of the candidates were much more aggressive towards each other. Hillary hit Sanders hard on gun control. Sanders hit Hillary hard on Wall Street. It felt pretty brutal.
Whoa, where the fuck did you get that I would sacrifice everyone else? I said that the benefits would apply to people that need them, and not to the very wealthy people that don't. Read my posts before you attack me, please.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
This is the most irrationally hypothetical way to make a decision I've ever heard.
Look, the point she was making is simple - Glass Steagal would not have prevented the 2008 financial crisis. That law forced banks to specialize in investment or personal banking. The institutions at fault were investment banks and insurance companise. Hillary's interested in making policy that has a shot at addressing problems. Sanders is just doing what's politically expedient - point to the one financial law a US history student would recognize.
Corpse Soldier
Banned
The big banks are still too big to fail and with the incredibly risky gambling on Wall Street, it isn't a matter of a hypothetical "if" they collapse again. It's a matter of when. Obama chose not to do anything about it. Hillary has chosen not to do anything about it. There's nothing hypothetical about it.
During her interview on Colbert she said she didn't think the banks were too big to fail and didn't think they needed to be broken up. The fact is they WERE to big to be fail in 2008 and they've only gotten bigger since then.
Prototype Viktor
Member
man that banana guy named after the mar's company product was slinging insults at one point during it. he looked like he's actually trying to get the job
I did jump kind of hard, I apologize.
But I see your statement as advocating a complicated half-measure (like Obamacare is) instead of a real solution out of some strange and selfish need to prevent the rich from benefiting when we should really just be concerned about the other 99% that need help. Yes, you wouldn't want to pay for rich people to get free college. But the vast majority of that tax would benefit middle and lower class people, not rich people. So why give a fuck about the rich? Ideally, they'll be paying for most if not all of it anyway.
Also, it sounds like the sort of "argument" against that Hilary spit out last night--Trump would send his kids to public school. Who gives a fuck? That's not an argument. It's a trick to appeal to the selfish, petty, and bitter people and maneuver around the issue.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
I disagree, it's extremely hypothetical.
What does that have to do with Glass-Steagall?
I don't care that much if the rich get included in a debt-free public college plan, I was defending why it wasn't a terrible idea that they wouldn't be.
Also, you realize that we don't necessarily have to spend all tax revenues on one program right? If we can save tax dollars by a "complicated half-measure" that funds higher education for the people who need it and not the people who can afford it outright then we can fund other frivolous programs like government-mandated maternity/paternity leave, healthcare for children, or better services for our veterans? Let's spend those dollars where they can do the most good.
Corpse Soldier
Banned
What is hypothetical? That the economy will implode again? Or that it will harshly burn whoever is in office when it happens.
Goldman Sachs just lost 10 billion dollars because of one poorly made speculation. Poof. Gone. With the sheer scope of the amount of reckless speculation going on, it's only a matter of time until a bet or series of bets go so poorly that the banks start failing and we see a crash just like the one in 2008.
But hey, if there's a crash under Hillary, we know we can depend on her to go down to Wall Street and wag her finger at them and say "Cut that out!" So there's that to look forward to.
Glass-Steagall breaks up investor and commercial banks, deincentivising the incredibly reckless speculation we see now. It's true that once Lehman Brothers went under Glass-Steagall would not have prevented the financial crash. But it would have reduced the likeliness of it happening and the sheer damage it could have done. It's an important part of the puzzle along with breaking up the big banks. Hillary has said she won't break up the big banks or reinstate GS.
That's like 1% of their assets. I lose or gain more than that every day in my stable, diversified retirement account.
Why should it be a priority if it hasn't given us any reason to think it's a problem? Better to target demonstrable problems like shadow banking.
TheLaughingStock
Member
Do you have any sources from prominent examiners, litigators, or say criminologists that specialize in white collar crime praising Clinton's proposals?
I hate to do this but this quote is too good.
*Brutal for Democrats is still pretty tame. The moderators tried to get drama going at the start over some silly shit too. Edit: weird he got banned, the 3 posts he made didn't seem problematic to me. Alt account?)
I don't really get how Sanders is so weak on gun control. So he doesn't talk about taking guns away from the populace. Big deal, that's some weird pipe dream - not happening. Republicans and even some democrats aren't going to let gun manufacturers be liable for crimes committed with their guns. It doesn't even make sense. C'mon. The only thing you can do is make guns harder to get (background checks etc, closing the gun show loophole). That Sanders is for these things and mentions better treatment of the mentally ill puts him in the position of supporting everything that I could see happening under any 2016 president. The idea of banning "assault weapons" is a show pony everyone trots out that makes some liberals cream themselves but won't change a damn thing. Ban them, I guess, if it makes you feel better.
Are you banning pistols? If you're not, more than 3/4 of gun violence will continue. Are you sending SWAT teams into every home in the US to search for unregistered guns? Give me a break. The less time wasted on bullshit that isn't happening, the better. Gun control/violence an evergreen topic for a reason, the solution is a long ways off.
Coolio McAwesome
Member
That's exactly how I felt too. I rolled my eyes when she played the gender card in her response, but I was completely taken aback when she played the 9/11 card too. 9/11 should not be mentioned in a answer to a question about campaign financing. Hillary was clearly trulying to deflect the question, and I can't fault her. The fact that the audience applauded her response was pretty embarrassing, but it shows that Hillary knows exactly what she's doing. Her response should be seen as a gaffe, but I expect that kind of rhetoric to become much more commonplace in the coming months.
Karsticles
Member
Is it really just like it sounds? Gun manufacturers on the line for crimes committed with their weapons? That has to be the most absurd idea I have heard this debate, even worse than ideas on the Right. I kept thinking that I just hearing the idea out of context, because it really is just that bizarre.
I hate to do this but this quote is too good.
*Brutal for Democrats is still pretty tame. The moderators tried to get drama going at the start over some silly shit too. Edit: weird he got banned, the 3 posts he made didn't seem problematic to me. Alt account?)
I don't really get how Sanders is so weak on gun control. So he doesn't talk about taking guns away from the populace. Big deal, that's some weird pipe dream - not happening. Republicans and even some democrats aren't going to let gun manufacturers be liable for crimes committed with their guns. It doesn't even make sense. C'mon. The only thing you can do is make guns harder to get (background checks etc, closing the gun show loophole). That Sanders is for these things and mentions better treatment of the mentally ill puts him in the position of supporting everything that I could see happening under any 2016 president. The idea of banning "assault weapons" is a show pony everyone trots out that makes some liberals cream themselves but won't change a damn thing. Ban them, I guess, if it makes you feel better.
Are you banning pistols? If you're not, more than 3/4 of gun violence will continue. Are you sending SWAT teams into every home in the US to search for unregistered guns? Give me a break. The less time wasted on bullshit that isn't happening, the better. Gun control/violence an evergreen topic for a reason, the solution is a long ways off.
Truly the facepalm of this debate.
zero shift
Banned
Democrats lost the general because they ran as Republicans.
Pretty much. It really is up there with all of the other loony stuff from Republicans.
The whole segment was pretty much everything I hated about Hillary rolled into one.
According to her campaign website, Hillary wants to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. On paper the act seems fine to me, if the manufacturer was negligent in their sale of guns they can still be sued it seems. Maybe it works differently in action? A cursory look at the Wikipedia entry doesn't bring up any red flags, but I could be missing something. I am a bit tired at the moment.
That's pretty much the same thing as what Bam Bam was saying.
teruterubozu
Member
Lots of "she held her ground" but she did it by classic Clinton deflection. I mean, yeah she's great at dodging and weaving - it's a somewhat admirable skill - but I didn't hear much substance. That 9/11 quip was facepalm worthy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked