Democrat Debate 10 |CNN| Sometimes I just wanna punch you in your perfect teeth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
You can't honestly be making that leap of logic to compare the two. Holy shit.

It wouldn't hurt ANYONE for her transcripts to just be... Out there. It'd shut people up.

It is not comparable to a group of racist conspiracy theorists that had convinced themselves Obama was a Muslim from Kenya.

It is a non-issue that is used to deflect real policy talk. My point is that Obama didn't want to pander to his opposition by giving them what they asked for when no other candidate had ever been held by the same standards.

As soon as she releases her transcripts, the news cycle for the next week or more is going to be about nothing other than her transcripts whether they're clean or not. That's not good for her campaign either way and Bernie knows it.
 
Bad policy, a crap campaign and hurting the party are enough of a reason for me to not be a huge fan of Senator Sanders.

I can't say that I much care for him, no. I won't lie. If, somehow, the universe goes into crazy mode and he becomes the nominee, I will vote for him. I'll hold my nose the whole time, but I won't lift a finger to help him win. And it's the first time in my life I've ever said that. I'll spend my time and money working on down ballot people.


That's fair, I'd just persoanlly enjoy seeing more in depth explanations about why or others you feel that way towards any candidate rather than the short posts.

is the yas queen ironic or
 
Which No Fly zones, these ones?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-resolution/85/text




Check out the co-sponsors. Go ahead.

You mean like the No Fly Zone the Resolution Bernie helped co-sponsor called for in the Senate? That type of No Fly Zone?
Hillary still backs this; Sanders has clearly said he thinks it's a bad idea. A resolution is not the same as supporting a full declaration of war on a nation we had no business invading, though.
 
Which No Fly zones, these ones?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-resolution/85/text




Check out the co-sponsors. Go ahead.

Q7imsbg.gif


This is like the third time Bernie has been caught with his pants down on his own voting record.
 
a resolution is not the same, except for the part where he literally tried to use libya as an attack tonight in spite of his own documented congressional support for that intervention
 
Neither candidate was great tonight to be honest. Both Hillary and Sanders were off their game.

Hillary did fucking awful on foreign policy. Bernie did really terrble on explaining several aspects of his policies.
 
But I've been told he is an unreasonable idealist who will only take the perfect options.

You can't play it both ways. It shows his reasoning is more sound if he could see the potential problems when it was forming.

He can compromise when the compromise involves things he doesn't really care about, like black people going to jail.
 
Don't give me that shit about him changing his mind when the whole campaign has been around his consistency and the values of not flip-flopping.


We didn't put him on that pedestal; Y'all did.
 
That's fair, I'd just persoanlly enjoy seeing more in depth explanations about why or others you feel that way towards any candidate rather than the short posts.

is the yas queen ironic or

No, not ironic. I actually adore Hillary. I've met her twice. I volunteered for her throughout the 2008 campaign. I donated to help her retire her campaign debt. It's not ironic, it's legitimate support. I really, really like her.

From a policy perspective, I agree with her on issues moreso than with Bernie who I actually...to be frank, don't like. I don't respond to gruff, condescending and morally superior. I prefer the hard work and wonkiness of Hillary. I need details not platitudes. I agree with her on the minimum wage, debt free college and the like. The things she did for LGBT people at State were impressive, and I feel she's a better ally for my community than Bernie would be. I think she actually understands intersectionality, and gets that the issues I face as a gay man are not solely the result of economic inequality.

Hillary still backs this; Sanders has clearly said he thinks it's a bad idea. A resolution is not the same as supporting a full declaration of war on a nation we had no business invading, though.

So Bernie's a flip-flopper then?
 
People are dancing around the real answer here. And it's a simple one.

Hillary will release the transcripts when she has to. And right now? She ain't got to. Why? Because the person calling for them is thoroughly losing.

You don't have bargaining chips when you're losing. You can't make demands when you're losing. Because you're losing.

Clearly, Bernie calling for Hillary's speeches and Hillary responding with a long-winded version of "LOL #GurlBye" ain't that big a deal. Why? Because Bernie is still losing, and Hillary Clinton is winning.

Yeah pretty valid point. Atm she could only lose from releasing the transcripts.
 
Bad policy, a crap campaign and hurting the party are enough of a reason for me to not be a huge fan of Senator Sanders.

I can't say that I much care for him, no. I won't lie. If, somehow, the universe goes into crazy mode and he becomes the nominee, I will vote for him. I'll hold my nose the whole time, but I won't lift a finger to help him win. And it's the first time in my life I've ever said that. I'll spend my time and money working on down ballot people.

It'll be more then Bernie would ever do. Bernie is a sham and doesn't belong anywhere near the presidency.
 
I don't have the exact wording, but he went out of his way to refer to the South as the most conservative part of the country.

His tone definitely touched on ideas like "It was expected that I would lose the South" and "The South is less important than the rest of the country for the General". There wasn't a whole lot of apology or explanation for why he failed to appeal to Southern voters, just suggestions that he doesn't need to appeal to them. It's not dissimilar from Romney's 47% comment, just more tactful and directed at a more specific group.

1. Why would he explain why he failed? That's Hillary's job. You're supposed to emphasize your strong points during an election, not your weak ones.

2. He's spinning the loss. He's not saying he doesn't need to appeal to Southern voters, just that he didn't get the vote for "X, Y, and Z" reasons.

"I'm a Democrat and the South is conservative, so that's why I lost."
 
If there aren't any bad in context quotes, then it looks worse to withhold the transcripts than it would to release them, regardless of any out of context quotes. Let's treat the voting public like the are smart enough to know the difference.

I had some rough work today, so thanks for the laugh.


Well I just read an MSNBC article about Sander's take on how the South didn't "represent reality" (something another poster said a little while ago). While it may not have been the wisest of comments, he's certainly not making implications that a lot of the people here are saying (that black votes are unimportant)

As a Dem living in a deep Red state, Sanders completely lost me with comments like this. I mean, it's a bit old, but there's a reason Sanders got crushed in the South, and it ain't blue dogs voting against him.
USA_2000_black_density.png


If he wants to argue that he represents progressive values and voters, while losing and subsequently writing off one of the key voting blocs that make up the Democratic Party, then be my guest. He can enjoy his distant second place as the prize for that.

And all votes count. Iowa, Oregon, Vermont, NY, and yes, Mississippi. Telling an entire region of the country that they don't reflect reality (and I'd certainly argue that Sanders' own liberal echo chamber in VT is less representative of reality for most Americans than the South is) is an incredibly poor campaign strategy, and quite frankly, disrespectful.

I really respected him as a good message candidate when he got in this thing. But after he, his staff, and his supporters just decided to throw a chunk of the country under the bus, I lost that respect. He can continue to vote left in the Senate for as long as he wants to, but I sincerely hope that when this primary is over, I never have to hear or see the man again.
 
As a Dem living in a deep Red state, Sanders completely lost me with comments like this. I mean, it's a bit old, but there's a reason Sanders got crushed in the South, and it ain't blue dogs voting against him.
USA_2000_black_density.png

I honestly have half a mind to buy and install ArcGIS on this PC just to overlay the counties with the highest density of black Democratic voters with Clinton's margins of victory throughout the South.

I mean, assuming the Data Bros on Twitter (Cohn, Wasserman, Silver, etc) haven't done so already.
 
Eh. Still better than anything the Republicans are offering. I just can't agree with your opinion. Not perfect, but, still..
Still what?

Running in the same year as Trump and Cruz did Sanders a ton of favors, he look more ridiculous than we already does if a majority of people running weren't so divisive.
 
You're welcome to come up with a different alternative to coal and, apparently, nuclear that can serve as a backbone power source.



What does that have to do with the fact that Sanders supported the intervention and is now being a craven little pissbaby about that fact? Regime change charges only count when they're against the Butcher or something?

Regime change and the imposition of a no-fly zone are not at all the same thing. What NATO and Hillary, in her role as Secretary of State, ultimately pursued in Libya (check out the leaked diplomatic cables; none of this is in the realm of conspiracy theory) went beyond what the United Nations had authorized. There is a reason Russia abstained when the vote was first held: the deal was that we would impose a no-fly zone to prevent the Libyan government from massacring its civilians, not that we would take an active role in supporting regime change. That is the crux of the criticism of our intervention in Libya, that we went beyond our UN mandate. I don't think you're informed well enough to be having this discussion in good faith.
 
Regime change and the imposition of a no-fly zone are not at all the same thing. What NATO and Hillary, in her role as Secretary of State, ultimately pursued in Libya (check out the leaked diplomatic cables; none of this is in the realm of conspiracy theory) went beyond what the United Nations had authorized. There is a reason Russia abstained when the vote was first held: the deal was that we would impose a no-fly zone to prevent the Libyan government from massacring its civilians, not that we would take an active role in supporting regime change. That is the crux of the criticism of our intervention in Libya, that we went beyond our UN mandate. I don't think you're informed well enough to be having this discussion in good faith.

First bolded: ironic that you absolve Bernie's support of a no-fly zone because we overstepped the mandate given certain actual issue statements made prior to another certain other mandate predicated on UN support being overstepped.

Second bolded: deliciously ironic.

I'm not steeped enough in leftist isolationism to agree with absolutely everything you say and every excuse you make for any inconsistency in record that Hillary Clinton is not personally responsible for. Ergo, I must not "be informed well enough".
 
1. Why would he explain why he failed? That's Hillary's job. You're supposed to emphasize your strong points during an election, not your weak ones.

2. He's spinning the loss. He's not saying he doesn't need to appeal to Southern voters, just that he didn't get the vote for "X, Y, and Z" reasons.

"I'm a Democrat and the South is conservative, so that's why I lost."

The South being red isn't a good explanation for why he lost the Democratic Primary.

When Clinton is confronted about why she loses the youth vote, she praises Sanders' appeal and message. When Sanders is confronted about why he lost the South, he doesn't praise Clinton, or criticize his campaign strategy, or say that his platform needs to be broadened. He blames the South for being who they are. But they don't matter in November anyway, so why bother including their interests and concerns in his campaign platform?*

* I'm sure he doesn't think that, but he does a great job making it seem like he does.
 
Let's take a step back:

Why is the "South" so conservative and Red Statey when Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Wyoming, Nebraska and Oklahoma are such important Blue states in the Bernverse?

I mean, I think we all know why....
 
Let's take a step back:

Why is the "South" so conservative and Red Statey when Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Wyoming, Nebraska and Oklahoma are such important Blue states in the Bernverse?

I mean, I think we all know why....

Sarah Palin told me that Alaska is Small Town Values Real America
 
Still what?

Running in the same year as Trump and Cruz did Sanders a ton of favors, he look more ridiculous than we already does if a majority of people running weren't so divisive.

I mean if proposing the things much of the rest of the civilized world has is divisive. I'm not naive enough to say that Sanders is perfect or that he can even win on his current platform, but I see nothing wrong with it in principle.
 
Why is Hillary deviating from the transcripts? What's to hide?
People who heard those speeches have talked, haven't they? Last I read they said they were mostly question and answer sessions, and not much interesting was said at all. I'm guessing, like everyone else has said, she's just avoiding throwing out more fodder for the general election if she doesn't have to.
 
I mean if proposing the things the rest of the civilized world has is divisive. I'm not naive enough to say that Sanders is perfect or that he can even win on his current platform, but I see nothing wrong with it in principle.

It's just that we're not electing someone for the principle of the thing. Bernie's college plan is bad for several reasons, even though his goal is good. That doesn't mean we should still support a bad, unworkable plan just because it gives us something we want. He needs to be pushed for a better plan.
 
Hillary still backs this; Sanders has clearly said he thinks it's a bad idea. A resolution is not the same as supporting a full declaration of war on a nation we had no business invading, though.
So, we all cool with Hillary's Iraq vote now in that case, since she's clearly said time and time that she's regretted it? Or is Sanders the only one who's allowed to change his mind on issues of foreign policy?
 
The South being red isn't a good explanation for why he lost the Democratic Primary.

When Clinton is confronted about why she loses the youth vote, she praises Sanders' appeal and message. When Sanders is confronted about why he lost the South, he doesn't praise Clinton, or criticize his campaign strategy, or say that his platform needs to be broadened. He blames the South for being who they are. But they don't matter in November anyway, so why bother including their interests and concerns in his campaign platform?*

* I'm sure he doesn't think that, but he does a great job making it seem like he does.
I thought more recently Clinton's response to that question has become that young people are misinformed or misled (and sometimes by the sanders campaign). At least that's what I remember from last week..
 
It's just that we're not electing someone for the principle of the thing. Bernie's college plan is bad for several reasons, even though his goal is good. That doesn't mean we should still support a bad, unworkable plan just because it gives us something we want. He needs to be pushed for a better plan.

Ok sure. But the argument was that what Bernie is suggesting is ridiculous. The sad state of affair is that we are badly behind. I support both Clinton and Sanders. Practicality meets ideology.
 
Ok sure. But the argument was that what Bernie is suggesting is ridiculous. The sad state of affair is that we are badly behind. I support both Clinton and Sanders. Practicality meets ideology.

And I definitely respect that.

But some of his plans are ridiculous. Not his end goals, his specific plans. Universal coverage is not ridiculous. Single payer is ridiculous in this country, with this Congress, in this political climate. His free college plan is just a mess for several reasons, not the least of which is its a huge unfunded mandate on the state with zero cost controls put into it. It's also not affordable based on what he's saying he'll raise re: revenues.
 
I thought more recently Clinton's response to that question has become that young people are misinformed or misled (and sometimes by the sanders campaign). At least that's what I remember from last week..

You're probably right that she's used backhanded compliments to explain his demographics more than once. But at least no one comes away with the impression that her platform has minimal interest in appealing to young/white people.
 
And I definitely respect that.

But some of his plans are ridiculous. Not his end goals, his specific plans. Universal coverage is not ridiculous. Single payer is ridiculous in this country, with this Congress, in this political climate. His free college plan is just a mess for several reasons, not the least of which is its a huge unfunded mandate on the state with zero cost controls put into it. It's also not affordable based on what he's saying he'll raise re: revenues.

I would take universal health care as a win. I'm not sure what Clinton will accomplish as president and I'm not sure what Bernie would accomplish if he had the chance. But, I support his ideals. Hopefully Clinton will incorporate some of what Sanders is aiming for. In the end, I think she holds the same ideals even if her approach is a slower and realistic one. That is why I will vote for her despite voting for Sanders in the primaries. I just wish the party wasn't as divided as it is now. I blame both people.
 
I would take universal health care as a win. I'm not sure what Clinton will accomplish as president and I'm not sure what Bernie would accomplish if he had the chance. But, I support his ideals. Hopefully Clinton will incorporate some of what Sanders is aiming for. In the end, I think she holds the same ideals even if her approach is a slower and realistic one. That is why I will vote for her despite voting for Sanders in the primaries. I just wish the party wasn't as divided as it is now. I blame both people.

Clinton will make improvements to the ACA, but that's all Bernie would be able to do anyway. With how difficult it was to pass health care reform at all, dismantling the entire industry would be... impossible without strong control of the house and senate, and even then it might not be the right choice.

But like you said, any form of universal health care should be considered a win, even if it's not single payer.
 
Can we please rally behind Clinton already. While Clinton and Sanders are still fighting the enemy is gathering strength. Its time for Sanders to drop and focus on the General.
 
Can we please rally behind Clinton already. While Clinton and Sanders are still fighting the enemy is gathering strength. Its time for Sanders to drop and focus on the General.
As long as a significant amount of people believe that Hillary is a criminal establishment shill, I just can't see that happening. It sucks, but the lines are drawn in the sand. The Republicans have way deeper fractions though so I don't think it will be too big of an issue in the general. Unless trump and Cruz team up or something crazy.
 
Can we please rally behind Clinton already. While Clinton and Sanders are still fighting the enemy is gathering strength. Its time for Sanders to drop and focus on the General.
I don't think there's any data to support this view. Pivots to the general happen fairly quickly, and primary damage is rarely a factor in the general. Sanders fans will largely support Hillary.

This forum, for whatever reason, plays up the divisiveness and there's an illusion that it's more significant than it actually is.
 
Clinton will make improvements to the ACA, but that's all Bernie would be able to do anyway. With how difficult it was to pass health care reform at all, dismantling the entire industry would be... impossible without strong control of the house and senate, and even then it might not be the right choice.

But like you said, any form of universal health care should be considered a win, even if it's not single payer.

Yeah, my thinking. I just wish that people would realize that both Clinton and Sanders are the opposite side of the same damn coin. Yes their approach may differ, but in the end, the fundamentals are the same. Clinton or Sanders, either or makes whatever the Republicans are offering look like a joke.
 
First bolded: ironic that you absolve Bernie's support of a no-fly zone because we overstepped the mandate given certain actual issue statements made prior to another certain other mandate.

Second bolded: deliciously ironic.

I'm not steeped enough in leftist isolationism to agree with absolutely everything you say and every excuse you make for any inconsistency that Hillary Clinton is not responsible for, ergo I must not be informed.

You're gonna have to spell this out for me 'cause I'm not understanding what you want to say.

Isolationism? Really? Do you have any idea what isolationist policy has historically entailed in the US? I'll give you a hint: it sure as fuck didn't involve being in multiple defense arrangements in all corners of the world, the disbanding of which is something no serious political commentator criticizing Middle Eastern interventionism is suggesting. Apart from the fringe far-left. I don't know if Sanders' policy falls under the leftist isolationism you were referring to, but I'll assume that is the case for a second because I've seen other similarly misguided people make allusions to early 20th century American isolationism when mocking Sanders' approach to foreign policy: Sanders' "isolationism" would look NOTHING like early 20th century American isolationism. Under Sanders, or more generally, under a policy of non-interventionism in Middle Eastern affairs, we would still have NATO and we would still have alliances and military bases in all corners of the world. And we would still be in the United Nations. Did you know isolationist policy was the reason we didn't join the League of Nations? As long as all of those things are reality, you cannot say that the US's stance towards the world is an isolationist one. You are just trying to redefine non-interventionism in Middle Eastern affairs as isolationism without a proper understanding of what that term has historically meant. A more hands-off approach to Middle Eastern affairs is not "isolationism", it's common sense considering the fact 3+ decades of the current policy has achieved nothing but chaos.
 
Sanders basically saying the South doesn't matter kind of reminds me of Cruz supporters saying Trump winning the NE states coming up doesn't matter because they are deep blue states. Or Cruz mocking NY values. They fail to mention that Trump dominated Cruz in the SEC states though. Had Cruz won some states in the South, he would already be the nominee most likely. A conservative Senator from Texas losing to a NYC businessman in most of the south is rather funny.

Actually when you look at the contests, Cruz and Sanders have won many of the same states(many of them caucus) while Hillary and Trump have won many primaries. That trend will continue with NY and the other NE states most likely.

Hillary will put this away in NY. Trump will likely regain momentum as well and he could win enough delegates in the NE states that make it less challenging to reach the magic number.
 
Let's take a step back:

Why is the "South" so conservative and Red Statey when Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Kansas, Wyoming, Nebraska and Oklahoma are such important Blue states in the Bernverse?

I mean, I think we all know why....

Clinton's won 11 red states, 7 blue states (for this, I'll be gracious and call NC red)

Bernie's won 7 red states and 9 blue states.

But as we head into the rest of the calendar, it's like that she'll pick up New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and maybe Rhode Island. And Bernie will pick up maybe Indiana, and then West Virginia and Kentucky. He'll win Oregon, but then she'll probably win California, New Mexico, and New Jersey while Bernie will win Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota. And then Hillary will take DC.

So it's likely that the final split will probably be something like:

Clinton

Red State: 11
Blue State: 16 + DC

Bernie:

Red State: 10
Blue State: 13

Maybe Bernie wins Rhode Island or Hillary wins Indiana. But it's sort of a silly argument from Bernie.
 
As long as a significant amount of people believe that Hillary is a criminal establishment shill, I just can't see that happening. It sucks, but the lines are drawn in the sand. The Republicans have way deeper fractions though so I don't think it will be too big of an issue in the general. Unless trump and Cruz team up or something crazy.

Them maybe Bernie-fucking-Sanders shouldn't be playing into this bullshit and fanning the flames.
 
Im curious about who will win by a bigger percentage in NY primary? My guess would be Hillary, but Trump seems to be doing pretty well in the couple polls I have seen on the Republican side.
 
Them maybe Bernie-fucking-Sanders shouldn't be playing into this bullshit and fanning the flames.

The fact that he stood on that debate stage, and when directly asked to point to a single example of Hillary being corrupt, couldn't do it, really should be the end of these attacks.Of course, his campaign will still try to insinuate that she is corrupt. But Bernie himself just provided the Clinton campaign with the perfect counter.

Mook's probably got the team churning out various press releases as we speak.
 
Im curious about who will win by a bigger percentage in NY primary? My guess would be Hillary, but Trump seems to be doing pretty well in the couple polls I have seen on the Republican side.

Hillary. It'll be harder to clear a 50% of a 3 way race (though I think he'll do it, just barely), while Hillary has been polling high-50s/60 for a while now.
 
Them maybe Bernie-fucking-Sanders shouldn't be playing into this bullshit and fanning the flames.

That's been my thing for a while: corruption is a damn high charge to make, and the burden is on him to provide us the receipts. He whiffed when given a prime chance to do so tonight, and that speaks volumes.
 
That's been my thing for a while: corruption is a damn high charge to make, and the burden is on him to provide is the receipts. He whiffed when given a prime chance to do so tonight, and that speaks volumes.

He's been doing it since November, if he had receipts he'd have put them on the table already. At this point it's just unsubstantiated character attacks.
 
Clinton will make improvements to the ACA, but that's all Bernie would be able to do anyway. With how difficult it was to pass health care reform at all, dismantling the entire industry would be... impossible without strong control of the house and senate, and even then it might not be the right choice.

But like you said, any form of universal health care should be considered a win, even if it's not single payer.

The eventual creation of a universal healthcare system will be many years away. It would require a fundamental shift of the industry and the system in the U.S., and that would necessitate a massive change in public opinion. When we start seeing costs eat up larger portions of state and national GDP, along with treatment for Baby Boombers and other issues, we'll get back on the wagon for UHC.

As long as a significant amount of people believe that Hillary is a criminal establishment shill, I just can't see that happening. It sucks, but the lines are drawn in the sand. The Republicans have way deeper fractions though so I don't think it will be too big of an issue in the general. Unless trump and Cruz team up or something crazy.

The negativity against Hillary has been there for years, long before Sanders was even a candidate. She isn't the greatest campaigner, so she isn't doing herself any favors in getting rid of that pernicious image of herself. The factions in the Republican Party will be a blessing for her. Which is sad, given how many things have occurred in this election that I am not proud of.

The fact that he stood on that debate stage, and when directly asked to point to a single example of Hillary being corrupt, couldn't do it, really should be the end of these attacks.Of course, his campaign will still try to insinuate that she is corrupt. But Bernie himself just provided the Clinton campaign with the perfect counter.

Mook's probably got the team churning out various press releases as we speak.

To be fair, do you really think Bernie Sanders would stand on the stage and call her corrupt? Its no difference than Obama saying that Hillary was "likeable enough," even though from his body language and the tone of that debate we all knew what his real answer was. This speaks nothing as to whether that charge of corruption is true or not, mind you. I don't really see it as a counter, but it will play well with audiences that won't look into the deeper nuances of elections.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom