• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Dem debate 4/14/2016

And now in the CNN wrap up we will hear how Hillary outdid Bernie. Same CNN, same establishment "analysts", same as always. The MSM is as much a mouthpiece for status quo as it can be.
 
And now in the CNN wrap up we will hear how Hillary outdid Bernie. Same CNN, same establishment "analysts", same as always. The MSM is as much a mouthpiece for status quo as it can be.

Yeah I shut them off and turned on TYT for analysis.
 
I think most of us can agree that it was a wash. I don't think either of them really pulled out a big win. A very meh result in which no one is really going to be convinced.
 
I think most of us can agree that it was a wash. I don't think either of them really pulled out a big win. A very meh result in which no one is really going to be convinced.

We can? What makes you think most of us agree with you?
 
We can? What makes you think most of us agree with you?

I think that will be the result. Aside from extreme supporters this wasn't a breakthrough debate. You are a fanatical devotee of your candidate and I didn't mean to include you. I'm sure you think he's won all nine debates.
 
I think that will be the result. Aside from extreme supporters this wasn't a breakthrough debate. You are a fanatical devotee of your candidate and I didn't mean to include you. I'm sure you think he's won all nine debates.

Regardless of where my support is, I just think it is rather presumptive and silly to pretend you can speak for anyone else.
 
Kind of... it was totally out of the blue and nothing led up to it. It was a closing statement. Not an answer or response to a question. That means she had it in her back pocket for closing statement.

This is the same woman who 5 months ago said "I take money from Wall Street because [... bloviation...] 9/11."
 
I'm giving it to Bernie.
I cannot recall at any point that the crowd was chanting Hillary's name.
Bernie, once again, claims the monopoly on that.
 
I think most of us can agree that it was a wash. I don't think either of them really pulled out a big win. A very meh result in which no one is really going to be convinced.

Largely I agree. I think Hillary is a largely contentless debater, and when she is trying to be contentful, she's usually using it as a tactic to bloviate and get people to not pay attention to the terrible thing that she just said, but yes.

She's a very tactical debater, and it's worked to her advantage a lot. (Although as someone who's done debate for over a decade, if you understand what the tactics she's using and understand why she's using them, it makes some of her arguments to be more cringe-worthy for me.)
 
The primary in NY Tuesday I'm afraid is going to be rough on Bernie. The rules for voting there sucks in that not only can you not do same day registration... I think you have to have been registered AS A DEMOCRAT something like six months ago just to vote in this primary. So excited new voters, which is where he excels, are absolutely ****-blocked from voting.
 
The primary in NY Tuesday I'm afraid is going to be rough on Bernie. The rules for voting there sucks in that not only can you not do same day registration... I think you have to have been registered AS A DEMOCRAT something like six months ago just to vote in this primary. So excited new voters, which is where he excels, are absolutely ****-blocked from voting.

And thats how it should be- Bernie only does well in non-democratic caucuses anyway.
 
Seriously, are you surprised? Their take on "Talk about money in politics" was "Hillary, will you release your transcripts?"

I thought their take on that was:

Senator Sanders, you have consistently criticized Secretary Clinton for accepting money from Wall Street. Can you name one decision that she made as senator that shows that she favored banks because of the money she received?

For all of his sly insinuations and bitter sarcasm over the past several months, he couldn't come up with anything in response. Meanwhile the segment on Sanders' history with the NRA was a good reminder that there are many paths to becoming beholden to a special interest.
 
And now in the CNN wrap up we will hear how Hillary outdid Bernie.

Perhaps because she did this time and, IMO, it all boils down to one knock-out blow: "I don't take a backseat to your legislation that you've introduced that you haven't been able to get passed." That is a statement that sums up Bernie's entire career. Bernie is a man of platitudes and someone who can never get anything done because he needs instant gratification.
 
Last edited:
And thats how it should be- Bernie only does well in non-democratic caucuses anyway.

Not very smart for a party to front a candidate that is proving to do worse in the general election. It would seem wise to have the input of indy's in your primary if you want the strongest general election candidate.
 
Not very smart for a party to front a candidate that is proving to do worse in the general election. It would seem wise to have the input of indy's in your primary if you want the strongest general election candidate.

The Inner Party doesn't like Proles who can turn off their TV...
 
For all of his sly insinuations and bitter sarcasm over the past several months, he couldn't come up with anything in response. Meanwhile the segment on Sanders' history with the NRA was a good reminder that there are many paths to becoming beholden to a special interest.

We've had this conversation before, if you're not going to acknowledge the numerous instances where the money has directly affected Hillary Clinton, I don't see repeating it again. It is pretty trivial to give examples. I do think it was a poor tactic for Sanders to not directly bring up examples. And there's many more examples than the trivial one that Elizabeth Warren brought up.


And thats how it should be- Bernie only does well in non-democratic caucuses anyway.

Well, you can't have it both ways. He's currently doing better than she is in the national polls, and the reason for this is that the Democratic party isn't interested in absorbing young people into their party. Setting aside the fact that this is wildly stupid and shortsighted, it is making the very direct statement that they don't want young voters to get involved in the Democratic primary. It doesn't matter to them if these young people are liberal, progressive, or left-wing, which is what (ostensibly) should be sufficient to be a Democrat.

(Of course, that's not what the Democratic party stands for nowadays.)

Not very smart for a party to front a candidate that is proving to do worse in the general election. It would seem wise to have the input of indy's in your primary if you want the strongest general election candidate.

Oh, it's terribly stupid. Both the Democrats and the Republicans are about to pay for their past sins. I'm going to guess that we're about to have one of the most successful third party candidates in American history forming from the anti-establishment crowd of Sanders and Trump.

I mean, it's hilarious that people can't read the writing on the wall: The majority of voters in America are registered as Independent. You know what that means? You keep on pissing off your voting blocs, and since most people were registered as Democrats, you can guess which party is bleeding the most (But the Republicans are, too). This is literally how it happens that a third party overtakes and destroys one of the two major American parties.
 
Starts at 7:00pm est.

I'm expecting fireworks. They've been sniping at each other more than ever this week due to the high stakes of New York. There are definitely things I'm going to watching for. I can't wait.

True. But it can only be good in a comedian type way, unless he swears he won't or she that she is criminal. Baring that, what ever could we hope to learn?
But maybe there will be Surprise.
 
True. But it can only be good in a comedian type way, unless he swears he won't or she that she is criminal. Baring that, what ever could we hope to learn?
But maybe there will be Surprise.

You're a day late there joG.
 
because it is so rare, i want to extend one kudo
to dana whatshername

first for asking hillary why should would not release the wall street speech transcripts
having her question avoided
and then coming right back and asking it again
only to have hillary dodge the question a second time
to then come back and ask the same question a third time

that was the most ballsy act of a media person since cruz called tRump a 'sniveling coward' and then refused to deny he would support tRump as the GOP candidate, when asked by the reporter. here is her repeated question that cruz repeatedly avoids answering ... what a *****



now, in contrast, here is some of the most entertaining reporting of the season [if you watch nothing else forward to the 8 minute mark and watch the end]
 
And thats how it should be- Bernie only does well in non-democratic caucuses anyway.

The fact that Hillary does poorly in Open Primaries is something that the establishment should consider if Trump becomes the nominee. Bernie destroyed her in New Hampshire. In fact Bernie has won every open Primary unless I'm mis-remembering. Trump kills it in Open primaries so if it's Trump vs Hillary I think the Dems are going to be in for a nasty surprise.
 
Well, you can't have it both ways. He's currently doing better than she is in the national polls, and the reason for this is that the Democratic party isn't interested in absorbing young people into their party. Setting aside the fact that this is wildly stupid and shortsighted, it is making the very direct statement that they don't want young voters to get involved in the Democratic primary. It doesn't matter to them if these young people are liberal, progressive, or left-wing, which is what (ostensibly) should be sufficient to be a Democrat.

(Of course, that's not what the Democratic party stands for nowadays.)

I was referring to Rob's comment about last minute voters who sign up for the party- Ive heard many of them do that by switching at the last minute just to vote on a whim. I consider that on par with fakery and political manipulation.

The fact that Hillary does poorly in Open Primaries is something that the establishment should consider if Trump becomes the nominee. Bernie destroyed her in New Hampshire. In fact Bernie has won every open Primary unless I'm mis-remembering. Trump kills it in Open primaries so if it's Trump vs Hillary I think the Dems are going to be in for a nasty surprise.

LOL Bernie did not win every open primary- thats a delusional statement. The only primary that he won as I recall was Michigan (but even then his delegate count was only slightly higher than what Hillary got) and his home state of Vermont.
 
I was referring to Rob's comment about last minute voters who sign up for the party- Ive heard many of them do that by switching at the last minute just to vote on a whim. I consider that on par with fakery and political manipulation.

Are they going to vote for that candidate in in the national election? If so, I think it's highly relevant. We live in a political system that's rigged for only two candidates from two parties. Why shouldn't independents help pick who they want to run, particularly if they are both the largest group of voters and they are deprived of any other opportunity? It's both bad for the party (because they are now required to have a substantial portion of Independents in order to secure the presidency) and it's bad for Independents' right to play a meaningful role in the American democracy.
 
Are they going to vote for that candidate in in the national election? If so, I think it's highly relevant. We live in a political system that's rigged for only two candidates from two parties. Why shouldn't independents help pick who they want to run, particularly if they are both the largest group of voters and they are deprived of any other opportunity? It's both bad for the party (because they are now required to have a substantial portion of Independents in order to secure the presidency) and it's bad for Independents' right to play a meaningful role in the American democracy.

The dem nomination process should be decided by dems, not by independents. Same thing with the GOP nominations. If the independents want a say in another party's nominations then they shouldnt be registered as independents.

Clinton Is Winning The States That Look Like The Democratic Party | FiveThirtyEight
 
The dem nomination process should be decided by dems, not by independents. Same thing with the GOP nominations. If the independents want a say in another party's nominations then they shouldnt be registered as independents.

Clinton Is Winning The States That Look Like The Democratic Party | FiveThirtyEight

I'm not sure why you're bringing Hillary into this, but that's perfectly fine in my book --that rule can be enacted once political party's start agreeing to disenact the laws that make them the only games in town. For instance, make it reasonably possible for Independent politicians to get into national debates, enact runoff ballots, do campaign finance reform, and so on.

But you can't write laws that literally finance and support the two party that keeps them the only games in town, AND have a Party-based purity test at the primary voting booth. That's just undemocratic and it's a facade for the rich and powerful maintaining their hegemony over the so-called democratic process.
 
Back
Top Bottom