• 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.

Democratic National Primary Debate #1 |Tokyo2016| Rise of Mecha-Godzilla

GAF Definitive Conclusive Scientific Online Poll of Who Won


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

giga

Member
why the heck did the hill waffle on the pot question, it's just a no brainer to say "decriminalize it" at the very least
Most of this debate she's been angling for the general electorate, i.e., independents. She's looking past the primaries.
 

Effect

Member
Regarding weed Hillary just picked the safe answer. No to recreational. Yes to medical and no to putting people in jail for low level and non-violence offenses. Can't really attack her on that I think and is likely where most people fall. You still gotta work to get that recreational use with people I think.
 

ivysaur12

Banned
Weed is already far ahead of gay marriage in 2008 in public support.

Playing the long game with it at this point feels pointless.

I don't think it's a terrible idea for a Democratic politician to wait for a certain mass of states before coming out for recreational marijuana while also decriminalize or reclassifying marijuana on the federal level.
 

Merc_

Member
"It's my first day, Mr. McDuck."

Yzju297.png

Goddamnit lmao
 
Shut the hell up with the "Bernie copied Hillary" and vice versa crap. They agree on the issues and every agreement has been something that is completely obvious.

Clinton has recently "evolved" her views as and obvious, focus-group based, reaction to Sanders popularity with the hard liberal base. Thats the difference there.
 

Dead

well not really...yet
why the heck did the hill waffle on the pot question, it's just a no brainer to say "decriminalize it" at the very least
No doubt she is for legalizing I think. Id imagine just trying to not say too much until the time is right
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
I kind of think it's exactly the opposite way around--it should hurt her, but it won't (too minor of a point to blow up and it's not like truly comprehensive post-secondary education reform is a real possibility anyway). College diplomas today have effectively become the normal expectation for many careers, being today what high school diplomas used to be like 50 years ago. That being the case, college education should be something that everyone has access to without worrying about funding it, so that should be taken care of by having it be funded through taxes.

And thus, just like with high school, there shouldn't be an expectation of having to work during college in order to pay for it so that students can truly focus on giving their all to their education and not have to worry about dividing their attention between their jobs and their education. It's certainly possible to even work a full-time job while going to university full-time: many people do just that and that's admirable. But that shouldn't actually be required in any sense. If people do want to solely focus on their education, and give their all to their university classes, not worrying about dividing their efforts they should be able to do just that without any type of penalty. It's certainly possible to do both, but it shouldn't be required in any sense, and just like we don't require kids in high school to get jobs to fund their secondary education in any sense, we really should do the same for university education as it just makes sense to me that with that reduced stress by being able to fully focus on their education, it will produce better students, just like it does in secondary. Students should perhaps be commended if they to balance work and university at the same time, but it should by no means be an expectation or requirement, so I'm more with Sanders though.

Of course, it's a wash anyway because Sanders reforms probably don't have any chance of getting past Congress even if he wins, but regardless personally I didn't like Clinton's comment because it just sends the wrong message. Yes, it's fine and doable to both work and go to college at the same time, but people should be commended for pursuing post-secondary education to begin with and we should be making that as easy for them as possible, with as few hurdles. Requiring students to work might make the program have a better chance of passing Congress, but has no real benefits for the students themselves and instead is just another hurdle to overcome which ideally wouldn't be there so that students can devote as much of their attention to their classwork and studying as possible with as few other distractions, especially in the case of say medical and law students who have such severe workloads as it is that such a requirement is kinda nuts (again, some somehow do it even then, but that should by no means be an expectation ideally). But like I said, it's a wash since it's not something that has a chance of happening anyway, so it's not really something that ultimately matters either way I guess.
A full time job? Of course not, that's ridiculous and no-one should have that expectation. But 10-15 hours a week, especially if you are a recent high-school graduate and perhaps haven't had a job up until that point? I still hold that if 10-15 hours a week actually screws with your curriculars you are doing something wrong from a scheduling perspective. I worked 20-25 hours a week sophomore year on and still managed to get an engineering degree with a good GPA
 

Keby

Member
It's amazing the difference in how civil this debate has been compared to the republican debate.
It's absolutely staggering.
 

pigeon

Banned
I dunno, I think Hillary's done well and it might be enough to kill the primary if the people who were wavering remember that actually Hillary's pretty great. She had at least a few attack lines and she's generally been likeable. But she could've really owned the whole night and she let some balls drop.

Bernie's done well as well. Did he do enough to jump up and take on Hillary? I don't think so, but others might disagree. He's made his positions clear at least.

I think this one's gonna go to the judges (by which I mean the polls).
 
It is kind of fucked up that the other guys didn't even get asked about marijuana. Like, I get that they're gonna get less time than Bern and Hil, but they should at least get a few seconds on each question.
 

Cheebo

Banned
She should get high. Its damn easy to triangulate when you're all stoned.

So shes not yet for it, but she doesnt people to go to jail for it


oooook

why the heck did the hill waffle on the pot question, it's just a no brainer to say "decriminalize it" at the very least
not for the general election, it's like gay marriage and Obama in 2008. She doesn't care what sounds best in the primary she is focused on winning the general.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
They're giving so little time to not Hillary/Sanders I cant even remember who the fifth guy is.

I don't blame you, it's the first day of debates and your father probably died.
 

Foffy

Banned
It's only taboo for establishment politicians.

My point exactly. It's in a bubble, with no realness to it.

A full time job? Of course not, that's ridiculous and no-one should have that expectation. But 10-15 hours a week, especially if you are a recent high-school graduate and perhaps haven't had a job up until that point? I still hold that if 10-15 hours a week actually screws with your curriculars you are doing something wrong from a scheduling perspective. I worked 20-25 hours a week sophomore year on and still managed to get an engineering degree with a good GPA

Your bootstraps worked for you. Should it be imposed upon everyone else? Absolutely not. It continues the have/have not problem that's still a big problem in the college system.

I am appalled to see people settle for shit like this. It may not be unexpected, but it's tragic to see.
 
Regarding weed Hillary just picked the safe answer. No to recreational. Yes to medical and no to putting people in jail for low level and non-violence offenses. Can't really attack her on that I think and is likely where most people fall.

It was more of a maybe to recreational. But she did say we have states from which to learn, implying she's not gonna stop state efforts
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
I don't think it's a terrible idea for a Democratic politician to wait for a certain mass of states before coming out for recreational marijuana while also decriminalize or reclassifying marijuana on the federal level.

The didn't really state the latter half though. She said wait for the states without clarifying it is still 100% illegal federally.
 

A Fish Aficionado

I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
"medical marijuana" = going to a doc, paying a fee and getting a card.
Let's stop pretending.

This shit only panders to quacks.
 

Maengun1

Member
Love the passion, but sorry Bernie, but the House is out of reach. Just too gerrymandered for this next election.


IMO, the house is locked to the Rs until we get another R president. Sad, but that's the only thing that will get enough people to decide they don't like Republicans after all. Always a flip flop.

Senate is probably an easy pickup for the Dems next year though.
 
It is kind of fucked up that the other guys didn't even get asked about marijuana. Like, I get that they're gonna get less time than Bern and Hil, but they should at least get a few seconds on each question.

Chafee and Webb are literally polling at 0%. They shouldn't have even been invited.
 
Regarding weed Hillary just picked the safe answer. No to recreational. Yes to medical and no to putting people in jail for low level and non-violence offenses. Can't really attack her on that I think and is likely where most people fall. You still gotta work to get that recreational use with people I think.

why the heck did the hill waffle on the pot question, it's just a no brainer to say "decriminalize it" at the very least

i didn't like hillary's answer as much. if they admit it's a low level crime why can't they admit that it doesn't make sense for it to be a schedule 1 substance?
 
Hillary can say we should ban pot, and guess what happens? Pot will be banned. All the potheads and forum fighters on the web who care so much about pot and free college will be busy jerking off to photoshopped nude Emilia Clarke on Nov 8th, 2016 and then proceed to eat the leftover cheetos from 5 days ago without even washing their hands. Then the next day they will wake up and moan about the establishment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom