Support NeoGAF

[crisdecuba]

I made a highlight reel of what I found most entertaining (and likely influenced by this thread). I think my favorite line is: "What I'm most proud of... is I've had no scandals."

https://youtu.be/0kRK95i8Oq4

 

[ivysaur12]

There are a few Republicans would back some gun control bills in the Senate. You could do it if you had ~56 Democrats and plan on losing Donnelly and QUEEN Heitkamp.

 

[rex]

?? This country is positively paralyzed on what to do about our gun problem and I didn't see anything from Hillary tonight that strongly distinguished her position from what Sanders is offering. The only thing they really tried to beat him up for was for trying to see both sides of the gun debate rather than just unilaterally proposing tighter gun control. I don't think that's really going to work against him, at all.

Well guns are interesting because the candidates undergo a role reversal with hillary becoming the passionate idealist while bernie gets pragmatic.

i assume bernie has a very strong base of support so i think its more about missing opportunities to cut into her lead than being hurt per se.

I think he brings up a valid counterpoint but he needs to sharpen that answer.

 

[Soroc]

I made a highlight reel of what I found most entertaining (and likely influenced by this thread). I think my favorite line is: "What I'm most proud of... is I've had no scandals."

https://youtu.be/0kRK95i8Oq4

My favorite line came from the Rhode Island dude that commited political suicide on stage tonight. But before he did that he had some great hits like

"back in the late 1999's..."

 

[B-Dubs]

There are a few Republicans would back some gun control bills in the Senate. You could do it if you had ~56 Democrats and plan on losing Donnelly and QUEEN Heitkamp.

While this is true, more concessions would need to be made if they went this route. Either way requires retaking the House though.

 

[docbon]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/13/media/cnn-democratic-debate-live-stream-record/index.html

not bad for streaming numbers, though overall is expected to be lower due to obvious reasons.

 

[SolarPowered]

Closing the gun show loophole is like the bare minimum. Taking away gun manufacturers, and sellers, immunity would also go a long way towards helping as would allowing the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms to have a head and allowing the FDA to gather information on gun violence. There's a lot of stuff that the GOP dismantled under Bush that could be reinstated that would definitely help with our gun problems.

I'm actually kind of ignorant on the gun issue, so I'm sure that the coming conversations (online and on the national level) about it are going to be highly educational

Isn't that the truth lol

A presidential election is probably the best bet for getting it done though, what with turn out being so high.

Yeah, this is why I'm so big on voter representation issues. It sits among my top three issues alongside climate change and income inequality. A new Republican wave in the late 2020s or early 2030s is all it could take to dismantle everything Bernie/Hillary build to combat gun violence (and even Obamacare if they're crazy enough). I hope the country and the next couple of future presidents focus on voter's rights. Mandatory registration, computer/independently drawn districts, longer voting periods and out of control private donations need to be on the discussion table in the coming years.

 

[jersoc]

this is a huge ass thread. Is there anywhere to stream this? Was at work at the time.

 

[kaching]

Sanders on the socialist thing. It was not a good answer. His answer to "How will you deal with the socialism thing" was "I'll tell people what it is." Okay. So....you needed to do that. He didn't. He and some of his supporters keep punting that down the road a bit. This is one of the biggest issues against his candidacy. You had the stage. You had a chance to address it, and he punted.

He didn't answer the question directly, but you can hardly say he simply punted. He spent 2.5 hrs on the debate stage reiterating several of his central ideals through the course of it so he most certainly did tell people what socialism is, to him. It's not as if the mere recital of a dictionary definition was going to somehow clear the air for the vast majority of people who probably don't really know why they think socialism is a good or bad thing in the first place. There's no substitute for telling people where you stand on each of the issues when it comes to explaining your political stance, thus why bother trying to bottle it in a single, time-limited response when you've got an entire debate to lay it out.

 

[ErasureAcer]

As someone who thinks guns should be outright banned by everyone who is not a police officer in this country I support Bernie even though I disagree with him on that issue. Obviously, nothing will ever be done with the current lobby/finance rules we have in Washington. Bernie is for making drastic changes to those 2 issues which will in turn somewhere down the line (when I'm most likely dead) lead to some change in this country. Gun violence was not a problem created overnight and won't be solved by a single vote either. Bernie is for some reasonable measures regarding the rampant gun violence in this country through background checks, closing gunshow loopholes and creating a better database of those who should not own guns(violent individuals, mentally unstable people, etc..). Even with that passed this country will continue to have gun violence at an alarming rate as I don't see gun violence ending until guns are prohibited but people's lives will be saved who would otherwise be dead...will you be a life that was saved? Some better legislation needs to be passed and Bernie is for that.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

any decent highlight reels yet?

 

[B-Dubs]

this is a huge ass thread. Is there anywhere to stream this? Was at work at the time.

CNN usually does a replay a few hours after the actual debate, if you turn it on you might be able to catch it.

Here's a link to a youtube version though.

 

[Rentahamster]

Does anyone have a link to the part where Clinton gives it to Republicans? I can't find it on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/0kRK95i8Oq4?t=14m

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

Closing the gun show loophole is like the bare minimum. Taking away gun manufacturers, and sellers, immunity would also go a long way towards helping as would allowing the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms to have a head and allowing the FDA to gather information on gun violence. There's a lot of stuff that the GOP dismantled under Bush that could be reinstated that would definitely help with our gun problems.



Isn't that the truth lol

A presidential election is probably the best bet for getting it done though, what with turn out being so high.

Ok, I don't get this and maybe I'm missing something (I probably am), but why should gun manufacturers or sellers be held accountable by a buyer's action? Assuming everything is done as required by law, which presumably will, in the near future, require a background, mental check etc, why would the seller/manufacturer be responsible?

Say I get run over by a drunk driver driving a mustang, can I sue Ford? Or if I sell my car and the user kills somebody with it, can the victim's family sue me?

This part of the debate and policy is not making sense to me, and maybe I'm missing something, but if I'm not, then I can't say I agree with holding sellers/manufacturers responsible, assuming the sale was done as required by law.

 

[Michael F. Assbender]

I made a highlight reel of what I found most entertaining (and likely influenced by this thread). I think my favorite line is: "What I'm most proud of... is I've had no scandals."

https://youtu.be/0kRK95i8Oq4

So the part where Clinton is asked if she wants to respond to something Chafee said, and she just responds with "no." What happened there? What was he saying that she'd need to respond to and why'd she shut him down?

 

[benjipwns]

So the part where Clinton is asked if she wants to respond to something Chafee said, and she just responds with "no." What happened there? What was he saying that she'd need to respond to and why'd she shut him down?

CLINTON: But I'll be there. I'll answer their questions. But tonight, I want to talk not about my e-mails, but about what the American people want from the next president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: Senator Sanders?

SANDERS: Let me say this.

(APPLAUSE)

Let me say -- let me say something that may not be great politics. But I think the secretary is right, and that is that the American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Thank you. Me, too. Me, too.

SANDERS: You know? The middle class -- Anderson, and let me say something about the media, as well. I go around the country, talk to a whole lot of people. Middle class in this country is collapsing. We have 27 million people living in poverty. We have massive wealth and income inequality. Our trade policies have cost us millions of decent jobs. The American people want to know whether we're going to have a democracy or an oligarchy as a result of Citizens Union. Enough of the e-mails. Let's talk about the real issues facing America.

(APPLAUSE)

CLINTON: Thank you, Bernie. Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

COOPER: It's obviously very popular in this crowd, and it's -- hold on.

(APPLAUSE)

I know that plays well in this room. But I got to be honest, Governor Chafee, for the record, on the campaign trail, you've said a different thing. You said this is a huge issue. Standing here in front of Secretary Clinton, are you willing to say that to her face?

CHAFEE: Absolutely. We have to repair American credibility after we told the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which he didn't. So there's an issue of American credibility out there. So any time someone is running to be our leader, and a world leader, which the American president is, credibility is an issue out there with the world. And we have repair work to be done. I think we need someone that has the best in ethical standards as our next president. That's how I feel.

COOPER: Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond?

CLINTON: No.

COOPER: Governor -- Governor...

(APPLAUSE)

Governor O'Malley...

(APPLAUSE)

Governor, it's popular in the room, but a lot of people do want to know these answers.

Governor O'Malley, you expressed concern on the campaign trail that the Democratic Party is, and I quote, "being defined by Hillary Clinton's email scandal."

You heard her answer, do you still feel that way tonight?

O'MALLEY: I believe that now that we're finally having debates, Anderson, that we don't have to be defined by the email scandal, and how long -- what the FBI's asking about. Instead, we can talk about affordable college, making college debt free, and all the issues. Which is why -- and I see the chair of the DNC here, look how glad we are actually to be talking about the issues that matter the most to people around the kitchen table.

We need to get wages to go up, college more affordable...

COOPER: ...Thank you, governor.

O'MALLEY: ...we need to make American 100 percent clean electric by 2050.

COOPER: I want to talk about issues of race in America, for that I want to start of with Don Lemon.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1510/13/se.01.html

 

[Leona Lewis]

The ladies are fawning over O'Malley on my FB. Carcetti is about to goof on his wizzife.

Who can blame them?

Look at demguns.jpg

COOPER: I want to talk about issues of race in America, for that I want to start off with Don Lemon.

I felt bad for laughing.

 

[Log4Girlz]

Who can blame them?

Look at demguns.jpg

Two bear arms

 

[B-Dubs]

Ok, I don't get this and maybe I'm missing something (I probably am), but why should gun manufacturers or sellers be held accountable by a buyer's action? Assuming everything is done as required by law, which presumably will, in the near future, require a background, mental check etc, why would the seller/manufacturer be responsible?

Say I get run over by a drunk driver driving a mustang, can I sue Ford? Or if I sell my car and the user kills somebody with it, can the victim's family kill me?

This part of the debate and policy is not making sense to me, and maybe I'm missing something, but if I'm not, then I can't say I agree with holding sellers/manufacturers responsible, assuming the sale was done as required by law.

Guns are probably closer to cigarettes than cars in terms of metaphors. In addition sellers and manufacturers don't have the best record, back when we could keep such records, of keeping to the law. I remember hearing about an ATF bust every few months or so in the 90's, some gun seller selling on the black market or not doing a proper background check or abusing a loophole or whatever.

It's also about marketing and why some guns are made the way they are. If a gun is designed to be extra deadly and that's it's selling point, the people making it should probably be able to get sued if someone buys said gun to shoot up people with seeing as how the guy likely chose than gun because it was sold as extra deadly. It's like if Ford made a car and said it's the safest car to go drunk driving in, you'd absolutely be OK with suing them if someone drunk drove it and killed someone.

Keep in mind, the gun industry is the only industry in America that has this form of immunity. Cigarette manufacturers absolutely get sued for their products and what they do, they just have so much money that they hardly ever lose.

 

[benjipwns]

Keep in mind, the gun industry is the only industry in America that has this form of immunity. Cigarette manufacturers absolutely get sued for their products and what they do, they just have so much money that they hardly ever lose.

No, what the tobacco industry has is an agreement with 46 states that limit their liability from other people suing them over health effects in exchange for regular payments to the state governments.

 

[B-Dubs]

No, what the tobacco industry has is an agreement with 46 states that limit their liability from other people suing them over health effects in exchange for regular payments to the state governments.

Yes, but they don't have immunity. This also doesn't surprise me what with all the fuckery they have going on across the world.

 

[Jenov]

https://youtu.be/0kRK95i8Oq4?t=14m

That was an awesome answer.

I thought the debate in general leaned more in Hillary's favor, but Bernie was no slouch, he did really great. You could really hear the passion in his voice, and his conviction. Very admirable in his honesty too. I did not like his gun policy at all however, and I'm not convinced he would actually be able to pass any of these big progressive promises he's touting. Hillary came across as more grounded and realistic in her approach to legislation, and more willing to play hard ball with republicans.

 

[The Chosen One]

The ladies are fawning over O'Malley on my FB. Carcetti is about to goof on his wizzife.

Am I the only one bothered that The Wire was basically written about the time he was in office running Baltimore? And the whole series is about how Baltimore (and similar cities) are completely phucked up. So why are we trying to elect Royce/Carcetti as President of the United States? Have we not learned anything from Mcnutty?

 

[B-Dubs]

Am I the only one bothered that The Wire was basically written about the time he was in office running Baltimore? And the whole series is about how Baltimore (and similar cities) are completely phucked up. So why are we trying to elect Royce/Carcetti as President of the United States?

He's not going to crack 15%.

Keep in mind most people won't make that connection anyway.

 

[davepoobond]

I think everyone did great except chafee. He looked like a big idiot with a lot of the things he was saying and his accomplishments are awful.

Omalley was making a lot of good points but the Maryland/Baltimore stamp makes me iffy on him.

Webb wasn't that bad, he definitely seems like a center candidate and may appeal to republican moderates even.

Sanders and Clinton did pretty well

 

[Bad_Boy]

CNN usually does a replay a few hours after the actual debate, if you turn it on you might be able to catch it.

Here's a link to a youtube version though.

Not that i'm complaining. But is there an HD link anywhere? Blowing this 360p on my tv is somewhat lacking...

Appreciate the link if not though.

 

[ivysaur12]

While this is true, more concessions would need to be made if they went this route. Either way requires retaking the House though.

Of course, yes, but it's unlikely that there will ever be ~60 D votes in the Senate to make a drastic, one time change anytime in the near future. There are 25 D-leaning states, and people like McCaskill, Heitkamp, Manchin, Donnelly, and Tester will dwindle in numbers as time goes on. And some of them may not even vote for gun control legislation. Incremental change with smaller concessions is much more likely in the small term, but it's entirely realistic.

But yes, you need the House.

 

[benjipwns]

Yes, but they don't have immunity. This also doesn't surprise me what with all the fuckery they have going on across the world.

You, as an individual, basically can't sue tobacco manufacturers in the United States for health effects from their products. You have to sue them on consumer fraud/protection lines, which can be near impossible to prove.

The MSA also can be seen as effectively turning the major tobacco companies into a state-protected cartel.

One reason the states are going after e-cigarettes, they don't fall under the MSA, and that's lost revenue in the bonds the states took out based on the MSA payments.

 

[Dixon's Jet]

Ok, I don't get this and maybe I'm missing something (I probably am), but why should gun manufacturers or sellers be held accountable by a buyer's action? Assuming everything is done as required by law, which presumably will, in the near future, require a background, mental check etc, why would the seller/manufacturer be responsible?

Say I get run over by a drunk driver driving a mustang, can I sue Ford? Or if I sell my car and the user kills somebody with it, can the victim's family sue me?

This part of the debate and policy is not making sense to me, and maybe I'm missing something, but if I'm not, then I can't say I agree with holding sellers/manufacturers responsible, assuming the sale was done as required by law.

Holding the manufacturers responsible would give them a huge reason to aid in public safety. Guns are a special case, they aren't like cars. Most people don't need guns as they do cars.

 

[benjipwns]

Am I the only one bothered that The Wire was basically written about the time he was in office running Baltimore? And the whole series is about how Baltimore (and similar cities) are completely phucked up. So why are we trying to elect Royce/Carcetti as President of the United States? Have we not learned anything from Mcnutty?

Carcetti is only partly based on O'Malley according to Simon.

Like the part where he setup and backed that black council member to run and thus split the black vote and get himself elected.

Carcetti's probably a better potential President than O'Malley.

 

[B-Dubs]

You, as an individual, basically can't sue tobacco manufacturers in the United States for health effects from their products. You have to sue them on consumer fraud/protection lines, which can be near impossible to prove.

The MSA also can be seen as effectively turning the major tobacco companies into a state-protected cartel.

One reason the states are going after e-cigarettes, they don't fall under the MSA, and that's lost revenue in the bonds the states took out based on the MSA payments.

This I already know, looking back on the earlier post I just used the wrong words to describe my point.

Carcetti is only partly based on O'Malley according to Simon.

Like the part where he setup and backed that black council member to run and thus split the black vote and get himself elected.

Carcetti's probably a better potential President than O'Malley.

He'd be more likely to get elected too.

 

[benjipwns]

The federal legislation that limits gun makers liability was in response to a number of states using the MSA as a model to sue gun makers. I think it was California, Alaska and New York that were the three that were just about to head to court when Congress saved the day.

 

[McBryBry]

I was surprised with O'Malley. His finishing piece was really good as well. He hasn't gotten me off the Bern Train, but I've got my eye on him.

Webb has balls for being on that stage. Props to him for debating with a party who is less likely to like him, but in turn is no longer siding with psychopaths.

Edit: r/politics is covered in Bernie articles. Dunno if they're all mostly his supporters, or if that's a sign. But some sites are saying he won.

Edit2: Welp, two posts below me show he's not the only one being called a winner lol

 

[YoungHav]

Am I the only one bothered that The Wire was basically written about the time he was in office running Baltimore? And the whole series is about how Baltimore (and similar cities) are completely phucked up. So why are we trying to elect Royce/Carcetti as President of the United States? Have we not learned anything from Mcnutty?

Wire S4/5 spoilers:

Spoiler

LOL Exactly. I dunno if it was Wire bias (I only caught the last 40m of the debate) but Carcetti came off fake as hell to me. He was acting like a wannabe TV actor and seemed a lil douchey. Someone in the debate audience should have had a "Justice for Dookie" sign.

 

[benjipwns]

Hillary Clinton towers over her debate rivals

Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley was preachy and self-righteous.

Former Virginia senator Jim Webb kept complaining that he wasn’t getting enough time to talk.

Former Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee was more quirky spectator than participant.

And Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont shouted as if he were unaware that he had a microphone.

Then there was Clinton, fluid, steady and calm.

,,,

She was, in short, a man among boys. And that’s why the debate was so important to Clinton. She may have had a rough time as the Democrats’ presidential front-runner, but her advantages in experience and composure were clear when she shared a stage with her rivals for the first time. Vice President Biden, if he was still pondering a run while watching the debate on television, would find the rationale for his candidacy diminishing.

A month ago she was in “free fall” and “plunging” in the polls, giving those who watched her campaign collapse in 2008 a sense of déjà vu. Sanders was closing in, the draft-Biden movement was in full force, and Republicans were giddy with anticipation of her upcoming grilling by the House Benghazi committee.

But a mass shooting in Oregon put the gun-friendly Sanders on the defensive. The Obama administration’s completion of a Pacific trade deal, deeply unpopular on the left, puts Biden on the wrong side of the Democratic electorate on an issue that should be prominent in the headlines over the coming months. And the House Benghazi panel has been discredited by Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s incautious admission that the committee was created to damage Clinton politically. Now polls show Clinton recovering and expanding her lead — and if the Tuesday debate is any indication, this will likely continue.

Sanders, her nearest rival in the polls, gesticulated wildly through the night and shouted in his Brooklyn accent about the wrongs of millionayuhs and billionayuhs.

Cooper captured the problem with the Sanders candidacy when he said: “The Republican attack ad against you in a general election — it writes itself. You supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. You honeymooned in the Soviet Union. And just this weekend, you said you’re not a capitalist.”

Sanders did not help himself by talking about the economic example of Denmark and proclaiming that he’s “going to win because we’re going to explain what Democratic socialism is.”

Replied Clinton: “We are not Denmark. . . . We are the United States of America. And it’s our job to rein in the excesses of capitalism so that it doesn’t run amok and doesn’t cause the kind of inequities we’re seeing in our economic system. But we would be making a grave mistake to turn our backs on what built the greatest middle class in the history of the world.”

He defended socialism; she defended the middle class. Sanders, and the other men on the stage, didn’t look presidential; she did.

Clinton crushes it

Clinton also did plenty for herself. She moved with relative ease from swipes against her Democratic rivals to more direct attacks on Republicans. And she succinctly summarized her candidacy when pressed about some of her shifting positions about whether she is a moderate or a liberal.

“I’m a progressive. But I’m a progressive who likes to get things done,” Clinton declared.

...

But Clinton also managed to get in some sharp jabs at her surging rival. The memorable moment of kind sentiment between Sanders and Clinton came after she had ripped into him in the opening minutes of the debate, going straight after Sanders for his position on guns, one of the few issues in which the democratic socialist is out of step with the Democratic base.

When Sanders was pressed by CNN moderator Anderson Cooper on his position, he cited his current “D minus” rating from the National Rifle Association. However, the Vermont senator has a mixed record on guns, in part a reflection of his constituency — his state prides itself on a deep hunting and gun culture. Sanders voted against the Brady Bill, but voted for an assault weapons ban, and voted to allow firearms on Amtrak, while voting for universal background checks.

Asked if Sanders' stance was hard enough on the gun lobby, Clinton replied tartly, “No, not at all.”

That wasn’t the only issue on which she went after Sanders, who has surged in the polls, particularly in New Hampshire. She criticized him for his refusal to embrace capitalism and his holding up of European socialism as a model for America, particularly his embrace of Denmark.

 

[UnObtainium17]

Your face when you did some stupid shit and it was your sibling who took the whooping.

 

[Amir0x]

That was an awesome answer.

Fantastic answer really. She was on point this debate, I'll give her that. She was biding her time and made it count. we'll see how future polls look.

Bernie as always have no shot, but I love hearing him talk about his dreams. Dreams are good and he dreams about the best policies.

 

[User 463088]

He didn't answer the question directly, but you can hardly say he simply punted. He spent 2.5 hrs on the debate stage reiterating several of his central ideals through the course of it so he most certainly did tell people what socialism is, to him. It's not as if the mere recital of a dictionary definition was going to somehow clear the air for the vast majority of people who probably don't really know why they think socialism is a good or bad thing in the first place. There's no substitute for telling people where you stand on each of the issues when it comes to explaining your political stance, thus why bother trying to bottle it in a single, time-limited response when you've got an entire debate to lay it out.

He punted on the issue, and Hillary got some good swipes in with her "We're not Denmark." The socialist label is a problem. He said that he would defend himself by telling people what a Democratic Socialist is. Then he went with Denmark. He didn't hit back when Hillary went after the issue.

Yes, he outlined his plans, but they are not in any sense far removed from what Hillary or O'Malley would propose. Hillary is now on the record against him as being for small business and the American entrepreneurial spirit. We may think these things are cliche, but they're wildly popular with the electorate. Debate listeners will hear Sanders say he's a socialist. They'll hear that he went on his honeymoon in the USSR. He's not a capitalist. It will be a problem for him. He never one time tried to tie back his position on issues to the fact that he's a Democratic Socialist. If it's a label he wants to run with, he had an opportunity, in front of the nation, to explain why his brand of socialism isn't scary. He didn't do it. He just said that he'd explain it all to us later.

 

[davepoobond]

He punted on the issue, and Hillary got some good swipes in with her "We're not Denmark." The socialist label is a problem. He said that he would defend himself by telling people what a Democratic Socialist is. Then he went with Denmark. He didn't hit back when Hillary went after the issue.

Yes, he outlined his plans, but they are not in any sense far removed from what Hillary or O'Malley would propose. Hillary is now on the record against him as being for small business and the American entrepreneurial spirit. We may think these things are cliche, but they're wildly popular with the electorate. Debate listeners will hear Sanders say he's a socialist. They'll hear that he went on his honeymoon in the USSR. He's not a capitalist. It will be a problem for him. He never one time tried to tie back his position on issues to the fact that he's a Democratic Socialist. If it's a label he wants to run with, he had an opportunity, in front of the nation, to explain why his brand of socialism isn't scary. He didn't do it. He just said that he'd explain it all to us later.

i agree that he didnt follow through on making that connection, but i dont think he was really trying to in this platform. whether that is a mistake or not, i'd probably say it was a mistake.

he basically gave a big boon to hillary, but i also think he showed people more specifically about what he is about.

 

[OuterLimits]

Hearing a sane presidential debate was..... kind of therapeutic after sitting through those two circus shows led by Trump.

Bernie did as well as I thought he would but Hillary is clearly the better performer.

O' Malley smells like a VP and I think he knows it.

I hope they bring Webb back. He's like an adorable bulldog.

O'Malley would be a terrible VP choice I think. What does he bring to the ticket? Maryland is a lock for Democrats, so he doesn't really help at all. Plus he only had a 40% approval rating near the end of his term. Hell, a Republican is governor of Maryland now after 8 years of O'Malley despite a 2-1 advantage for registered Democrats.

 

[Rootbeer]

Young Turks loving that Bern, proclaims him the winner.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYOBAwPRv90

 

[Cromat]

Serious question: what's so bad about Hillary? I get that she's part of the establishment. But purely from an experience and knowledge point of you it's clear that she's the most qualified. Why is everyone so unhappy with her?

 

[YoungHav]

Serious question: what's so bad about Hillary? I get that she's part of the establishment. But purely from an experience and knowledge point of you it's clear that she's the most qualified. Why is everyone so unhappy with her?

She comes off as disingenuous and she is piggybacking off leftist causes when her record shows she's not bout it bout it. For example, why should I trust her on prison reform and doing something about police when she's accepted donations from top 2 private for-profit prison companies?

 

[LOCK]

Everyone did good but Hilary won. All of your analyses on this page are exactly right.

It's funny how different the debates are between the Democrates and Republicans.

 

[titiklabingapat]

Serious question: what's so bad about Hillary? I get that she's part of the establishment. But purely from an experience and knowledge point of you it's clear that she's the most qualified. Why is everyone so unhappy with her?

Apparently she is the Walmart candidate.

 

[benjipwns]

Serious question: what's so bad about Hillary? I get that she's part of the establishment. But purely from an experience and knowledge point of you it's clear that she's the most qualified. Why is everyone so unhappy with her?

Aside from the mentioned, there's also the inevitability factor.

People make fun of the GOP primary, but look at all the options still, and that's with two "BIG" names having dropped out. Trump and Carson have come out of nowhere. The INEVITIABLE Jeb! or Christie can barely keep their heads above water. Carly got a little boost, Rubio's having one.

Meanwhile on the Democratic side you've got Hillary...and a fantasy candidate in Sanders. There's no thrill. Even in 2008 you had Edwards hanging around competitively, maybe Gore gets in?!?, Obama surging!, etc.

It's just kinda boring. And she's kinda boring.

 

[Funky Papa]

Take it and run, my children.

 

[KimiNewt]

Jesus, the audience in there is insufferable. Shut up and let them talk.

 

[Future PhaZe]

I thought Hillary was pretty vanilla. I think young voters who didn't know much about Bernie had to be excited about some of the policies that he outlined.

I'm concerned at how moderate she's coming across this early. Really concerned honestly.

 

[Funky Papa]