2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

The Randy Riverbeast

Amerika wrote: »

****** Snoozeapalloza warning! *******

Yup, the first Democratic debate is tonight. Gear yourselves for the swinging at softballs and seeing candidates agreeing with each other, ad nauseam.

So it is just like every single other party debate? Obviously they mostly agree with each other, if they didn't they would be in the other party.

Zascar

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gops-scariest-candidate/2015/10/12/370444f2-710d-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html

The craziest thing about the Republican presidential contest isn’t that Donald Trump is in the lead. It’s that Dr. Ben Carson — who truly seems to have lost his mind — is in second place and gaining fast.

Trump may be a blowhard, but Carson has proved himself to be a crackpot of the first order. Of all the GOP contenders, he’s the scariest.

See the first Reddit quote - bloody terrifying https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/3oktig/the_craziest_thing_about_the_republican

Amerika

So, the CNN host Anderson Cooper, and moderator for tonight's Democratic debate, was a member of the Clinton Global Initiative, and helped Hillary Clinton raise money.

I guess that’s what Democrats now classify as “impartial.” I’m pretty confident Debbie Wasserman Shultz (Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, and former Hillary Clinton national campaign co-chairs) would.

Why not just cancel the Democratic debates and go ahead with the Clinton coronation?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Yes Carson is inartful at times, and gave the media ammunition to go all Nazipalooza this past week. But we’ve lost sight of the real point Carson was making... Why deny those brave enough to resist the opportunity to do so? The main point, which has buried to media scorn, is not if an armed people can overthrow a tyrannical government, but rather, does the government get to deny them the chance to try?

In 1939 the Wehrmacht rolled over France, Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands etc.. The Jews owning glochs would have saved them?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Would not the responsibility for bringing up those issues have fallen to the moderators, if they indeed were germane to the GOP campaign for POTUS?

No. That's no the moderators job, nor should it be. I know sometimes moderators of debates over reach and guide the debate too much, but it's up to the candidates to raise issues IMO.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

In 1939 the Wehrmacht rolled over France, Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Netherlands etc.. The Jews owning glochs would have saved them?

Maybe not. But think what the effect would have been if the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (with guns in hand), was simultaneously performed all across Germany and Nazi occupied Europe. It surely wouldn’t have been kept secret from the German people, and would have required scarce military resources from the war effort to a point where the German government might have taken a different approach, such as deportation.

Jewish communities were always tight-knit and lived in concentrated areas. It would not have been a Jewish family here and there having a gun or two. The Holocaust was successful mostly because it was out of sight and out of mind of the German people, and because the Jews had no way to fight back. But again, there is no way to know for sure. Although one can look at the formation of Israel after the war to get some idea of what is possible. In the early days of modern Israel there should have been no way they could have beaten the powerful military armies of several Arab countries with the mixed bag of small arms and no air power. They even had to make their own bullets out of lipstick cases. Yet they did survive because they fought back with the little they had.

But again, that is the sidebar to the point Carson was making, which was... Why deny those brave enough to resist, the opportunity to do so?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

No. That's no the moderators job, nor should it be. I know sometimes moderators of debates over reach and guide the debate too much, but it's up to the candidates to raise issues IMO.

No it's not. It's the job of the moderator to ask questions, and bring up issues, that are important to the people, and obtain answers so the people are better informed on the issues.

The Randy Riverbeast

Amerika wrote: »

No it's not. It's the job of the moderator to ask questions, and bring up issues, that are important to the people, and obtain answers so the people are better informed on the issues.

I hope they ask the real questions like the fox debate, if they hear voices. And don't forget the veterans.

Amerika

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

So it is just like every single other party debate? Obviously they mostly agree with each other, if they didn't they would be in the other party.

Did you see the last two GOP debates? The claws came out and were on display. And there were a few attacks from some of the candidates against each other. I doubt you will see anything near the exchange between Fiorina and Trump at the Dem's debate. Kumbaya will be the order of tonight's faux debate IMO.

Amerika

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

I hope they ask the real questions like the fox debate, if they hear voices. And don't forget the veterans.

I was disappointed in the first GOP debate. The moderators of Fox News focused more on a Trump pile-on, for ratings, rather than the important issues and differences between candidates. CNN did a better job in the second debate, but not much.

K-9

Amerika wrote: »

Maybe not. But think what the effect would have been if the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (with guns in hand), was simultaneously performed all across Germany and Nazi occupied Europe. It surely wouldn’t have been kept secret from the German people, and would have required scarce military resources from the war effort to a point where the German government might have taken a different approach, such as deportation.

Jewish communities were always tight-knit and lived in concentrated areas. It would not have been a Jewish family here and there having a gun or two. The Holocaust was successful mostly because it was out of sight and out of mind of the German people, and because the Jews had no way to fight back. But again, there is no way to know for sure. Although one can look at the formation of Israel after the war to get some idea of what is possible. In the early days of modern Israel there should have been no way they could have beaten the powerful military armies of several Arab countries with the mixed bag of small arms and no air power. They even had to make their own bullets out of lipstick cases. Yet they did survive because they fought back with the little they had.

But again, that is the sidebar to the point Carson was making, which was... Why deny those brave enough to resist, the opportunity to do so?

The Nazis had so successfully brainwashed the majority of German people for a good few years at that stage, that I seriously doubt any improbable public reaction would have made a blind bit of difference. if anything, an armed insurrection would have made it worse as the level of hatred towards them is so hard to believe in this day and age.

Just a side note but it's very hard to make a case in that scenario without an appreciation of just how much the Nazi's had succeeded in making Jews outcasts and scapegoats.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

The Nazis had so successfully brainwashed the majority of German people for a good few years at that stage, that I seriously doubt any improbable public reaction would have made a blind bit of difference. if anything, an armed insurrection would have made it worse as the level of hatred towards them is so hard to believe in this day and age.

Just a side note but it's very hard to make a case in that scenario without an appreciation of just how much the Nazi's had succeeded in making Jews outcasts and scapegoats.

How could it have been any worse?

Bloodshed spilling out into the streets of regular communities might have made the difference. Yes, the Nazi's succeeded in making Jews outcasts and scapegoats, but the German people believed they were being taken away for relocation, not to gas chambers.

Zascar

I'm looking forward to the debates I think I'll stay up. I believe they start at 12.30 irish time. Does anyone know if you'll be able to watch the livestrream from cnn.com?

Amazingfun

I am watching a stream....not Cnn

And it's as horrible an experience I imagined it would be. Chutzpah, Thy Name is Hilary!

banquo

Hillary won this debate. Not a Hillary supporter in general, but she killed it in the first half hour (before all the passive supporters tuned out), she got in enough great lines for her (just phenomenal) social media campaign and clips for news shows to run, so short of her setting he lectern on fire I think she'll win the post-debate speculation.

Sanders got some good lines that'll be shared around too, obviously the email line will do well.

Also, Anderson. Either let Webb speak or don't, but none of this in-between bulls**t.

kaftan

Hillary won in a landslide. Bernie is the Democratic Trump, populist but unelectable. It's a Hillary coronation.

Amazingfun

Hillary won this debate.

:pac: what a statement.

And just for kicks, The Drudge Report poll results places her second last, lol.

Not that it matters, I thought them all awful, but special points to O'Malley for having the creepiest voice.

If I had to choose any of them, it would be Webb.

RobertKK

Hillary Clinton did not win that.

I watched it and thought she was poor.

Webb did better than Clinton, I don't agree with everything Sanders says but he came across as the strongest in what he believed.

Sanders
Webb
Clinton
Then one can fight over the irrelevance that are both O'Malley and Chafe.

MightyMandarin

I didn't watch it but the Guardian seem to be claiming that Hillary won, Sanders stumbled on gun control and Jim Webb was furious at his lack of airtime.

From the clips I saw, Hillary seemed to play the typical soundbite crap, especially when she said to Sanders 'this isn't Denmark, this is America'. I heard absolutely nothing of substance from her with regards to solving inequality.

I also didn't like how Sanders used the excuse of 'Vermont is a rural state, so I had to vote against gun control'. It just sounded pretty lame.

Thargor

Amerika wrote: »

How could it have been any worse?

Bloodshed spilling out into the streets of regular communities might have made the difference. Yes, the Nazi's succeeded in making Jews outcasts and scapegoats, but the German people believed they were being taken away for relocation, not to gas chambers.

The pro-guns argument that if the European Jews had weapons they would have survived the holocaust is probably one of the stupidest arguments Ive ever heard in this forum and thats really saying something.

Look at the numbers, even if every Jew of fighting age in each country had been trained and equipped to the standard of modern marines it wouldn't have made a shred of difference, the Blitzkrieg was rolling over entire armies and countries in a matter of days at the time.

The fact that you would give your support to candidates that actually come out with this stupidity to the point that you'd defend them online is embarrassing.

Black Swan

Hillary Clinton generally appeared near the centre of the American political spectrum, while Sanders appeared a progressive during debate. The other parties to the meeting were of no consequence in terms of the race for the Democrat nomination for president 2016.

It may be too late for Biden to enter the race, given that he looks too undecided and not committed to win, missing such opportunities as these presidential debates.

Hillary now prepares for her testimony before Congress regarding the email controversy. This congressional investigation obviously initiated by the Republican controlled Congress appears very GOP-biased at this stage, as well as evidencing a double standard. Why? Methinks that ALL members of Congress have used private emails to discuss government business in the past, without exception (including 2008 GOP VP nominee Sarah Palin, and 2016 GOP presidential candidate Jeb Bush), the only major difference being that they were Republicans and not Democrats.

PressRun

I liked some of what Sanders had to say, but he's clearly out of his depth on foreign affairs. He didn't appear to have any real opinions on anything outside American borders. His stance on gun control and why he voted against a bill that would have imposed mandatory background checks was lame too. He came into his own on issues of economy and public services though, and seemed more comfortable talking about this.

Clinton appeared the far more polished and, frankly, more electable of the two, however. She's a confident speaker and a skilled debater. She knows exactly what works on television and provided good, quotable answers a few times. I think many democrats are going to come away thinking she is the best candidate to take on the republicans in a presidential debate.

O'Malley appears to have his eye on a possible vice president job, to me. His closing speech was very much focused on why the democrats are the best people for the job, rather than himself specifically.

At the moment, I don't think Clinton has too much to fear. What should be most troubling for her is if Joe Biden decides to throw his hat in the ring. I think Biden would have wiped the floor with the lot of them there last night, and I think he would be in with a really, really good shot of winning it outright if he put himself forward.

Magnate

The obvious media bias is sickening.



Bernie appeared a little shaky on some subjects like gun control, but I was still overall very happy with how it went. Actually I think his stance on gun control is the best out of all the candidates, I just feel he could've articulated it a lot better. As a democrat coming from a gun friendly state like Vermont, he perfectly balances the needs of both sides. It seems like his opponents are trying to twist his words when really his stance has been pretty clear from the start. He's all for increased background checks, closing gun show loopholes, and limiting magazine sizes while at the same time preventing manufacturers from being prosecuted in most cases. I don't think gun control is a black and white subject, and adopting a Yes/No stance seems like a pretty lazy approach. His views couldn't be any clearer - http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

Also, "Congress doesn’t regulate Wall Street; Wall Street regulates congress." - Best line of the night IMO.


Edit: oh wow, it gets better...

https://twitter.com/limjucas/status/654264827913879552

eire4

I did watch the debate last night and I thought Sanders won it as well and must say I was surprised when I saw today most media outlets saying Clinton won it.

Magnate

eire4 wrote: »

I did watch the debate last night and I thought Sanders won it as well and must say I was surprised when I saw today most media outlets saying Clinton won it.

It really annoys me. You know it's not a fair fight when CNN (owned by Time Warner, one of Clinton's biggest donors) comes out with headlines like these despite the fact that both their polls AND their own focus group clearly paint Bernie as the winner. Why isn't the bias being talked about?

If there was one reason to vote for Bernie it's this, we need to get the influence of big money out of politics. Forget his views, you shouldn't be able to buy your nomination.

We're just going to end up seeing people voting for Hillary just because she has the "biggest chance" of winning, when really the average Joe is making this assumption solely based on what the headlines say.

Wompa1

I would have put Hillary third!

1.) Bernie Sanders
2.) Martin O'Malley
3.) Hillary Clinton

Bernie stuck to his message which might hurt him a little bit but he was decisive about everything. Hillary minced her words a lot and was not as decisive, what she was decisive on showed her to be non-progressive.

Bernie was charming. He was nodding his head in approval a lot. You could read him like a book. When Hillary would rave about some crap himself and O'Malley would wince and raise their hands. Bernie patted Webb on the back at one point. One other time after Webb was talking, it seemed like Bernie wanted to actually compliment him but Anderson Cooper cut him off and made him answer the next question.

eire4

Magnate wrote: »

It really annoys me. You know it's not a fair fight when CNN (owned by Time Warner, one of Clinton's biggest donors) comes out with headlines like these despite the fact that both their polls AND their own focus group clearly paint Bernie as the winner. Why isn't the bias being talked about?

If there was one reason to vote for Bernie it's this, we need to get the influence of big money out of politics. Forget his views, you shouldn't be able to buy your nomination.

We're just going to end up seeing people voting for Hillary just because she has the "biggest chance" of winning, when really the average Joe is making this assumption solely based on what the headlines say.

There is a lot to what you say there sadly. It is very sad how so many Americans will follow and or parrot what the MSM tells them to think. Very much a part of the problem and why the Congress has been able to get away with representing major corporations and wealthy individuals rather then the interests of most consitutents.


Looking at various polls this morning including Fox News' poll I have not seen one poll that didn't have Sanders winning and not one poll showing him with less then 60% and some as high as 80%.

jobbridge4life

Magnate wrote: »

It really annoys me. You know it's not a fair fight when CNN (owned by Time Warner, one of Clinton's biggest donors) comes out with headlines like these despite the fact that both their polls AND their own focus group clearly paint Bernie as the winner. Why isn't the bias being talked about?

If there was one reason to vote for Bernie it's this, we need to get the influence of big money out of politics. Forget his views, you shouldn't be able to buy your nomination.

We're just going to end up seeing people voting for Hillary just because she has the "biggest chance" of winning, when really the average Joe is making this assumption solely based on what the headlines say.

But virtually every media outlet proclaimed Hilary the winner. Even conservative media. So why allege bias in just one media company?

Magnate

jobbridge4life wrote: »

But virtually every media outlet proclaimed Hilary the winner. Even conservative media. So why allege bias in just one media company?

I just picked CNN as an example, like you said it's evident across the board. Bernie poses the greatest threat to the republicans because if he wins the democratic nomination, the general election would almost be a sure thing. There's a sizeable number of republicans actually switching sides to vote for Sanders in the primaries, because while his opinion may differ to theirs on fundamental moral issues, (eg. abortion/ gay rights) there's a lot that they can get behind, (eg. free education/healthcare) plus he's one of few honest candidates who truly believes in what he says.

Sanders winning the nomination would be "Big Money's" worst nightmare.

eire4

Magnate wrote: »

I just picked CNN as an example, like you said it's evident across the board. Bernie poses the greatest threat to the republicans because if he wins the democratic nomination, the general election would almost be a sure thing. There's a sizeable number of republicans actually switching sides to vote for Sanders in the primaries, because while his opinion may differ to their's on fundamental moral issues, (eg. abortion/ gay rights) there's a lot that they can get behind, (eg. free education/healthcare) plus he's one of few honest candidates who truly believes in what he says.

Sanders winning the nomination would be "Big Money's" worst nightmare.

Absolutely no question your last line there is if you pardon the pun right on the money!