• 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 Primary Debate V

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hylianhero777

Member
That "no" coupled with the genuine smile and real show of respect was the most likable thing Hillary has done tonight, perhaps in her entire 2016 run.
 
U

ugaboga232

Member
shinra-bansho said:
I mean under threats to global stability and consequently the US, the Defense Secretary is probably right in Russia's flouting of international law. Iran is a greater threat to global stability already touched upon. The brinksmanship in the East/South China Sea is probably considered a greater threat.

I guess one could argue there isn't currently a direct tangible threat, in which case the question was kind of broken.
Click to expand...

I think Iran is not as much of an instigator that people think but I am probably biased in trying to think the place of my family's heritage isn't the worst country just a bad one (fun fact they have a legal organ market which I find hilariously weird). I agree with your last statement on how the question was a bit poorly stated.
 
G

Grover

Banned
ezrarh said:
What does it say about the enthusiasm for her if she beat Bernie by <1% in Iowa with over 100k less voters than in 2008.
Click to expand...

its not the general yet

in the general it will be like "woman one step away from US presidency"

i think it will get people to sit up and go "wait what?"
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Prodigal Son said:
The issue is about trust. Bernie, like or hate his ideas, is widely considered the more genuine and likable of the two.

My opinion: Hillary uses disingenuous arguments consistently. Her acting like she'll take on Wall Street is hilarious. It's also ridiculous when she repeatedly insists that Bernie's plan would put the affordable care act in jeopardy, regardless of how many times he explicitly states that simply isn't true.
Click to expand...
Bernie himself said that he will dismantle Obamacare and start with a new universal healthcare program. WaPo gave him two Pinnocchios
But the language of his legislation — all three times he introduced it — clearly stated that existing federal programs would be replaced with a new program that he sought to create. It wouldn’t simply increase current levels of coverage but would create a whole new health insurance system with new quality-control methods, a new standards board, and more.
Click to expand...
 
A

Abinash117

Member
ugaboga232 said:
The question was national security, not the US world order. Saudi Arabia is doing some shady shit in Yemen and no one cares similar to the ukraine thing (plus the funding of syria crap). Russia has a lot of bark (ukraine is not exactly a Germany or anything) but domestically they are in deep shit.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about "world order" the question was is a who bigger threat to the US. You literally didn't even counter the argument what Russia actually did. Just because you say no one cares about Ukraine doesn't mean no cares. So trying to say that a country that stole territory, started a civil war, and is conducting military actions in Syria that is challenging the US is somehow less of a threat to a country that has a worse economy, can't barely feed it's people, and is mostly isolated from the rest of the world is crazy.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
The answer HRC gave about "money doesn't mean corruption!" and then went "Koch Koch Koch!"...the GOP must be cheering.
 
N

NullPointer

Member
Grover said:
its not the general yet

in the general it will be like "woman one step away from US presidency"
Click to expand...
Yep.I don't think we'll see a problem with enthusiasm in the general. Especially if Hillary makes some kind of movement to satisfy some of the misgivings with Wall Street from the Bernie side. She's got room.
 
E

eBay Huckster

Member
This is a very late response.

nib95 said:
Again, you are obfuscating and digressing. There are many benefits to breaking up the banks that I've briefly listed in my two posts now. Regulation is a separate issue altogether, and I did mention that the smaller the institute, the easier it would be to regulate. Breaking up the banks is just one of the many changes that would improve the current situation, improving and making stricter regulations is another. They would both need to be implemented for maximum effectiveness.
Click to expand...

Per Mark Thoma in 2009 (citing Bernanke, Stiglitz, King, et al):

Ben Bernanke said:
Asked for his thoughts on Bank of England Gov. Mervyn King&#8217;s recent speech that advocated breaking up banks that were so large that their failure would represent a risk to the broader financial system, Bernanke said that making banks smaller would not necessarily be the solution to the problem. Smaller banks can also play important roles in financial systems, he said. He noted that during the 1930s, the U.S. didn&#8217;t have too many large bank failures, but the country suffered thousands of failures of smaller banks that added to the woes of the Great Depression.
Click to expand...

Mark Thoma said:
It is not at all clear to me that breaking large banks into smaller pieces addresses the connectedness issue. Smaller banks can be just as interconnected as larger banks, and hence simply breaking banks up without examining the effect it has on the underlying financial network connections may not reduce systemic risk.

[...]

I think limiting connectedness and limiting leverage ratios are both essential elements of reform. There will always be vulnerabilities, even in a system that has only small financial institutions, and we may not be able to identify the vulnerabilities in time.

[...] Shocks are going to happen. Limiting connectedness and leverage ratios for both big and small firms (along with regulation on what types of activities they can engage in, which addresses an aspect of connectedness) will reduce the magnitude of the damage to the financial system and the broader economy that those inevitable shocks are able to bring about.
Click to expand...

These things were largely implemented in Dodd-Frank. Clinton is campaigning on restoring Section 716 to that Act in order to give its derivatives regulation more teeth.

If I'm obfuscating and digressing, it's because it's not necessarily clear that breaking up the banks is actually necessary to materially improve the current situation to the point that a shock would not lead to as deep a recession.
 
A

ApharmdX

Banned
Condom said:
She is pretty charismatic...It's just that she isn't that believable.
Click to expand...

She's not even the most charismatic presidential candidate named "Clinton" in her marriage, lol.

That's not really fair because Bill has great presence. But no, I don't think she's particularly charismatic(or trustworthy). Hillary needs to work on being more relaxed. She's improved since 2008 however.
 
K

kirblar

Member
Death penalty stats-
4-16-2015_01.png
Click to expand...
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
I disagree with her on the death penalty, but say the same thing I said about gay rights in the 90s: this is going to be an issue that'll likely be addressed in the judiciary. The candidate won't be able to do much, but his/her judicial nominees will do the heavy lifting.
 
S

SolarPowered

Member
I don't find Hillary's support on the death penalty controversial. She believes it's a penalty that should only be applied in the absolute worst cases. Unfortunately just allowing it will permit it's abuse (especially from a racial perspective) in certain states.

Bernie's answer regarding how race can have an impact on state sanctioned killing is good and in my heart I have to go with Bernie's answer. Outlawing it altogether is the best way to go.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
loki 16 said:
Dude, Obamacare will continue to exist until his healthcare plan passes. He is not going to remove obamacare.
Click to expand...

That's the crux of the problem. Obamacare is Obama's legacy which he fought tooth and nail to pass through his own majority Congress. To say you will remove Obamacare is taking away his legacy, and that will hurt Obama, his supporters and just plays badly with Obama's supporters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
[TNYT] Brazil Blocks X After Musk Ignores Court Orders
Social News Community 2
69
4K
ManaByte replied
Microsoft against cyber crime
0
647
nikolino840 replied
Coronavirus is forcing Florida-based cruise lines to face the consequences of their shady business practices
20
2K
haxan7 replied
CNN Healthcare Debate Townhall |OT| Graham,Cassidy vs Bernie, Klobuchar 9/25 9pm ET
2 3 4 5
240
29K
Inuhanyou replied
Jimmy Carter Reveals He Voted for Bernie Sanders In Democratic Primary
2 3 4
163
17K
Autodidact replied
Top Bottom